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.
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Tamil Nadu Mopeds Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1997
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT687TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the eligibility of the respondents M/s. Tamil Nadu Mopeds Ltd. to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 105/80-C.E., dated 19-6-1980 (as amended). The adjudicating authority, the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Division II, Madras, had concluded that (i) M/s. Moped Assembly and Sheet Metal Works, (ii) M/s. Moped Machine Shop, and (iii) M/s.Moped Tool Room, were not distinct or separate entities and were not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 105/80-C.E., dated 19-6-1980 (as amended). He demanded the Central Excise Duty of Rs. 3,06,235.36. On appeal the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, had set aside the order passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras. In his order, he had held as under : "I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned consultant. I find that the entire order has been issued on wrong presumptions without any verifications of the goods produce...
Orient Engineers Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1997
Reported in: (1997)(91)ELT332TriDel
1. his appeal is directed against the order-in-original dated 29-3-1990 of Collector of Customs, Calcutta.2. The point at issue in this appeal is whether the impugned goods are Electrical Automatically Controlling Instruments which are exempted from the payment of Auxiliary Duty under Notification No. 105/89-Cus.The impugned goods were assessed under CTH 9032.89 read with Notification No. 69/86-Cus. The appellants filed refund claim claiming exemption of auxiliary duty on the ground that the impugned goods which are described as Precipitator were voltage regulators which were exempted from the auxiliary duty vide Sl. No. 37 of the Notification No. 105/89-Cus., dated 1-3-1989.3. Arguing for the appellants the learned Advocate submits that the goods were examined by the Customs authorities who recorded that these were automatic voltage controller and therefore, Collector (Appeals) order holding that since the goods have left the Customs charge these could not be correlate with literatur...
Electronic and Engineering Co. Vs. Commissioner of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1997
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT382TriDel
1. The appellants imported Nickel Cadmium Battery Cells describing them in the Bill of Entry as Cathode Ray Tube and Sockets being components used for ultrasonic flow detectors. The goods were cleared on payment of duty under Heading 8506.19. Subsequently, importers filed in refund claim holding that the goods being parts of the ultrasonic flow detector mentioned at Serial No. 10 of Notification No. 97/89-Cus., concessional rate of duty applied. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim holding that battery cells were not parts but consumables. The Collector appeals upheld the lower order. Hence this appeal.2. The case for the appellants was argued by Shri S.S. Gupta, Chartered Accountant. Revenue was represented by Shri K.K. Jha, Senior Departmental Representative.3. Shri Gupta stated that there is no definition of "parts" in the Tariff referring to the CEGAT order in the case of Electrosteel Castings Ltd.-v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 305 (Tribunal) h...
Spic Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1997
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT114TriDel
1. The appellants imported several machines including handling machinery and parts towards setting up of a Gypsum processing plant.These goods were assessed on merits under different tariff headings.Subsequently the importers filed a refund claim on the plea that the entire imports were capable of being assessed under Heading 84.59(2) as machines and mechanical appliances designed for the production of a commodity. The lower authorities having rejected this claim, the present appeal is filed before us.2. The appellants were not present today even when due notice had been served on them. We, therefore, proceeded to decide the case on merits after hearing Shri M. Haja Mohideen, ld. JDR for the Revenue.3. Chapter 84 of the Customs Tariff covers machinery, mechanical appliances etc. Heading 84.59 at the material time covered such machines and appliances which had individual functions and could not fall within any other heading of that chapter. Part (2) of the same heading covered machines...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Shree Bagavathi Tea Estates Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1997
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT240TriDel
1. The respondents in this case manufactured bulk tea. They had sought permission from the department to remove tea coming out of the drier mouth to another factory belonging to them under Rule 56B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for further processing. They availed of this facility during the period 27-6-1987 to 26-8-1987. At a later date the jurisdictional authorities held that tea coming of the drier mouth was finished product and should not be called semi-finished product. On the allegation that duty was evaded a show cause notice dated 25-9-1987 was issued seeking recovery of Rs. 20,917/- leviable on the goods mistakenly cleared under Rule 56B. The Asstt. Collector confirmed the demand. The Collector observed that since the department had permitted the movement under Rule 56B, the goods could not be said to have been cleared in contravention of that Rule. He further observed that the recipient factory had paid duty on the sorted goods and as such there was no cause to demand du...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Parekh Dye Chem (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT648TriDel
1. Respondent, engaged in the manufacture of Polyvinyl Acetate Dispersion, was filing price list from time to time and clearing goods on payment of duty on the price approved by the Department. The dispute in this appeal relates to the period 1-10-1976 (sic) to 30-6-1977.Department issued two show cause notices to the respondent alleging that bulk, discount was being given to another concern by name Pidilite Industries. The said discount is not admissible since the two are sister concerns and are "related persons". Notices proposed demand of duty on the amount covered by the discount alleging that such amount should have been added to the assessable value for the purpose of reckoning and paying duty. Respondent fesisted the notices admitting that the respondent has five directors who are also directors of M/s.Pidilite Industries but contending that on that account two concerns cannot be regarded as "related persons" and even if it be so, there was no justification to disallow the disc...
