Delhi Court July 1997 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1997 Page 17 of about 214 results (0.017 seconds)Eagle Flask Industries (India) Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1997)LC299Tri(Delhi)
1. Appellant is absent but has presented a request for decision on merits. We have heard Shri M. Ali, JDR and perused the paper.2. Appellant filed a price list along with a copy of the order from Canteen Store Department, Bombay in respect of insulated products 'hotline 8 and hotline 10' declaring the prices as Rs. 70/- and Rs. 95/- respectively less 7% normal trade discount the declared prices being exclusive of the price of the tiffin box kept inside the hotline.Contract prices for hotline were Rs. 100/- and Rs. 140/- respectively.Asstt. Collector passed an order adopting the contract prices and allowing trade discount while approving resultant prices. Thereafter the Asstt. Collector issued four show cause notices dated 5-3-1987,2/3-3-1987,11-3-1987 and 21-8-1987 demanding differential duty for various periods and subsequently confirmed the demands. The order passed by the Asstt. Collector has been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) and hence the present appeal.3. The lower author...
Tag this Judgment!Ambica Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1997)LC606Tri(Delhi)
1. - This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 36/MP/89, dated 21-9-1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara confirming duty demand of Rs. 8,55,671.68, imposing penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs and ordering confiscation of assets of the appellant with liberty to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 1 lakh.2. Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of steel angles falling under erstwhile T.I. 25(11) and under Chapter Heading 72.10 of the new Tariff using materials obtained from breaking ships without obtaining Central Excise licence and clearing the goods without payment of Central Excise duty. On receipt of information about this state of affairs, Officers of Central Excise visited the factory premises on 23-9-1986, examined documents, recorded statement of one of the partners of the appellant and found that the inputs consisted of MS plates classifiable under Chapter Heading 72.15 and the final product, namely, MS angles manufactured by appellant from such plat...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Petrofoam Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1997)LC297Tri(Delhi)
1. Order-in-Original No. 24/D/89, dated 11-5-1989 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh is being challenged in this appeal.2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of polyurethane foam and articles thereof, was filing price lists from time to time and paying duty on the basis of approved price lists. Appellant had sales at the factory gate as well as at the Delhi office. It was subsequently found that in respect of the period from February, 1982 to May, 1983, appellant was collecting various sums of money as Head Office Expenses from wholesalers who were purchasing goods at the Delhi office and during the period from 1982-83 to 1985-86 appellant was collecting from such buyers transportation charges but had not paid duty on these two elements. Accordingly, show cause notice dated 17-2-1987 was issued proposing demand of duty on the aforesaid two elements availing the benefit of the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and alleging suppressi...
Tag this Judgment!Ranjana Saxena Vs. Prabhash Saxena
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)57; 70(1997)DLT731; II(1997)DMC317; 1997(42)DRJ676
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J. (1) This appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 1-8-96 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi dissolving the marriage between the parties by a decree of a divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. (2) The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 21.10.90 at New Delhi according to Hindu rites. On 27-3-1992, the respondent/husband filed a petition under Section 13(1)(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. According to the respondent the appellant's behavior and attitude towards him and members of his family had been very uncooperative and even cruel from the very inception of their marriage because the appellant being quarrel some in nature would pick up quarrel with him and other members of his family for no rhyme or reasons and she used to run away to her parents' home very often. Immediately after marriage, when the appellant came t...
Tag this Judgment!Sant Singh Chawla Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)29; 69(1997)DLT449; 1997(42)DRJ665
ORDER41 Rule 33 of the Civil Procedure Code provides as under : 'RULE33. Power of Court of Appeal- The Appellate Court shall have power to pass any decree and make any order which ought to have been passed or made and to pass or make such further or other decree or order as the case may require, and this power may be exercised by the Court notwithstanding that the appeal is as to part only of the decree and may be exercised in favor of all or any of the respondents or parties, although such respondents or parties may not have filed any appeal or objection and may, where there have been decrees in cross-suits or where two or more decrees are passed in one suit, be exercised in respect of all or any of the decrees, although an appeal may not have been filed against such decrees.' (20) The wide power conferred on the appellate Court by the above said provision was so stated by their Lordships in Pannalal vs . State of Bombay, : [1964]1SCR980 : @SUBPARA = 'It empowers the appellate Court n...
Tag this Judgment!Hanuman Dutt Bajpai Vs. Budha Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)85; 68(1997)DLT414; 1997(43)DRJ18; (1997)117PLR25
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19-7-1982 passed by the Adj, Delhi in Rca No. 97 of 1981 arising out of judgment dated 30-4-1981 passed by the Sub-Judge 1st Class, Delhi in C.S. No. 557/74. (2) It is undisputed that the plaintiff/appellant is the owner of the plot of land measuring 200 sq. yards of Khasra No., 11 of Mauza Chauhan Bangar illaqa Shahdra, Delhi now known as B-17, Brahmpuri, Harijan Colony, Gonda, Shahdra, Delhi (hereinafter referred as the disputed property). The disputed property has been assessed by the Municipal Corporation, Delhi for property tax. The defendant/respondent had been in occupation of the disputed property since 6-4-1969. The receipts (Ex. P-X/1, Ex P-X/2, Ex P-X/3, Ex P-X/4, Ex P-X/5) and the letter dated 6-4-1969 (Ex. P-X/6) bear signatures of the defendant. (3) Briefly stated, facts giving rise to this appeal under Section 100 Civil Procedure Code are that by an agreement dated 6-4-1969, the appellant employed ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Leyland Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT371TriDel
1. Aggrieved by the order-in-appeal dated 20-1-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, the present appellants have filed this appeal seeking to quash the duty demand of Rs. 6,58,356.26 confirmed by the impugned order.2. The question relates to the applicability of Notification No. 75/86.Appellants had cleared certain parts and accessories of motor vehicles, tractors (including agricultural tractors and trailers) falling under various Tariff items and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 75/86 as amended by Notification No. 312/86. The appellants claimed that they had used parts and accessories of motor vehicles, tractor and trailers for manufacturing internal combustion (I/C) engines in their factory.I/C engines which were required for purposes other than motor vehicles were used by them in marine I/C engines and industrial I/C engines. In the initial adjudication proceedings the Assistant Collector held that for claiming benefit of Notification No. 75/86 ...
Tag this Judgment!Hariganga Alloys and Steel Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT690TriDel
1. These are two appeals filed by M/s. Hari Engg. Alloys and Steel Ltd. being aggrieved by two separate orders in appeal. As in these two appeals, the common question of classification of the products known as runners and risers is involved, they are being disposed of by this common order.3. We have heard Shri A.K. Agarwal, SDR for the respondent Revenue and have gone through the facts on record. There is no dispute that the goods runners and risers arise during the course of casting of steel ingots. The Revenue have sought to classify these runners and risers as waste and scrap while the appellants have sought classification of the same under Heading No. 72.06 which cover among others ingots, blocks, lumps and similar forms of steel.4. Runners as iron or steel material are solidified molten metal in refractory channel leading to casting of ingot mould. They are formed in runner channel. The riser as iron or steel material is also solidified molten metal that remains in the riser bloc...
Tag this Judgment!S and S Power and Switchgear Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT538TriDel
1. Appellant is absent in spite of notice of hearing but has sent a request for adjournment. Having heard Shri K. Srivastava, SDR who explained the facts of the case, we find no ground to adjourn the case.2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of electrical Isolators and Vacuum Circuit Breakers, was conducting routine test in their factory and in some cases arranging special test outside the factory at the instance of the buyers, the cost of which was ultimately met by buyers.While paying duty the appellant did not include the cost of special testing in the assessable value. Show cause notice was issued proposing demand of duty on the element of special testing also. Ultimately, the Assistant Collector dropped the demand. On an appeal filed by the Department, the Collector (Appeals) set aside the order passed by the Assistant Collector holding that the cost of special test is to be included in the assessable value. This order is now challenged.3. Since the manufacturer conducts rout...
Tag this Judgment!C.B. Sharma Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT329TriDel
1. Arguing the miscellaneous application,. Ms. Sangeeta Jain, learned Advocate submits that the entire case of the department is based on the statement of the appellant; that the appellant in his bail application had indicated that the statement was recorded under duress and thus the statement stands retracted. She submits that no authentic proof for value of the goods was produced by the department. She submits that the department has only estimated the value which was calculated and recorded in the documents. The learned Counsel submits that the goods have been in the custody of the department for the last 3 years and that there are a number of decisions of the various Courts wherein it has been provided that the owner of the goods has a right to redeem the goods. The learned Counsel also submits that the appellant has no other source of income, that he was residing in Hongkong and whatever he has purchased out of his saving accumulated over the years, he had purchased these goods. ...
Tag this Judgment!