Delhi Court April 1997 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1997 Page 7 of about 170 results (0.014 seconds)Sh. Sant Eknath S.S.K. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT226TriDel
1. These are two appeals filed by M/s. Sh. Sant Eknath S.S.K. Ltd. against respective impugned orders involving a common issue and, therefore, they are clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order. In Appeal No. E/217/89-D, the dispute relates to rebate claim with reference to Notification 132/82 and similarly Appeal No.E/218/89-D is concerned with the Notification No. 135/83-C.E., dated 30-4-1983. The issue involved in these cases is whether existence of the factory during each of the three sugar preceding years was condition precedent for eligibility in terms of aforesaid notifications.2. It was a case of the department since the factory was not in existence during the preceding three years, benefit in terms of the notifications cannot be extended to that period or periods. It was brought to our notice by the ld. Counsel for the appellants that Notification No. 132/82 has been amended by Notification 193/82, dated 11-6-1982 wherein para 4 was substituted and accor...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Cus. Vs. Pudumjee Agro Industries Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT1132TriDel
1. The facts of the case giving rise to the captioned appeal are that the appellants imported a consignment containing 73 bales totally weighing 42.221 MT of waste paper (white savings & cuttings). The goods on examination in the docks were found to contain 50% serviceable paper i.e. plain white sheet in roll form. In the bill of entry the appellants described the goods as waste paper (white savings and cuttings) P.B. The department alleged that the goods were serviceable paper as against white savings and cuttings as declared in the bill of entry. It was also alleged that CIF value of the goods should be Rs. 4,22,200/- as against the value of Rs. 1,33,204. The respondents submitted that they are regular importers of waste papers; that the goods imported are waste papers and would be used for the manufacture of various grades of pulp; that from the sample it is seen that these are uneven remnants of sheets/rolls, soiled and crumpled sheets and cannot be termed as serviceable; that...
Tag this Judgment!Patson Transformers (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT402TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara confirming the demand of differential duty of Rs. 48,630/- raised in the show cause notice dated 2-12-1987.2. Appellant by name M/s. Patson Transformers (P) Ltd. Bharuch has two units, one at Bharuch and another at Dahanu. In the Bharuch unit the appellant was manufacturing transformers and active parts of 10 KVA transformers falling under erstwhile T.I. 68 and manufacturing transformers in Dahanu unit. The dispute in this appeal relates to clearances of active parts of 10 KVA Transformers manufactured in the Bharuch unit and removed to the Dahanu unit on payment of central excise duty, availing benefit of Notification 120/75 (Invoice Procedure). Scrutiny of RG 1 registers, Gate Passes as well as Invoices by the audit officers showed that during the period 1-3-1984 to 30-4-1984,10 KVA active parts of transformers were cleared to the Dahanu Unit at Rs. 11,200 or Rs. 12,050 per pi...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1997]226ITR490(Delhi)
Rule D.B. 1. Since a short point is involved, we have heard learned counsel for the parties and now we proceed to decide the matter. 2. Briefly the facts are these. By order dt. 31st October, 1996, passed under s. 158BC(c) of the IT Act, 1961, by the Asstt. CIT, the undisclosed income of the petitioner was determined at Rs. 13,13,49,778. On 9th November, 1996, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Tribunal against the order dt. 31st October, 1996. The petitioner had also filed an application for stay of recovery of the disputed demand before the Asstt. CIT and another application for stay of the recovery proceedings was filed before the CIT. The CIT by order dt. 3rd March, 1997, has granted stay of the demand till 28th February, 1998, or disposal of the first appeal before Tribunal, whichever is earlier, subject to the condition that the petitioner should pay 10 per cent. of the demand immediately. The petitioner has also filed an application for stay of recovery proceed...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Kumari Vs. Prem Chand Jain
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)609; AIR1998Delhi80; 67(1997)DLT502; 1997(42)DRJ280; 1997RLR471
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) Plaintiff has come up in revision feeling aggrieved by the impugned order of the learned Senior Sub Judge holding her suit under order 37 Civil Procedure Code to be barred by time. (2) The relevant facts are jejune. The plaintiff had advanced a loan of Rs. 3000.00 to the respondent by issuing a cheque on 27.8.81. Interest was agreed to be paid by the defendant at the rate of 18% p.a. Interest as agreed was paid up to 27.2.82. The defendant issued a cheque for Rs. 270 drawn on 16.4.84 on account of interest for the period 28.2.82 to 28.3.83. The cheque when presented by the plaintiff to the bank was dishonoured for want of funds. The suit was filed on 4.4.87. (3) In this case answer to the question whether the suit is barred by time or is within limitation is to be found in Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The learned Senior Sub Judge has held that a dishonoured cheque cannot be treated to be payment on account of debt within the meaning of S. 19 of the Limitat...
Tag this Judgment!Davinder Singh Dawar @ Goldie @ Goldy Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)158; 1997CriLJ3168; 1997(3)Crimes105; 67(1997)DLT397; 1997(42)DRJ86
Mahinder Narain, J.(1) The petitioner Davinder Singh Dawar @ Goldie @ Goldy has been detained by the order of detention dated 8.11.1996. The grounds of detention were also served on Davinder Singh Dawar. (2) Aggrieved by the detention order, the petitioner has filed this petition for his release. (3) According to Mr. Ashok Arora, for the purpose of establishing the detention of the petitioner, what needs necessarily to be established with reference to the grounds of detention is: (i) that he was smuggling goods or (ii) abetting the smuggling of goods, or (iii) engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods, or (iv) dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods, or (v) harbouring persons engaged in smuggling goods or in abetting the smuggling of goods. (4) Mr. Arora says that in the facts and circumstances of the case, none of these grounds mentioned in Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Grasim Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT157TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the order of Collector (Appeals) New Delhi dated 31-10-1990.2. Learned DR stated that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Sodium Hypochlorite falling under Chapter heading 2828.90. They had claimed the beneat of Notification No. 195/86, dated 13-3-1986 available to bleach liquor for their product. The A.C. had disallowed the benefit but the Collector (Appeals) had allowed the same. It was the department's contention that the word 'Bleach liquor' used in the Notification refers only to Calcium Hypochlorite solution and not to sodium hypochlorite. In this connection he would like to draw attention to the meaning attached to these words in the condensed Chemical dictionary by Hawley, Chemical Synonyms and trade name by Gardner and Cook, and Kirk Othmers Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology (volume 5 page 595). All these authorities refer only to calcium hypochlorite as Bleach liquor.3. He would also like to draw attention ...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Vijay Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1997)LC434Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 468/90, dated 12-3-1990 of Collector of Customs (Appeals). The appellants imported a consignment of electric Hand welding tool. The goods were described in the invoice as "Electric Hand Welding Tool, Leister Ghibli 220V No.IP4". The appellants claimed assessment of the impugned goods under CTH 8515.80 read with Notification No. 59/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987 on the ground that the impugned goods are in the nature of capital goods required for welding of plastics and these are specifically covered under CTH 8515.2. Arguing for the appellants, ld. Advocate submits that the impugned goods are specifically meant for welding of plastic. The goods may be capable of performing other functions that but by itself would not mean that the impugned goods basically are not for plastic goods. He ruled out classification under Heading 85.08 as tools and under Heading 8515.00 as welding machine. He also drew attention to HSN Notes.3. Ld. DR arguing f...
Tag this Judgment!Saga Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT151TriDel
1. M/s. Saga Electricals Pvt. Ltd., the appellants, were engaged in the manufacture of monoblock pumps. They also manufactured stators and rotors and used these stators and rotors after paying the appropriate excise duty thereon in the manufacture of monoblock pumps. The Revenue had viewed that when stators and rotors were used in the manufacture of monoblock pumps, electric motors came into existence and the value of the electric motors was includible in the value of the monoblock pump.4. We find that the matter is already covered by the Tribunal's decision in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad v. Jyoti Electrical Motor Ltd., Final Order No. E/505/96-B, dated 25-9-1996 in Appeal No. E/1883/87-B.The order being dated 25-9-1996. The matter is also dealt with in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad v. Saga Windd Engineers, Final Order No.E/506/96-B, dated 25-9-1996 in Appeal No. E/1110/87-B.5. The Tribunal had viewed that proper excise duty is payable on stators and rotors before their use in the manufac...
Tag this Judgment!Siddheshwar Textile Mills (Pvt.) Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT522TriDel
1. The short point involved in this case is whether cotton fabrics heavily sized but not having permanent stiffness is classifiable under Chapter 52 as claimed by the assessees or under Chapter 59 as per the Department.2. Shri G. Shivdas accompanied by Shri Devnath submitted that issue is no longer res Integra. He submitted that very issue has come up for consideration in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Sunita Textiles Ltd., reported in 1993 (67) E.L.T. 932 wherein it was held that cotton fabrics heavily sized but not having permanent stiffness not treatable as similar to "Buckram" and, accordingly classifiable under Chapter 52 and not under Chapter 59 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Shri Shivdas stated that Board also issued Circular as per F. No. 59/12/89-CX. 1, dated 7-12-1989 clarifying that item in question is classifiable under Heading 52.06. He said that for the subsequent period the Collector (Appeals) relied upon the Board circular accepted the contention o...
Tag this Judgment!