Delhi Court April 1997 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1997 Page 6 of about 170 results (0.020 seconds)Collector of Central Excise Vs. Perfect Packaging
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT478TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the order of Collector (Appeals) Bombay.2. The respondents have sent a letter dated 11-1-1997 incorporating their written submissions and requesting that their absence may be condoned and case may be decided on the basis of their submissions and the records.3. Learned D.R. stated that in this case the appellants had filed a classification list showing dated [sic] (51/89 allotted Member) effective from 1-4-1989. This classification list shows at Serial No. 2 the words 'Sleeves and Wrappers' and Tariff Item No. 4819.12. This classification was approved by the A.C.4. The department's appeal against the A.C.'s order was rejected by the Collector (Appeals) on the ground that he had seen a sample of the product and on perusal thereof he found that "product is in the nature of flattened and folded cartons". Since the folded and flattened cartons are specifically covered under sub-heading number 4819.12, the product of the respondent is cor...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. B.K. Paper Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT883TriDel
1. These are reference applications filed Under Section 35G(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 with reference to final order Nos. 1487 to 1502/96-NB, dated 4-6-1996 by which several appeals were disposed of.2. According to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai - III, the following questions arise for consideration :- "(a) Whether in the light of the above discussion, the said products can be treated as "input" in terms of Rule 57 A read with exclusion Clause (i) of the Explanation read with Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules, l944. (b) Whether the said product fulfils the description given under explanation 57A." 3. Manufacturer claimed Modvat credit in respect of duty paid on the inputs, namely, Dryer Press Felt and Phosphor Bronze Metal wire. The claim was rejected by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner holding that these inputs are excluded from the purview of Rule 57A of the Rules by virtue of exclusion Clause (i) to the Explanation to the Rule and this order having been ...
Tag this Judgment!Ajanta Dyeing Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT101TriDel
1. The appellants were engaged in processing of cotton fabrics as well as man-made fabrics. Jurisdictional Central Excise officers pursuant to an intelligence visited their factory premises on 28/29-10-1985. The check conducted by them and documents examined, led them to believe that during the period 19-6-1985 to 12-10-1985, the assessees had cleared clandestinely without payment of duty man-made fabrics measuring 15,56,376 L. Mtrs. on which duty evaded worked out to Rs. 13,73,971.29 and also cotton fabrics measuring 13,27,995 L. Mtrs. on which duty evaded amounted to Rs. 2,34,763.21. Pursuant to a show cause notice, the Collector adjudicated the case, confirmed the demand for duty not paid, ordered confiscation of the goods seized and also imposed penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the assessees. The present appeal is directed against this order.2. Shri Udey Joshi, Advocate argued the case for the appellants and Shri M. Hajamohideen, JDR represented the Revenue.3. Shri Joshi stated that out ...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. Vs. Bhagat Construction Compan ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)797; 1997(1)ARBLR668(Delhi); 67(1997)DLT32; 1997(41)DRJ581
M.K. Sharma, J. (1) In a suit instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant registered as Suit No.966/1995 seeking for recovery of Rs.15 lacs from the defendant the defendant filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act which came up for arguments before me. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and propose to dispose of the said application filed by the defendant under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act by this order. (2) It is the case of the plaintiff in the plaint that in between 1967-1984 the plaintiff awarded various contracts to the defendants for execution of different civil engineering works relating to Bokaro Steel Plant at Bokaro Steel City in Bihar. It is further stated that during the aforesaid period the plaintiff made final payments to the defendants in respect of contracts entered between them in full and Final settlement of the said contracts except for 7 Contracts the particulars of which are given in para 4 of the plaint. It is stat...
Tag this Judgment!Matloob Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)178; 1997(2)ALT(Cri)19; 1997(3)Crimes98; 67(1997)DLT372
J.K. Mehra, J.(1) This appeal was accepted by me on the day the arguments were concluded and the appellant was acquitted on April 23, 1997 by a short judgment stating therein that the detailed reasons will be given latter. The said detailed reasons are furnished in this judgment: The appellant Matloob was arrested by Police Station, Jama Masjid, Delhi in case Fir No. 191/92 under Section 20 of the Narcotic Durgs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in brief, the Ndps Act), on the allegations that on September 7,1992 at about 7.10 p.m. at Service Road, Gate Mazar Shiekh Kalim Ullah, within the jurisdiction of P.S. Jama Masjid, he was found in possession of 3. 750 kgs. of Charas without any licence. After completion of investigation and receipt of the Cfsl report the appellant was sent up for trial, charged under Section 20 of the Ndps Art, tried and convicted of sentence, also dated May 2, 1995 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1.5 lakhs, in default ...
Tag this Judgment!Kong Bun Thoeurn Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 68(1997)DLT373; 1997(42)DRJ90; (1998)118PLR56b
Mahinder Narain, A.C.J.(1) The only point which is urged in this petition filed by Kong Bun Thoeurn, a Cambodian national, is that the representation made by him against the order of detention, has not been considered by the detaining authority who is authorised to consider and rule upon it. According to Ms. Sangita Bhayana, by virtue of Office Order No.A-22012/2/93-Admn.I dated 20.1.1993, the Minister of State (Revenue & Expenditure) will put up, inter alia, (a) representation for revocation and (b) confirmation of detention period made by the Cofeposa detenu, to the Minister of Finance. (2) The petitioner before us is Cofeposa detenu. He had made representation against declaration. That representation by virtue of the Office Order dated 20.1.1993 had to be considered by the Minister of Finance. (3) It is the case of Ms. Sangita Bhayana that the representation instead of being considered by the Minister of Finance, was in fact dealt with by the Revenue Secretary. (4) There is no autho...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. YasIn Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)603; 1997CriLJ4169; 68(1997)DLT179; 1997(42)DRJ116
Mahinder Narain, A.C.J.(1) MOHD. Yasin travelled by Pakistan Airways Flight No. PK-270 from Lahore and Delhi on 20.4.1996. At the Indira Gandhi International Airport at New Delhi, he went through red channel and declared some goods as dutiable goods. As the custom officials were suspicious, they examined the baggage and found that 18 pair of 'Chappals' which had been brought by Mohd. Yasin had unusual weight. On further examination it was found that the heels instead of being solid, had cavities therein, and in the cavities 73 pieces of gold were discovered. The baggage was examined and 8 gold pieces of 10 toles were discovered. The total gold discovered was 1.632 kgs in weight.(2) On the happening of the aforesaid events, Mohd. Yasin was arrested and charged under the Customs Act with offences under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. On 16.7.1996, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate permitted him to be released on bail on a bail bond of Rs. 1.5 lacs. As he c...
Tag this Judgment!Radhey Sham Sharma Vs. Lt. Governor and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 69(1997)DLT594
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. (1) The petitioners are teachers in respondent No. 4 School. The school is managed and run by respondent No. 5 - Society. Earlier too, there was litigation between the petitioners and the school, lt was subject-matter of Writ Petition No. 4203/94. In that petition the allegations of the teachers were that they were forced to refund the amount of salaries paid to them by account payee cheques and they had been forced to give resignation letters. The alleged resignation letters were, however, not found in the record of the respondents 4 and 5. The Court, thereforee, while disposing of that petition on 5th July, 1995 directed that in view of the fact that no resignation letters have been found in the record of the respondents, the respondents will not be able to use any such alleged resignation letters, lt was further observed that even otherwise such resignation letters cannot be accepted by the respondents without approval of the Directorate of Education under the Del...
Tag this Judgment!Pacific Forging and Fasteners Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT434TriDel
1. Appellant is absent in spite of notice of hearing but has sent a request for decision of the appeal on merits. We have heard Shri K.Srivastava, SDR and perused the papers.2. The dispute relates to the question of includibility of special testing charges in the assessable value of excisable goods. Special testing was arranged to be conducted optionally at the request of the buyers through an outside agency. This was over and above the normal test conducted by the manufacturer. In this view the adjudicating authority was in error in holding that special testing charges should be included in the assessable value. We set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Modipon Limited Vs. Commissioner, Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT348TriDel
1. This is a stay appeal filed with reference to order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Gaziabad.2. Ld. Counsel stated that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Synthetic Filament Yarn, both the textured and non-textured type. Such Yarn of 210 denier was exempt from payment of duty under Notification No. 31/93; a tolerance limit of 4 per cent was provided.3. A sample representing quantity of 343.755 kgs. of textured yarn in balance with them on 23-4-1993 was drawn and sent for testing.Thereafter the appellants received the show cause notice on the ground that the denier was above the prescribed limit. On their request the sample was tested again and the test result [communicated] to them.This test report showed a denier of 219.5 (whereas the earlier test report had shown the denier as 228.4).4. The Chapter note 2 of Chapter 54 prescribes a method of testing and, therefore, while making the request for retesting they had specifically drawn attention to...
Tag this Judgment!