Delhi Court December 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. Meltex (i) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT412TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the order of Collector (A), New Delhi dated 19-9-1990.2. Ld. DR stated that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of (i) Flexible, metallised plastic film falling under Chapter Heading 3920.36 and (ii) Flexible laminated plastic film falling under Chapter Heading 3920.38. They were paying Central Excise duty and availing exemption Notification No. 53/88. In order to manufacture this product; the party is using plain plastic film falling under Chapter Heading 3920.12. The plastic film which is used as input is being manufactured by M/s. Easter India Ltd., Nainital and is being procured by the respondent directly. Incidentally it may be noted that M/s. Easter India Ltd. who are presumably supplying the bare plastic film are themselves availing the benefit of exemption under the same notification namely Notification 53/88. The gate passes confirming the above situation were shown to the Collector (A) as recorded in his order-i...
Nazir Ahmad Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-1997
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT337TriDel
1. The captioned two appeals have been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that "I have carefully gone through the facts and circumstances of the appeal, submissions made in the course of personal hearing and the Order-in-Original. Statements of the appellants recorded on the spot, at the time of seizure Under Section 108 of Customs Act before the Assistant Director of DRI, Lucknow and the jewellers' report leaves no room to doubt that the seized gold was of foreign marked gold biscuits and as such Section 123 of the Customs Act would apply and the onus of proof shifts upon the appellants. Further, the appellant failed to produce any purchase receipt at the time of seizure and submission of the same after a period of 1V2 year, is nothing but afterthought. In the circumstances, I find myself in total agreement with the findings of the Additional Collector and find no reason to interfere in the Order-in-Original which is legal and p...
Espi Industries and Chemicals Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT118TriDel
1. This stay application has been filed with reference to the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Hyderabad dated 11-11-1995.2. The learned Counsel stated that the appellants are inter alia engaged in the manufacture of Clearasil Daily Soap Wash (CDSW) for Procter & Gamble India Limited. In this case, the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the classification of CDSW under Heading 3304 and rejected the petitioners claim for classification under Heading 3401.3. The facts are that the petitioners had submitted a classification list on 28th April, 1992 classifying their product under Heading 3402.00 by mistake. The product was however, rightly classifiable as soap under Heading 3404.10. The above classification list was approved by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad. In view of the above position, they filed a revised classification list on 30th November, 1992 rightly classifying their product under Heading 3401.10.4. Consequent to budgetary changes, they filed anothe...
Ajanta Print Arts Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT406TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector (A), Bombay dated 18-5-1990.2. The appellants have sent a letter dated 18th Sept., 1996 incorporating their submissions, and enclosing a sample, and have requested that the matter may be heard in their absence. Accordingly we have perused the records and heard the ld. DR.3. We find that this matter relates to the classification of a product called Hanging Cards. The appellants have submitted that prior to 28-2-1986, their products, "Hanging Cards" were approved as Product of Printing Industry and were allowed exemption under erstwhile Notification No. 234/82, dated 1-11-1982.4. Hanging cards are posters with advertising material printed thereon along with sample of advertised article. They are displayed in the shops for advertising the articles attached to them.5. As per the explanation appearing in para 3 of page 692 of HSN, read with explanation appearing on page 699 of HSN which is equivalent to Heading No. 49.01 of Central Excise...
Collector of Central Ex. Vs. Echjay Industries (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-1997
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT347TriDel
1. The Respondents classified bearing caps for jeeps in the classification lists effective from 1-3-1986 under Chapter Heading 73.80.90 (sic). They also claimed exemption under Notification 217/85, dated 8-10-1985. The classification was approved by the Asstt.Collector. Superintendent of Customs and Central Excise during the scrutiny of the RT 12 Return for the month of March, 1996 observed that the Respondents have cleared bearing caps under Notification No. 217/85 under Chapter X procedure. The bearing caps were not parts of diesel operated Internal Combustion Engine and did not fall under Chapter 84 or 85. Since they were not eligible to avail exemption under Notification No. 217/85 demand notice for Rs. 27,368.63 was issued which was confirmed by the Assistant Collector who after recalculating the rate of duty at the rate of 20% held that Rs. 66,430/-is payable.The Respondents during the proceedings produced certificates from Mahindra and Mahindra, Bombay mentioning that bearings ...
Ganesh Paper Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-1997
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT390TriDel
1. When the appeal is called Ms. Rati Gogia, Assistant to the authorised representative Shri Yogesh Agarwal hands over a letter written by the latter requesting for the disposal of the appeal on the basis of the facts on record and the grounds of appeal raised in the appeal memorandum. It has further been stated that their case is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in Parikh Chemical Industries v. CCE, 1997 (95) E.L.T. 598. This letter had been given when the appeal had been posted for hearing on 27-11-1997. The hearing was adjourned to today. It is now stated by Ms. Gogia that Shri Agarwal is held up in connection with the surgical operation being undergone by his brother and that he would be able to attend the hearing if it is adjourned to afternoon. As, however, I am not sitting in the Single Member Bench after 3.15 P.M. and as it appeared that the matter was amenable to disposal on a perusal of the record in view of the settled legal position on the subject, I am pro...
Shree Alloys Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-1997
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT342TriDel
1. The appellants in this case were operating under the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E,, dated 1-3-1986 and similar notifications in the earlier time. They were a unit registered with the D.G.T.D.which did not prevent them from benefiting under the notifications up to 30-10-1987 when the notification was amended by Notification No.244/87. By this amendment, the unit ceased to benefit from this notification. However, the present appellants continued to clear their goods on concessional rate of duty under this notification until 15-7-1988 when their premises were visited by the Officers. A show cause notice was issued on 6-9-1988 demanding differential duty for the period 1-11-1987 to 15-7-1988. It was also alleged that they had suppressed the fact of their having been registered with D.G.T.D. On this count, the extended period was invoked and also allegation as to the penalty was made. The Additional Collector in the impugned order confirmed the demand amounting to Rs. 1,51,558...
Delton Cable Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT728TriDel
1. These appeals involve a common issue and hence are being taken up together for final disposal.2. Appeal No. 4852/92-B1 (sic) and Appeal No. 4954/92-B1 (sic) are filed against the common-order in appeal dated 18-6-1992 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi. In the impugned order the coiled cords manufactured by the appellant were ordered to be classifiable under Heading 85.44 of the Central Excise Tariff whereas the appellant claimed classification under Tariff Heading 8517.00 of Central Excise Tariff.3. In pursuance of the order classifying the goods under Heading 85.44 demand was raised and confirmed against M/s. Fixwell Pushincords (P) Ltd. by the adjudicating authority. In appeal the demand was confirmed.Against this order Appeal No. 3/94-B1 was filed by M/s. Fixwell Pushincords (P) Ltd. 4. The issue involved in these appeals is in respect of classification of coiled cords manufactured by the appellant.5. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Delton Cables Ltd. ...
Aman Ichhpuniani Vs. the Vice Chancellor Delhi University and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-1997
Reported in: 1998IAD(Delhi)365; 71(1998)DLT202; 1998(44)DRJ52
ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. Intra-University Migration - from one college to another within the same university - by a student is a vested right or a right merely, and if so, whether it is capable of being enforced in exercise of writ jurisdiction of High Court - is the question arising for decision in this batch of petitions.2. The petitioners are four. Briefly we set out the factual background so as to appreciate the crux of controversy. 2.1 In CWP 3749/97, the petitioner Madhurjya Kotoky is a student of B.A. (Hon.) History Part-I in Ram Lal Anand College having passed that examination with 67% marks and merit in the university. The result was declared on 23.7.97. On 31.7.1997, he approached the Principal of the College seeking latter's 'No Objection' to migration to another College. On 8.8.97, he approached Ramjas College seeking admission therein and the principal of Ramjas College has issued 'No Objection' for his entry in his institution. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Pr...
Essar Oil Limited Vs. Oil India Limited and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-1997
Reported in: [1999]95CompCas181(Delhi); 71(1998)DLT302; 1998(44)DRJ238
ORDERD.K. Jain, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), seeking to restrain respondent No.1 - M/s Oil India Ltd., from encashing the bank guarantee No.95/2, dated 15 May 1995 for Indian rupees equivalent to US $ 2,221,563 issued on behalf of the petitioner by the Bank of Baroda, Bhubaneshwar Branch, Bhubaneshwar, respondent No.2 herein, in favor of the first respondent and restraining the said bank from paying any amount under the said guarantee. is 9767/96 is for grant of ad interim relief to the same effect. 2. The facts relevant for the controversy involved are as under: Pursuant to an open tender, vide agreement dated 8 May 1995, respond-ent No.1 awarded to the petitioner the work of providing its drill ship 'ESSAR DISCOVERER' along with material, services and personnel to enable it to drill three off-shore exploratory wells in Arabian Sea and one off-shore well in the Bay of Bengal, on turnkey bas...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »