Delhi Court February 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.
Victory Gramophone Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-1997
Reported in: (1997)LC489Tri(Delhi)
1. The Appellants imported Rotors and Motor case and claimed assessment under Customs Tariff Heading No. 85.01(2) read under Tariff Item 68 of Central Excise Tariff Act for countervailing duty. Assistant Collector held that these components constitute complete motor and therefore exemption cannot be given. Their claim for C.V.D. under Tariff Heading 68 was also-rejected. Collector (Appeals) who rejected their claim of time bar, rejected it also as unsubstantiated.2. Arguing on behalf of the appellants the ld. Counsel who initially argued on time bar subsequently did not press this claim and confined his arguments to the merits of the case. Ld. Counsel submits that in terms of Notification No. 172/77 goods falling under sub-heading (2) of Heading 85.01 of C.T.H. are assessable to duty at the rate of 60% ad valorem. These by themselves are not motors, but only component parts of motors and therefore the benefit of exemption cannot be denied in this case by treating them as complete PC m...
Digital Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-1997
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT361TriDel
1. In respect of the period covered by years 1980 and 1983 to 1985, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Law Branch I, Baroda issued notice to the appellant alleging short-levy or short-payment of correct amount of central excise duty payable and further alleging fraud, wilful misstatement and suppression of facts and evasion of payment of central excise duty. The show cause notice was issued under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises Act, 1944. As the proviso to Section 11A stood on the date of issue of the show cause notice, the notice should have been issued by the Collector of Central Excise and not by any proper officer. On this short ground notice should be held to be invalid.Consequently, adjudication order cannot stand.2. It appears the question of illegality of notice was raised before the adjudicating authority who brushed it aside by relying on Rule 9(2) of the Rules, conveniently forgetting that Rule 9(2) of t...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Lakshmi Steel Rolling Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-1997
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT274TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the department. Shri Ram Sharan, JDR, appearing for the Revenue submitted that the Collector (Appeals) erred in holding that the demand was barred by time. He said that demand in the instant case pertained to the period 5/87 and 6/87 when there was no time limit prescribed under Rule 57-1 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for the recovery of wrongly availed Modvat credit. Relying upon the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Torrent Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 25 (Guj.), he submitted that provisions of Rule 57-1 as were applicable on the date of taking credit would apply for recovery of credit wrongly availed and the amendment to the said Rule effective from 6-10-1988 gave no amnesty to those who had wrongly availed credit prior to the amendment.2. The respondents remained absent inspite of the fact that notice of hearing has been issued to them.3. The Collector (Appeals) has decided the issue both on merits as ...
Indian Farmers and Fertilizer Co-op. Ltd. Vs. Duggal Construction Co. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-1997
Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)177; 1997(1)ARBLR436(Delhi); 66(1997)DLT120; 1997(40)DRJ753
J.B. Goel, J.(1) This is petition (OMP No. 68/96 filed by the petitioner under sections 5 & 11 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 for the revocation of the authority of and for removal of respondents No. 2 & 3 who are the Arbitrators in the case. (2) Briefly, the facts are that two contracts for civil works being Contract No. 117 and 117-A were awarded to the respondent No. 1 Contractor by the petitioner for construction of 257 and 128 Type B quarters for the petitioner's Fertilizer. (3) Township at Aonla, District Bareilly (U.P.). Both the contracts contained arbitration clause providing that each of the parties will be entitled to nominate their own Arbitrator. (4) The disputes having arisen between the parties in relation to the said contracts respondent No. 1 nominated Mr. Justice M.S. Gujral (Retired Chief Justice) (respondent No. 2) whereas the petitioner had nominated late Mr. Justice V.D. Mishra (retired Chief Justice). Both the arbitrators had entered upon reference and calle...
Tarsem Vs. Rajni Sikka
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-1997
Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)879; 66(1997)DLT524
Usha Mehra, J. (1) The petitioner is a widow of late Shri Pritam Singh. He was the owner of Lig flat bearing No. 94-B (1st Floor), Block No. Fgi, Vikas Puri, Delhi. Shri Pritam Singh died on 21st July, 1991. After the death of Shri Pritam Singh the petitioner herein became the owner/landlord of the property in question. This premises was let out by her late husband for residential purposes to the respondent herein. The tenanted premises consisted of two rooms, kitchen, bath, W.C. and balcony on the first floor. The said premises was let out for residential purpose on 1st March, 1984 vide Memorandum of Agreement renewable later on. This petitioner required the premises in question for her residence. Her family consisted of herself, her two married sons and two married daughters and one unmarried daughter. Her married sons with their wives and children and the unmarried daughter all are living with her. While the married daughters with their families often visit and stay with her. During...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Weston Electronics Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-1997
Reported in: (1997)LC199Tri(Delhi)
1. The captioned two appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld. Collector (Appeals) who had allowed the refund claim amounting to Rs. 3,69,780/- in one case and Rs. 16,43,091.01 in the other case. As the same issue is involved in the two appeals, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. The respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of Fly-Back Transformers. They were clearing these transformers partly for home consumption and partly for export. Their claims for refund were preferred by the respondents on the basis of the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of the export product. The department alleged that the appellants were entitled to sanction of the refund only to the extent of the difference of duty on the amount available in RG 23A Part II minus the amount of duty on the inputs available in stock with the respondents herein and therefore, the lower authorities held that the entire claim preferred by the respondents herein wa...
Mewar Bottling Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-1997
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT423TriDel
1. This stay application has been filed with reference to the order-in-origin No. 75/93 of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi. 2. The applicants manufactured "Aerated [waters]" under the brand name of "Citra". The Revenue contended that the Citra brand name owned by M/s. Limca Falvours & Fragrances Ltd. and therefore, in terms of the relevant conditions under Notification No. 1 /93, exemption could not be granted to such goods which were affixed with the brand name of another person not eligible to small scale exemption.3. Arguing for the applicants, the Learned Advocate submits that M/s.Limca Flavour & Fragrance Ltd. which owned brand name "Citra" are themselves eligible to small scale exemption and in fact, the Supdt.had certified that they were eligible to small scale exemption under Notification No. 1/93. The Revenue however has held that M/s. Limca Flavour & Fragrance Ltd. manufactured odourferous substances and not "Citra" and therefore, they are not eligib...
Power Metal and Alloys Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-1997
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT690TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Power Metal & Alloys Ltd. being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal dated 15-2-1988, the matter relates to the classification of the following products.The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay had confirmed the classification of the goods in question under sub-heading 8202.10 of the new Central Excise Tariff and had ruled out the classification under sub-heading 8466.00 of the Tariff. He had inspected the goods in question. By seeing the goods in question and after discussing the matter with the Project Engineer of the appellants company he had observed that the goods in question were used for the purpose of forging by a cold forging machine. They were held by die holder of the forging machine and were used for giving the required shape on dropping. He held "the cold forging machine is stated to be a machine, and quite obviously it would be composed of various components and it can be safely concluded that something external like die which is...
Food Specialities Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-1997
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT642TriDel
1. The captioned appeal is against the finding of the ld. Collector (Appeals) holding that the product described is Coffee Roasting Plant under Chapter Heading 84.17(2).2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants imported coffee roasting plant and claimed classification under sub-heading (1) of Heading 84.17 of the CETA, 1975. The deptt. alleged that the imported goods were classifiable under sub-heading (2) of Heading 84.17 and accordingly raised a less charge demand against the appellants. The appellants explained that the product was not classifiable under Heading 84.17(2) as this heading covers machinery and equipment for food and drinks whereas the coffee is neither a food nor a drink. After careful consideration of the submissions made, the lower authorities classified the imported product under Heading 84.17(2) and confirmed the less charge demand.3. Shri T. Viswanathan, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that in the instant case, the appeal w...
Chandra-hi-tech Engineers Pvt. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-1997
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT599TriDel
1. The Collector, Central Excise (Appeals), in his order dated 13th May, 1993 held that the benefit of Modvat credit is allowable under Rules to a Manufacturer and the Rules are framed with regard to the manufacturer. It is therefore, legally in order if the balance of the modvat credit has not been allowed to be transferred to the new manufacturer, namely M/s. Chandra Hi-Tech Engineers. The same is the position with regard to the PLA balance.2. The facts of the case are that M/s. Chandra Industries was partnership firm consisting of six partners. They were manufacturing street lighting poles, hamilton poles, C.I. brackets etc. They were registered with the Central Excise Department and were availing Modvat benefit. The firm was registered with the Director of Industries as a SSI unit. This partnership firm was dissolved and a new firm by the name of M/s. Chandra Hi-Tech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. came into existence.They took over the firm M/s. Chandra Industries along with all the assets. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »