Delhi Court November 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.
Shri Nataraj Ceramic and Chem. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-1997
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT549TriDel
1. These are two appeals filed by M/s. J. Shri Nataraj Ceramic and Chemical Industries Ltd. against the Order-in-Appeal Nos. 113 & 121/88(T), dated 30-9-1988.2. The Collector (Appeals) has dismissed the appeals on the ground that there was a delay in filing the appeals. He observed that the order passed by the Assistant Collector received by the appellants on 12-2-1988 and the same filed in the office on 16-5-1988. Shri R.Swaminathan, learned Consultant appearing for the appellants submitted that the appeals were duly sent by Registered Post on 10-5-1988 and the same was received in the office on 12-5-1988. He submitted that he requested sometime before the Collector to produce the evidence but same was not considered. He said that certificate issued by the Suptd.of Post Office clearly indicates that letter/parcel was delivered to the addressee on 12-5-1988 through Madras 34 Post Office.3. On going through the records we find that there was no delay in filing the appeal even assum...
Asiatic Oxygen and Acetylene Co. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-1997
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT597TriDel
1. The order dated 15-2-1990 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Delhi confirming the Order-in-Original No. 13/2987, dated 29-9-1987 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bhilai rejecting the refund claim preferred by the appellant here is challenged under this appeal.2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of gases, was supplying the same to Government departments at DGS&D rates on the basis of specific contracts entered into with DGS&D. The contracts contained price variation clause. At the time of clearance appellant was paying the appropriate duty on the contract price. According to the appellant, whenever there was price escalation, differential duty was being paid on the differential price. On some occasions, price variation resulted in decrease in price. Consequently appellant filed refund claims for the period from 1-1-1985 to 17-3-1985 and 1-7-1984 to 30-9-1984. These refund claims had been received by the Assistant Collector on 17-2-1986, 18-10-1985, 4...
Collector of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Arvind Detergents (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT195TriDel
1. The Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad has filed this appeal as directed by Central Board of Excise & Customs who had reviewed the order-in-original passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad in the case of Arvind Detergents (P) Ltd. who are respondents herein. The Additional Collector had held vide his impugned order that they were eligible for the benefit of Notification 175/86, dated 1-3-1986 in respect of their clearance during the period April 1989 and May 1989.2. In corning to the said conclusion, the Addl. Collector had taken into account the effect of amending Notification 174/89, dated 1-9-1989 which permitted the exclusion of the value of clearances of goods manufactured with the brand name of another person not eligible for the benefit of said small scale exemption notification. By applying the said amendment, the value of clearances of the goods manufactured and cleared by the respondent company during the year 1988-89 fell below the exemp...
Eicher Farm Machinery Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT192TriDel
1. Order-in-Original No. 58-D/90, dated 9-1-1991 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh is under challenge in this appeal.2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of agricultural tractors, was filing price lists from time to time and paying duty on the basis of the approved prices. The dispute in this appeal relates to the period from 1-9-1982 to 16-4-1985 in respect of Mudguard Seat, Roof Canopy, Draw Bar Long, Coupling Mouth, Coupling Bolt and rear Towing Hook, all bought out items, supplied to purchasers of some of the tractors during the period. By show cause notice dated 22-11-1985, demand of duty on the clearance of the aforesaid items was proposed. Appellant resisted the notice on merits as well as on the ground of limitation. The Additional Collector dropped the demand in respect of Draw Bar and rear Towing Hook on the ground of limitation, but confirmed the demand in respect of the other four items. This order is under challenge.3. The items in dispu...
Technova Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT731TriDel
1. These Revenue appeals directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 25th Nov., 1988 of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay involving common question of law and facts were heard together and are being disposed of through this common order.1.2 The issue is : Does roughening of aluminium sheets on one side amount to manufacture? 2. The Collector (Appeals) allowed the Revenue appeal on the ground that "these sheets are used in the manufacture of lithographite plates.These lithographite plates are different and are having distinct character and use than the Aluminium sheets. It is known as Lithographic plates in the trade...".3. Arguing for the appellants, the Learned Advocate submits that they are not manufacturing lithographic plates. What they are doing is only roughening one side of aluminium sheets to enable further processes to be carried out on these sheets by the buyers who converted such sheets into lithographite plates. They are not manufacturers of lithographic plates ...
Raja Bahadur Motilal Poona Mills Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-1997
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT62TriDel
1. The issue for determination in these appeals is the eligibility of "stands" which are captively consumed by the appellants in the manufacture of drafting machines to the benefit of concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 71/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 (as amended) at SI. No. 8 thereof which covers Drawing & Mathematical Instruments.2. We have heard Shri L.B. Attar, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri K.K. Jha, learned DR for the respondents and carefully considered their submissions.3. The appellants manufacture drafting machines and parts of drafting machines. Parts of drafting machines are captively consumed in the manufacture of drafting machines. Show cause notice was issued during the period August 1986 to April 1988 raising to demands of duty on parts of drafting machines. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division IV, Pune classified parts of drafting machines under sub-heading 9033.00 of the Central Excise Tariff and confirmed the demand an...
Bothra Metal Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-1997
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT120TriDel
1. This appeal arises from the Order-in-Original dated 25-10-1988, passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara, confirming the confiscation of 146.350 kgs. of Copper Strips and ordering release of the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 2,000/-. He has also confirmed duty demand of Rs. 41,066.63 on clearance of Copper Strips and copper flats/rods cleared by them without payment of duty from 1984-85 onwards. A penalty of Rs. 20,000/- has also been imposed. The show cause notice was issued on 31-7-1987 to the appellants charging them of having manufactured and cleared inter alia copper strips and copper wires without obtaining C.E. licence and complying with the formalities as required under C.E. law. The assessee denied the charges and submitted that the activities undertaken by them does not amount to process of manufacture as per Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act. It was their contention that they had filed declaration in the year 1986 declarin...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Gangeshwar Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-1997
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT551TriDel
1. The captioned appeal pertains to admissibility of Modvat credit on ANTI-SCALAN used for prevention of scaling in the water circulation tubes. The ld. Collector (Appeals) allowed Modvat credit on Anti-scalan following the ratio of the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Pragati Paper Mills Pvt. Limited and also relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. [1997 (91) E.L.T. 35]. The Department has filed the present Appeal.Appellant-Commissioner, submits that Anti-Scalan is used to prevent formation of scales in the water circulation- tubes; that they keep the pipeline systems unaffected from the scales; that the input in question was being used in relation to maintenance of machinery and not in relation to manufacture of sugar or molasses. The ld. DR refers to the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Synthetics & Cheimcals Ltd. v.CCE [1996 (84) E.L.T. 288] wherein the Tribunal, while examining the admissibility of...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Associated Cement Company Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT186TriDel
1. This Reference application is filed by the Revenue to refer the following question on the ground that point of law arises with reference to the Order No. 52/97-D, dated 13-1-1997 passed by the Tribunal. "Whether grinding media used for grinding lime stone, coal and clinker, should be considered as input in or in relation to the manufacture of Cement or the grinding media should be treated as covered by exclusion Clause-I of explanation under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and therefore, not entitled to Modvat credit." 2. Shri R.S. Sangia, learned Departmental Representative appearing for the Revenue submitted that Board has not accepted the view taken by the Tribunal in the case of Indian Rayon & Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1995 (76) E.L.T. 358 (Tribunal) as well as the decision in the case of Union Carbide India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 613 (Tribunal) and accordingly the department has filed S...
Ravi Sood and Another Vs. Vir Bala Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-1997
Reported in: 1998IAD(Delhi)533; 71(1998)DLT254; 1998(44)DRJ361
ORDERC.M. Nayar, J.1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for specific performance of agreement to sell dated May 10, 1978 entered into between the defendant as the Vendor and the plaintiffs as Vendees in respect of the property known as plot No. G-47 Block No.6. Green Park, New Delhi.2. The facts as enumerated in the plaint are that the defendant by means of an agreement dated May 10, 1978 agreed to make sale of the aforesaid plot to the plaintiff for total consideration of Rs. 1,70,000/- out of which a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was paid by means of cheque No. SB/031386 dated May 8, 1978 drawn on Punjab & Sind Bank, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. The said payment was made as alleged earnest money and part sale consideration which was accepted by the defendant. The agreement to sell was entered into between the parties in writing and signed by plaintiff No. 1 for self and on behalf of his wife plaintiff No. 2 and the defendant appended the signatures on each page of the agreement. The...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »