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.
Raju Steel Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-1997
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT135TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Rajiv Steel Industries, the matter relates to the eligibility of the M.S. steel plate cuttings and scrap of dismantled ships sheet to the benefit of Notification No. 208/83, dated 1-8-1983. Two Show Cause Notices has been issued to the appellants where it was proposed that the final products manufactured from the inputs which were not specified in the table annexed to that notification dated 1-8-1983 had been cleared without payment of central excise duty for which the final goods were not entitled. The extended period of limitation was invoked for raising the demand. The matter was adjudicated by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur who held that the allegations as levelled in the Show Cause Notices were confirmed. He demanded the central excise duty of Rs. 41,432.46, the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed.2. We have heard Shri K.K. Anand, Advocate for the appellants and Shri D.S. Negi, SDR for the respondent Revenue. Shri K.K. Anand, Ad...
Siel Limited Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-1997
Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)325; 69(1997)DLT786; 1997(43)DRJ485
Arun Kumar, J.(1) The petitioners have challenged the rejection of their application for grant of an industrial license for a sugar factory in district Muzaffarnagar in the State of U.P. The petitioners also challenge the grant of Letter of Intent (hereinafter referred as the LOI) to respondent No. 1 for the same district in preference to the petitioners. The action of the Government respondent No. 1 has been challenged mainly on the following grounds. I)It is contrary to and vocative of Rule 15 of the Registration and Licensing of Industrial Undertakings Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Id Rules ) which provide that before an application for grant of license is refused, an opportunity must be given to the applicant to state his case and further that the applicant has to be informed of the reasons for such refusal. ii) Issue of Letter of Intent in favor of respondent No. 3 purely on the ground that its application was prior in point of time is arbitrary and is in contraventi...
Sushil Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-1997
Reported in: I(1998)DMC70
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that no allegations have been made by the father end brother of the deceased although some allegations of demanding 'Dowry' and 'Ill-treatment' have been made against the petitioner by the mother of deceased. There is an infant girl of seven months old who is to be looked after also. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention to diary nothings left by the deceased.2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, this is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. In the event of arrest, petitioner shall be released on bail of furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer.The petitioner shall join and co-operate with the investigation and will not leave NCT of Delhi without the leave of the Trial Court....
Collector of Customs Vs. Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT273TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. The Respondents/Importers had claimed invoice value of US $ 13.40 per kg. C.I.F. for a consignment of 1,250 kgs. of Theophyline Anhydrous BP. The Assistant Collector relying upon the contemporaneous import fixed the value of US $ 14.00 per kg. The Collector (Appeals) held that there was minor fluctuations in the international transactions where goods are imported from different Countries. The margin between the price was not wide enough to raise suspicion. No doubt had been expressed by the department that invoice value was not genuine. He set aside the enhancement of the value resulting into the present appeal.2. Shri K. Srivastava, SDR argued the case for the Revenue. The respondents were not present but desired disposal on merit.3. Shri Srivastava clarified that there was only one letter from the Importer and that was dated 8-10-1988. In the grounds of appeal paragraph 3 a reference to the letter dated 18-10-1988 should be accordingly corr...
Collector of Customs Vs. Industrial Oxygen Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-1997
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT93TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the eligibility of the goods imported (i) Inverter, and (ii) Internal Cleaner, to the benefit of project import under Heading No. 98.01 of the Customs Tariff. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) had allowed the benefit to inverter and internal cleaner on the ground that these two items were covered within the description of auxiliary equipment, referred to in the Tariff Heading No. 98.01. He had observed that the main function performed by the invertor and internal cleaner was to prepare the cylinders through the process of repeated inversion, and internal cleaning of all unwanted gases in the gas cylinders. In appeal, the Revenue had pleaded that the function of these items was to clean the cylinders and that these were not required for production of gases but for cleaning and maintenance of the cylinders.2. We have heard Shri A.K. Agarwal, SDR, for the appellants/Revenue. No one is present for the respondents, M/s. Industr...
Bharat Dental Redical Supply Co. Vs. Collector of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-1997
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT71TriDel
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi. In this case the benefit of Notification No. 65/88-Cus., dated 1st March, 1988 was denied to the appellants.2. The appellants made import of five sets "Fibre Optic Executor Light Cure System Gun Style 230 Volts with Kit". The appellants claimed the benefit of Notification No. 65/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988. The benefit was denied on the ground that the appellants has not produced any evidence to show that the equipment imported by the appellants is amenable to dental work.3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the respondents had accepted that the goods in question was an equipment and the benefit was denied only on the ground that the appellants has not produced that the goods were amenable to dental work. He relied upon the catalogue of the goods in which the goods were described as dental equipment. He submits that the catalogue cle...
Southern Petrochemical Indus. Vs. C.C.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-1997
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT151TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd., Madras, the matter relates to the classification of swivel assemblies for lifting and loading Ammonia. The importers initially claimed classification under sub-heading No. 8431.39 of the Customs Tariff which was changed by the Customs to 8483.60 of the Tariff. The goods were cleared out of Customs charge and the importers filed a refund claim on the ground that the goods should have been classified under subheading No. 8426.19. They also claimed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 172/89-Cus., dated 29-5-1989. On examination of the refund claim, it was held that as the goods imported were not complete machinery but were parts, their classification under Heading No. 84.26 was ruled out. At the appeal stage, the importers claimed alternative classification under sub-heading 8431.49 of the Tariff. The Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras, observed that as the appellants alternative plea of classif...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Universal Containers (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-1997
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT573TriDel
1. All these appeals directed against the common order in appeal were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.1.2. The issue relates to admissibility or otherwise of the exemption on scrap and wastes arising during the manufacture of metal containers.2. Arguing on behalf of the Revenue the ld. DR submits that the appellants have taken credit on the inputs in course of manufacture of metal containers and therefore in view of the condition under column 5 SI. No. 3 of the Notification No. 54/86-C.E. they are not eligible to remove such scrap without payment of duty.3. The ld. Consultant for the Respondents submits that SI. No. 3 under column 5 has two conditions. Whereas Clause I refers to condition regarding availment of Modvat Credit on inputs, Clause 2 has no condition.4. We have heard both sides. Notification No. 54/86 against SI. No. 3 appended to the Notification grants exemption to wastes and scraps other than mild steel. There are two conditions subject to w...
Union of India Vs. Ramesh Lalwani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Delhi249; 1998(44)DRJ470
ORDERC.M. Nayar, J.1. The present petition arises out of the Award dated April 13, 1994 of Mr. S.S.Juneja which has since been filed in this Court along with the proceedings. Notice of filing of the Award was issued to the parties directing them to file their respective objections, if any, within the statutory period. The claimant-Union of India has filed objections under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and has challenged the Award as illegal and prayed for setting aside of the same.2. Mr. S.S.Juneja, Arbitrator in the Ministry of Urban Development, New Delhi was appointed by the Chief Engineer(NDZ), C.P.W.D., New Delhi under his letter No.4(10)91-A & C(NDZ), dated 19.5.92 as sole Arbitrator to decide and make Award regarding the disputes falling within the purview of clause 25 of the agreement entered into between the parties for the construction of R.C.C. overhead tank of 75,000 litres capacity at Dr.Zakir Hussain Memorial, College, New Delhi. The claimant raised the followin...
Haji Ikram Ul Hassan Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-1997
Reported in: 69(1997)DLT384
Devinder Gupta, J.(1) PETITIONER'S grievance is that in an area earmarked as a park, godown has been constructed by respondent No.1 by destroying all kinds of trees, bushes, plants etc. and consequently a direction is sought against D.D.A. for maintaining the same as Park. The area has been described as an area namely Khasra No-211/200/17, Jhandewalan Revenue Estate located near the Crossing of Faiz Road, Near Rohtak Road shown in the site plan as godown. (2) On behalf of the D.D.A., reply was filed on the affidavit of N.K. Aggarwal, Director (Planning), D.D.A. wherein it is stated that land in question forms part of Khasra No.211/200/17Min. of Jhandewalan Revenue Estate, New Delhi. As per the Master Plan Development-2001 (Special Area Plan) and Draft Zonal Plan of Zone- A (other than walled city) as approved by the Authority for inviting objection/ suggestions (not yetpublished), the site in question forms part of the District Park. As per the Master Plan Development 2001 godown is no...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »