Delhi Court October 1997 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Newave Electronics
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-1997
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT293TriDel
1. This is a Revenue Appeal arising out of order passed by the Collector (Appeals) dated 14-12-1988, which has been filed on 12th Jan., 1990, along with an application for condonation of delay. The reason given in the application in para 2 is noted below : "(2) Immediately before the amended procedure regarding appeals under Chapter VIA of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, came into force with effect from 11-10-1982 and thereafter, a larger number of cases were disposed of by the Appellate Authorities and those orders required close examination and scrutiny both from factual and legal points of view to determine whether they merit to be appealed against. As a result strict compliance with the time limit as prescribed under Sub-section (3) of Section 35B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 could not be made." 3. The respondents have been served notice. On perusal of the ground for condonation of delay, we are not satisfied with the reason furnished. There is no reason f...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Roll Tubes Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT282TriDel
1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No.103/CE/ALLD/95, dated 29-12-1995 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Allahabad.4. M/s. Roll Tubes Ltd., Chaudagra, Bindki Road, Fatehpur (Respondents) are engaged in the manufacture of Pipes and Tubes falling under subheading No. 7306.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and are registered with the Central Excise Department.5. The party filed Modvat claim under Rule 57H of Central Excise Rules, 1944 for allowing credit amounting to Rs. 4,67,933.30 on 352.90 M.T. of waste and scrap of steel lying in stock on the date of filing Modvat declaration with the Department. Such credit under Rule 57H is only admissible on the inputs if they are used in the manufacture of final products which are cleared from the factory on or after 1-3-1994 and no credit has been taken by the manufacturer in respect of such inputs under any rule or notification.6. A demand-cum-show cause notice was issued to the respondents ...
Ece Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-1997
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT294TriDel
1. The brief facts of the case are that on 20-10-1993, the officers of the Central Excise Department visited the factory premises of the appellants herein who are engaged in the manufacture of fluorescent lighting tubes falling under Chapter 85 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985 and seized fluorescent lighting tubes marked with the date of manufacture 7/92 on the ground that they had not been entered in the RG-1 register and were stored at unapproved place in the factory premises. Statement of Shri K.L. Aggarwal, authorised representative was recorded in which he admitted that the goods under seizure which were fully packed were not accounted for in the statutory records due to the reason that they had not passed the quality control test.According to the Department, as per Delhi Collectorate Trade Notice No.3-C.E./84, dated 28-1-1984 and the Basic Manual on manufactured goods, the fluorescent lighting tubes are first put to flash test before metallic caps are fitted to see if the circu...
indocoat Footwear Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-1997
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT361TriDel
1. Aggrieved that the order-in- original dated 25-10-1994 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur demanding a duty of Rs. 7,69,237/- a penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- and a redemption fine of Rs. 75,000/-, the present appellants have filed this appeal.2. Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Footwear Soles of various kinds falling under Chapter Heading 6401.91 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. On the basis of intelligence report the factory premises of the appellants was visited by Central Excise Officers on 29-10-1993. They inspected the statutory as well as private records of the appellants. On the basis of the verification of the records the officers found that there was discrepancy in the matter of entries in RG 1 Register. On the basis of the information collected and on the basis of statements given by the partners of the firm a Show Cause Notice was issued on 22-4-1994 alleging attempted clandestine removal of 4,187 pairs of PVC soles (with leather insert), clearance...
Shalimar Rubber Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT620TriDel
1. This is a reference application filed by the applicants. The application arises out of this Tribunal's Miscellaneous Order No. 15 to 18/97-C, dated 5-2-1997 on rectification of mistakes application Nos.E/55, 56 and E/57/89-C in Appeal Nos. E/832 to E/835/ 89-C.2. By the present reference application the applicants have raised 8 questions of law for reference to the High Court under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.3. It is seen from the record that the present proceedings relate to Appeal Nos. E/832 to E/835/89-C filed by M/s. Shalimar Rubber Industries and Others against the common Order-in-Original No. 50/88, dated 5-9-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Cochin imposing penalty on the appellants, apart from confirming demand of duty. The Order-in-Original also directed confiscation of land, building, etc. of the appellants' factory with option of redemption as well as absolute confiscation of seven rolls of tread rubber.4. The Tribunal by its order dated 9-...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. N.K. Rajgarhia
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-1997
Reported in: [1998]232ITR949(Delhi)
R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. This is an application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, filed by the Revenue seeking a mandamus to the Tribunal stating the case for the opinion of the High Court on the following questions : '1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in allowing the commission of Rs. 22,50,000 paid to girl Raj Fertilisers and Chemicals (P) Ltd., by holding that it was revenue in nature, allowable under s. 37 of the IT Act 2. Whether the commission of Rs. 46,65,600 paid to Anand Pratyabhut Vit Nigam was allowable in law as held by the Tribunal even in the absence of any material that could prove the rendering of services by such company to the assessed 3. Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in allowing the commission of Rs. 46,65,600 paid by the assessed to APVN without discharging the onus of proving that it was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business 4. Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in ignoring the fact that the claim for payments of commissi...
Parvesh Kumar Gulati Vs. Darshan Singh Gulati
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-1997
Reported in: 69(1997)DLT996; 1997(43)DRJ591; (1998)118PLR6; 1998RLR148
D.K. Jain, J. (1) This is defendant application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for rescinding the contract dated 16 May 1984. (2) On the basis of an agreement to sell dated 16 May 1984, (Ex. P-3), purportedly acknowledged by the defendant vide his various letters, on 10 May 1989, the plaintiff filed a Suit (No. 1412/89) for specific performance of the said agreement to sell, against the defendant - his real elder brother in respect of undivided half share of the house property bearing No. E-3, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi. (3) The suit was compromised and a consent decree for specific performance of agreement to sell was passed on 9 November 1990, in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, directing the defendant to execute the sale deed in respect of undivided half share of the affronted property and get it registered in favor of the plaintiff. In terms of the said compromise, the plaintiff was required to pay to the d...
Bimal Kumar JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Customs and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-1997
Reported in: 69(1997)DLT964; 1998(41)ELT98(Del)
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) It is not disputed that Maruti Esteem Car bearing registration No.DLG-6 was seized under 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 on 22.6.95 by the Customs Officials having formed an opinion that it was liable to be confiscated under Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter the Act, for short). (2) It is also not disputed that on 22.6.95, the car was standing outside the Indira Gandhi International Airport at Delhi with driver Prakash Sharma in it. (3) Notice to show cause against the proposed confiscation of the car has been issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) on 11.12.95. It is addressed to (i) Shri Ganji Satya - Narayana Dasu, (2) Shri Padamnabha Menon Rajaram, (3) Shri Surender Kumar Jain, (4) Shri Prakash Sharma, and (5) Shri Naresh Jain. The proceedings for confiscation and other adjudication proceedings under the Act are pending qua the above said five persons. However, so far as the petitioner Birnal Kumar Jain is concerned neither he ha...
All India Lawyers Union (Delhi Unit) Vs. Government of National Capita ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-1997
Reported in: 70(1997)DLT794; 1997RLR684
Y.K. Sabhanval, J. (1) During the pendency of the writ petition the Courts of Mact have since been encoder in judicial service. In this view these Courts would be under the direct supervisory power of the High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution of India. (2) In this public interest writ petition the grievance is regarding the working of Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACT) in Delhi. According to the petitioner, the constitutional rights enshrined under Article 21 and Article 14 of the Constitution of the family members of the victims and those who suffer serious permanent disability are being violated because of lack of proper functioning of these Tribunals. (3) As directed by this Court reports have been sent giving the details of pendency of cases before different Tribunals and details about the disposal of the cases by the Tribunals. Considering the large pendency of the cases, learned Counsel for the petitioner, relying on decision of a Division Bench of this Court in th...
Kalyani Brakes Limited Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT271TriDel
1. The appellants manufactured brake components on a specific order from a buyer where the Purchase Order specified that the buyers would pay Rs. 8 lakhs as part of tooling and development cost to be paid along with the order. The appellants filed a price list to cover the goods manufactured in terms of this purchase order. In the price list, in the 'Remarks' column, the name of the buyer was shown and the details of the purchase order such as order no. and date were also indicated. The goods were manufactured and cleared. On 13-4-1989 a show cause notice was issued alleging that the drawing and designing charges received by the appellants from the buyers should have formed part of the assessable value. It was alleged that the failure of the assessees to add the charges to the assessable value amounted to mis-declaration and suppression of facts, the demand was made for recovery of short levy to the extent of Rs. 1,60,000/-. After hearing the assessees, the Additional Collector confir...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »