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.
Newton Engg. and Const. Co. Pvt. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT468TriDel
1. The appellant challenges the order passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara demanding duty of Rs. 47,140.09 and imposing penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the appellants.2. Arguing the case of the appellants, Shri S.D. Gohil, the learned Consultant stated that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods partly from their own material and partly from materials supplied by their customers. During the period prior to July, 1986 they had given declaration for availing of the benefit of exemption from licensing requirement wherein they had given particulars of the value of goods manufactured by them. In this declaration, they had referred to their job work activities. They had not included the value of the free supply material provided by their customers and in doing so they had a bona fide belief that they were within the exemption limit for duty purpose also. Central Excise Officers visited their factory on 24-7-1986 and carried out certain check...
Ashok Kumar Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-1997
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT548TriDel
1. Shri G.K. Rana, learned Advocate at the outset questioned the jurisdiction in passing the Stay Order in Stay Petitions No.C/S/983-984/96-NB. He submits that in this case the gold was confiscated absolutely and the value of the gold biscuits was more than Rs. 2 lakh and, therefore, it was not within the jurisdiction of Single Member Bench to pass the Stay Order. He submits that thus the Stay Order suffers from jurisdictional competence and prays that the Stay Order may be recalled.2. Shri P.K. Jain, learned SDR leaves it to the discretion of the Bench.3. Heard the learned Counsel and the learned SDR. We note that the value of the gold biscuits confiscated absolutely is more than Rs. 2 lakh, therefore, the case should have been heard by a Division Bench.Since the case was put up before a Single Member Bench and at the time of hearing the case the competence of Single Member Bench was not questioned. Hence the order. However, this being the case of jurisdiction, we are inclined to acc...
Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-1997
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT50TriDel
1. This is a miscellaneous application for permission to allow urging of additional grounds.2. Ld. Counsel stated that in the show cause notice it has been alleged that they supply raw material to job workers to fabricate aluminium /lead electrodes, therefore, if the process was considered as amounting to manufacture it is the job workers who will be required to be treated as manufacturers They may be allowed to urge this legal point based on the facts of the case in addition to those already taken in the appeal memorandum.1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur dated 1-4-1992.2. Ld. Counsel stated that the appellants are inter alia, engaged in the manufacture of zinc, lead and products thereof. The zinc is manufactured by electrolysis process wherein zinc sulphate solution (which is the electrolyte) is electrolysed with the help of electric current which is passed through it. The electric current is introduced into the solution by the electrodes....
N.S. Charitable Trust Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-1997
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT97TriDel
1. This batch of six appeals arise out of the same issue. Three appeals are filed by M/s. N.S. Charitable Trust and the other three appeals are filed by Shri Ramdhari, President of the said trust. Since the issue is common, these 6 appeals are being decided by this common order.2. The said Trust imported several consignments of clothing. They filed bills of entry for clearance of each consignment claiming duty free import in terms of Notification 85/82-Cus. A claim was made that these goods were importable in terms of para 98 (V) of Handbook of Procedures (EXIM Policy 1992-97). The Customs, after examination of the circumstances leading to the importation, issued three show cause notices alleging that the goods in each case were liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) as also Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, that the benefit of the notification was not available and that the value of the imported goods was not correctly shown and was liable to be enhanced under Rule 6 of ...
Sangeeta Aggarwal Vs. Virender Singh Rohtagi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Delhi202
K.S. Gupta, J. 1. Respondents have filed this application under Order 14, Rule 5 read with Section 151 C.P.C. alleging that on receipt of notice of the filing of the award by the arbitrator in court, they filed objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act which are being contested by the Petitioner. Objections filed by the Respondents are mainly under the following heads : (a) Biased approach of the arbitrator towards the respondents objectors. (b) Non-consideration of the counter claim filed on behalf of the respondents. (c) Rejection of the request of the respondents for summoning witnesses. (d) Passing of award in respect of the property owned and possessed by a third party who was neither imp leaded as a party in these proceedings nor has any connection with the claimants. (e) Non-consideration of the law and citation given by the respondent/objectors to the arbitrator. (f) Arbitrator deciding the division of the property No. 1812/7, Indu Bazar, Bhagirath Place, ...
Prabha Patel Vs. Satinder Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-1997
Reported in: 1998(44)DRJ664
N.G. Nandi, J.1. This petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the decree for possession passed in the proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act giving six months time to vacate under Section 14(7) of the Act refusing leave to contest under Sections 25-B(4)& (5) of the Act to the respondent/tenant. 2. The first limb of the argument on behalf of present petitioner (original respondent/tenant) by Mr. Makhija, learned Counsel is that the earlier petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition on payment of cost which cost has not been paid even after filing of the second petition; that the second petition could not have been proceeded and the same ought to have been stayed by the Trial Court; that the cost ought to have been paid before the filing of the second petition; that despite the order dated 4.3.1994 by the Trial Court, no actual payment of cost has been ...
Maekawa Bearing Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Onkar Bearing Industries an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-1997
Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)939; 69(1997)DLT940
N.G. Nandi, J.(1) This appeal under Section 109(2) of the Trade & Merchandise Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the order under Section 21 of the Act dated 1.6.1995, rejecting the opposition to the registration of the trade(2) The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal, shortly stated, are that Omkar Bearing Industries and others applied for registration of Trade Mark 'MBS' in respect of bearings included in class 7 vide Application No. 428265. The present appellant Maekawa Bearing Manufacturing Company Limited opposed the registration sought and filed notice of opposition vide No. DEL-7680 contending that they are the registered proprietors in India of the trade mark 'MBS' in respect of bearings of all kinds in Classes 7 and 12. The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marksdis allowed the opposition No. DEL-7680 and allowed the registration of the mark vide Application No. 428265 in Class 7, further directing the opponents to pay cost of Rs. 105.00 to the...
Collector of Customs Vs. Automotive Axles Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT736TriDel
1. The Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order held that "Tungsten Carbide Drills" are correctly classifiable as tools under Chapter 82 and not under Heading 98.06 as parts of machinery even though these are used in drilling machines. It was further held by the Collector (Appeals) that the goods classifiable under Heading 98.06 do not attract 60% + 45% + 25% CVD as indicated by the lower authorities and the above duty structure is not at all applicable to goods falling under Heading 98.06. Hence the lower authority's order is not sustainable and therefore the Collector (Appeals) set aside the lower authority's order and allowed the appeal of the respondents.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent imported bevel gear cutting tools (blades) and their parts thereof were assessed to duty under Heading 98.06 as parts of machines tools carrying the rate of duty as 60% + 45% + 25% CVD. Originally the goods were assessed under Heading 8207.90 carrying the rate of duty as 6...
Century Laminating Co. Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-1997
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT374TriDel
1. By the captioned appeal in which the Commissioner (Appeals) has held : "The appeal has been filed without brief facts and ground of appeal. It cannot be considered as an appeal at all. Nor it is a proper way to file appeals in such manner. No condonation of Delay Application has also been filed by the appellants though more than 3 months have passed after the date of communication of the order-in-original to the appellants. The appeal lacks substance and is dismissed as time barred as well as unsubstantiated. The appellants have availed the impugned order." 2. Shri Bipin Garg, ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants had filed the appeal in Form EA-I. He submits that in the appeal it -was indicated that the brief facts of the case and the Grounds of Appeal shall be submitted later on and there was prayer seeking reliefs. The ld. Counsel submitted that there was another prayer in the appeal that they may be granted a personal hearing. He submits that the ...
Suresh Textiles Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-1997
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT364TriDel
1. M/s. Suresh Textiles was the merchant manufacturer getting the processing done from M/s. Siddeshwar Textiles Mills. The merchant manufacturer had filed a declaration in terms of Notification No.305/77 whereby they had agreed to give such details as were required to determine the assessable value. A show cause notice was issued on 1-5-1989 to both the parties demanding differential duty of Rs. 2,155.79 and seeking to penalise both. The Additional Collector passed the impugned order whereby he confirmed the duty and directed the merchant manufacturer to pay it. He also imposed a penalty on the merchant manufacturer. No action was taken by him on processors This order is now challenged before us. The appellants have requested decision on merits relying on substantial case law including the two judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints v. U.O.I.1997 (27) E.L.T. 567 (S.C.) and 1988 (38) E.L.T. 535 (S.C.). In the appeal memorandum the claim is also made that the demand ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »