Delhi Court April 1997 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1997 Page 4 of about 170 results (0.020 seconds)Collector of Central Ex. Vs. Kirpal Alloys (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT800TriDel
1. The captioned appeal arises out of the order of the ld. Collector (Appeals) holding that the facts of the case lead him to agree with the Appellants in respect of their claim that the Appellants, who are the respondents in the present appeal had sent the declaration through post and that there was no ground not to accept the claim of the respondents before us.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of steel ingots. On a scrutiny of the declaration filed by the Respondents herein, it was noted that the respondents had not declared the HBI Sponge Iron as an input falling under Chapter 7203.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It was noticed further that the respondents herein have availed Modvat credit of Rs. 3,39,314.40 on this item during the period 26-3-1992 to 23-5-1992. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued to the Respondents herein asking them to explain as to why the credit of duty on HBI Sponge Iron should not be disallo...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Bat-bro Engg. and General Mfrs.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT156TriDel
1. The respondent assessee manufactured Empire tape bias cut. The input was hand-bleached cotton fabric. The fabrics were cut manually in a particular shape. The pieces were joined together by gumming at the edges. The joined fabrics were then socked in chemical compound. After drying, the fabrics were put through a cutter and cut tapes were placed in rolls. They had filed classification lists both for processed fabrics falling under [Tariff Item] 19(1)(b) as also tapes falling under [Tariff Item] 68. The Assistant Collector felt that the bias cut fabrics were also classifiable under heading [Tariff Item] 19(1 )(b) at which stage, the burden of duty had not been discharged. He amended classification list holding processed bias cut fabric as classifiable tinder Heading 19(1)(b). The Collector (Appeals), referring to some other order passed by another Assistant Collector, held that the goods were exempted from duty. Against this order, the Revenue have filed the present appeal.2. The ca...
Tag this Judgment!Parmali Wallace Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT99TriDel
(i) glass fibre and asbestos based compregs, having trade names per-maglass, permacid, permarc (rigid sheets); (ii) mouldings and components having trade names permaglass, per-macid, and permarc (but excluding dough moulding compounds and sheet moulding compounds and components and articles made there- (iii) the articles, in which glass reinforcement yarn predominated by weight.2. Shri Nambirajan, arguing for the appellants, submitted that the dispute in respect of the classification of the above items, has been resolved by the Supreme Court in the case of Mahindra Engg. and Chemical Products Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1992 (58) E.L.T.161 (S.C.) as well as in the case of C.C.E., Hyderabad v. Bakelite Hylam Ltd., reported in 1997 (91) E.L.T. 13 (S.C). He submitted that laminated sheets are classifiable under Tariff Item 68 but not under 22F(4) as it was held by the Supreme Court in the case of Bakelite Hylam Ltd. (supra) and similarly Supreme Court has taken the view that the a...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Caps Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT443TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals), Indore, dated 4-10-1994.2. Learned Consultant stated that in this case, the Collector (Appeals) has allowed the benefit of the Modvat credit but retained the penalty imposed on the appellants and has not given reasons for the same. It was his contention that a penalty was not imposable for any technical or venial breach.3. Further, a penalty was imposable only in cases where the mala fide intention of the person was established and it was not imposable unless the Department is able to sustain its demand notice which was under challenge and in this respect, he would like to cite the judgments in the cases of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa reported in 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 159) and Collector of Central Excise v. H.M.M. Ltd. reported in 1995 (76) E.L.T. 497 (S.C.).4. Learned DR drew attention to the impugned order-in-appeal and in particular to para 13 thereof. He read it out to show that the learned Collector has recor...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Lavina Yorke Vs. Terence Basil Yorke and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1997Delhi346; 1997(42)DRJ85
ORDERMahinder Narain, Ag. C.J.1. This matrimonial reference has been made for confirmation of the decree of divorce which has been granted to the petitioner, Ms. Lavina Yorke by the Additional District Judge, Delhi.2. On a perusal of the order of the AdditionalDistrict Judge it is clear that the respondent No. 1, who was married to Ms. Lavina Yorke on 28-11-1981 in the Church of Our Lady of Health, Masihgarh, Okhla according to Christian rites, has committed adultery with respondent No. 2, Ms. Sham Kujjur and as a result of this adulterous liaison a daughter was born to the respondents.3. It is also established on record that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have been living together at 13/25, Shakti Nagar, Delhi, as is clear from the acknowledgement of service which both of them appear to have signed individually which is on record of the case.4. It is also established from the record of the case that respondent No. I during the strike in his office he got addicted to drinking and as a rcsult,...
Tag this Judgment!Annu J. Thomas Vs. Thomas Koshy
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)222; AIR1997Delhi345; 67(1997)DLT263; 1997(42)DRJ73
Mahinder Narain, A.C.J. (1) The petitioner Ms. Annu J. Thomas has filed a petition under the Indian Divorce Act against the respondent Mr. Thomas Koshy. Originally the petition was filed under Section 22 of the Indian Divorce Act and later the petition was amended and pleas under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act was also added thereto.(2) EX-PARTE evidence of the petitioner was recorded by the learned Additional District Judge.(3) The petitioner deposed that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 25th September, 1989 at Gregarios Orthodox Syrian Church, Near Diamond Garden, Chembur, Bombay.(4) That the parties had gone to Goa for their honeymoon. According to the petitioner wife, for the first one or two days there was no problem, but abnormal behavior of the respondent started to manifest itself thereafter.(5) The petitioner stated that the respondent used to take drugs and alcohol. As a result, he used to have swings of mood and used to force the petitioner for unnatu...
Tag this Judgment!Anand Kumar Vs. Shakuntla Devi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)734; 67(1997)DLT769
Usha Mehra, J. (1) A 68 years old widow of an Army Officer who died in Chines War in the year 1962, filed an eviction petition under Section 14D of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the Act). She sought eviction against Mr. Anand Kumar her tenant residing in her House No. A-155. Ganesh Nagar, New Delhi. Eviction was sought on the ground that she needed the premises in question for her residence and also for the residence of her members of the family. Being a war widow she was allotted one room tentament having asbestos sheet roof by the Government in order to rehabilitate her and her family after her husband was killed in Chines War of 1962. The said tentament bears No. C-103, Sainik Sadan Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. She with her family was residing in that house. But now since her children had grown up she found that accommodation not sufficient for herself and for the members of her family. Her family consists of her three sons namely S/ Shri Prem Chand, Praveen Kumar and P...
Tag this Judgment!Ece Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT146TriDel
1. This appeal is against the order of ld. Collector (Appeals) holding that Modvat credit is not admissible on Molywire used in electric bulb.2. The facts of the case are that the Appellants are engaged in the manufactured of electrical bulbs. They purchase various inputs and avail the credit of duty paid on inputs under Modvat scheme. The Department alleged that Molywire was not an input in as much as during the process of manufacture of filaments tungsten wire is initially wound around Molywire and treated with acid in which Molywire gets dissolved and leaves behind the tungston filament. Accordingly a show-cause-notice was issued to the appeallants and the Additional Collector held that Molywire is an appliance and since appliance is covered by the explanation of the exclusion clause under rule 57A, therefore, it was not admissible to Modvat Credit. In appeal, the ld.Collector (Appeals) upheld the Order of ld. Additional Collector.3. Miss Ginny Bedi Ld. Advocate appears for the app...
Tag this Judgment!Cadila Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT160TriDel
1. This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal dated 1-5-1989 passed by Collector (Appeals), Bombay, confirming rejection of refund claim for re-assessment of goods described in the Bill of Entry as Binary Gradient Pump, Diode Array Detector and Chart Paper, etc., and for the benefit of Notification No. 105/89-Cus., dated 1-3-1989 which grants benefit for goods falling under Heading 90.27. The appellants had claimed these individual items described in the invoice to be complete unit of High Pressure Liquid Chromatograph in knock-down condition requiring assessment under heading 90.27. At the time of assessment, the items described individually in the invoice has been separately assessed on merits. In the Order-in-Original, the Asstt. Collector has observed that the invoice of the suppliers described the items differently and also priced separately. It had not been indicated in the said invoice that the supplied goods constitute a single item. It has been further observed that the importer...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Spic Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT702TriDel
1. This Revenue Appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 26-4-1988 of Collector (Appeals).2. The issue relates to classification of filter elements in the lube oil system of Howden compressors. Filter elements are made of filter paper reinforced perforated stainless steel, cylindrical in shape.3. It is contended by the Revenue that these are classifiable in terms of BTN Notes under Heading 73.33 as articles of iron and steel.5. We have heard ld. DR and perused the records of the case. From the technical write-up placed in the file, it is seen that filter element is located in the lube oil system of Howden Screw Compressor in Ammonia importation terminal. The purpose of the filter element is to prevent the leakage of dust and foreign particles to the lube oil system. The material of construction of filter media is filter paper with stainless steel reinforced perforated plate. Page 121-3 of BTN Notes indicates that the heading covers filters and purifiers of all types. The h...
Tag this Judgment!