Raja Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1997
Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)186; 1997CriLJ1863; 1997(2)Crimes175; 66(1997)DLT309; 1997(40)DRJ765
Mohd. Shamim, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14th December, 1993 passed by Mr. M.S. Rohilla, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi where through the convict/appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant for the sake of convenience) was found guilty under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years with a fine of Rs. 2,000.00 . In case of his failure to clear the fine he was further sentences to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a year.(2) Brief facts which led to the present appeal are as under : that Public Witness -7 Ram Bharose Along with Public Witness 9 Ram Vilas went to their hut (jhuggi) situated in Block No. 11 near a dirty drain in Tilak Nagar, New Delhi on 22nd July, 1989 at 4:30 P.M. to collect there from fruits in a rickshaw belonging to one Public Witness 8 Arun Paswan. Public Witness 8 Arun Paswan stopped his rickshaw at a distance of 15-16 paces away from the above...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Tara Balmiki
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1997
Reported in: 70(1997)DLT574; (1997)IILLJ17Del
D.K. Jain, J.(1) By the impugned award dated 7 December, 1993 it was held that the workman is entitled to be treated as a full-time regular Chowkidar w.e.f. from the date of his first appointment and certain other directions were also issued. On 12 April, 1994 learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner does not dispute the regularisation of respondent No. 1 but only disputes the date from which he has been directed to be regularised because giving regularisation with retrospective effect would entail a very heavy financial burden on the petitioner. On 12 September, 1994, this Court directed that letter of regularisation in terms of the award of Industrial Tribunal be given to the respondent w.e.f. the date of award. It was further directed the needful be done within a period of three weeks. More than two years have lapsed since then. On 12 March, 1996 while adjourning the matter on the request of Counsel for the petitioner we directed that in case the order dated 12 ...
Food Corporation of India Vs. Bir Inder Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1997
Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)234; 66(1997)DLT1
Jaspal Singh, J.(1) Following my judgment in Brig. S.S. Pun v. R. Chander Shekhar : 53(1994)DLT186 and the subsequent judgment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.K. Mehra in M/s. Jwala Persad Ashok Kumar Chepra v. Ms. Nath Tubes Pvt. Ltd., Air 1994 Delhi 317 the learned Civil Judge has passed an order directing the present petitioner to deposit arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 3,715.00 per month with effect from September 1,1992 and future rent at the said rate month by month by the 10th of each succeeding month. The order is to operate till the final disposal of the suit which is for possession and recovery of arrears of rent. (2) The learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order only on one ground. He submits that though on September 1,1992 the agreed rate of rent was Rs. 3715.00 per month the petitioner was entitled to adjust the amount of House Tax out of the said amount. The learned Counsel for the respondent however, submits that the agreed rate of rent is over and...
Kul Parkash Tejpal Vs. S.P. Bhandari
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1997
Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)481; 67(1997)DLT644; 1997(41)DRJ693; 1997RLR393
Usha Mehra, J.(1) This revision has been preferred by the petitioner/landlord because learned Additional Rent Controller (in short ARC) granted leave to contest to the respondent/tenant. The learned Arc vide order dated 16th December, 1995 found that the respondent had raised triable issues challenging the bonafide requirements of the landlord. (2) Aggrieved by that order landlord preferred this petition, inter alia, on the grounds that having accommodation with the petitioner is not sufficient. His needs being bonafide the leave could not have been granted. Moreover, no legal or factual pleas were raised which could non-suit the petitioners. (3) RESPONDENT/TENANT contested this petition by raising legal objection of the maintainability of this petition besides contesting the petition on merits. According to respondent the order under challenge being an interlocutory order cannot be challenged by way of revision. On merits the contended that requirement of the petitioner being not bona...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »