Delhi Court July 1997 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1997 Page 4 of about 214 results (0.019 seconds)Polar Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT293TriDel
1. Appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Original No. 45/93, dated 26-4-1993 passed by the Collector, Central Excise, New Delhi. In the impugned order, the Collector, Central Excise confirmed the demand of central excise duty amounting to Rs. 99,022.83 under Rule 57-1 of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. A personal penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was also imposed under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. In this case, the appellants are engaged in the manufacturing of electrical stamping and lamination falling under sub-heading No.8312.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants were availing the facility of deemed credit on HR sheet/CR sheet in terms of the Govt. of India's Order No. 342/1/88/TRU, dated 12-7-1990. The officers of the respondent visited the factory of the appellants on 14-4-1992 and at the time of visit, Shri J.C. Handa, General Manager of appellants made a statement that the appellants ar...
Tag this Judgment!Malvika Steel Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT530TriDel
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 30-11-1995 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad. In this case, the Modvat credit on capital goods, that is on cement and steel structure was denied on the ground that it does not come under the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The appellants are setting up a Blast furnace in its integrated steel plant for production of pig iron. The appellants took the benefit of Modvat credit on capital goods, in respect of cement and steel structure used in erection and fabrication of blast furnace under Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Show cause notice was issued on the ground that cement and steel structure are not directly related in manufacture of final product and also are not included as capital goods as defined under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. After adjudication the adjudicating authority held that cement and steel structure are...
Tag this Judgment!Commr. of Cus. Vs. Rajasthan Industrial and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT104TriDel
1. M/s. Rajasthan Industries and Scientific Corporation imported 600 sets of prisms for binocular head. The classification suggested by them was under Heading 90.11/12 as parts and accessories solely or principally for vise in binocular head. The Assistant Collector however, classified the goods under Heading 90.01 as prisms. In his order-in-appeal the Collector accepted that the impugned goods were in mounted condition ready for use captively to be fitted on to the microscope without any further process. On this count he set aside the classification and allowed the appeal. The present appeal is from the Revenue seeking restoration of the classification adopted by the Assistant Collector.2. We have heard Shri D.S. Negi, learned SDR for the Revenue and Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate for the respondents.3. The Collector in deciding the classification had referred to several aspects such as the heading adopted for the ITC purpose for the contested good. In the appeal memorandum the cl...
Tag this Judgment!Tony Electronics Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1997)63ITD41(Delhi)
1. These two appeals are filed by the assessee-appellant against CIT(A) orders dt. 7th January, 1993, dismissing its appeals preferred against orders passed by the AO under ss. 201(1A) and 221 of the IT Act.2. Facts in brief are these. The previous year for the relevant asst.yr. 1989-90 is of 21 months, i.e. 1st July, 1987 to 31st March, 1989.To enable transitional previous year to take effect the appellant closed its accounts once on 30th June, 1988, and then on 31st March, 1989. In the audit report furnished with the return filed on 9th October, 1990, it was mentioned that there is delay in deduction and deposit of tax by the appellant. The details in the audit report were noted as under :----------------------------------------------------------------------Particulars Amount Date of Due Date of Date of Deduction Deposit Deposit---------------------------------------------------------------------Interest 8,911 30-4-88 31-8-88 14-6-89Salary 1,470 7-3-88 14-3-88 17-3-88Interest 7,769 ...
Tag this Judgment!Goel Pocket Books Vs. Raja Pocket Books
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)720; 1997(2)ARBLR307(Delhi); 68(1997)DLT128
Mohd. Shamim, J. (1) The appellant through the present appeal have taken exception to the judgment and order dated July 4, 1992 passed by an Additional District Judge, Delhi, whereby he allowed an application moved by the plaintiff/ respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent for the sake of convenience) under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for ad interim injunction and restrained the defendant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant for the sake of brevity) from using the trade mark 'Nagputra' in respect of the comics published by them or any other trade mark which may be deceptively similar to the trade mark 'Nagraj' belonging to the respondent. (2) Brief facts which gave rise to the present appeal are as under : that the respondent M/s. Raja Pocket Books are a partnership concern consisting of three partners known as Shri Manoj Gupta, Smt. Prem Lata Gupta and Smt. Parul Gupta. Shri Manoj Gupta is fully competent and authorised to sign and v...
Tag this Judgment!Sham Lal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1997(4)Crimes328; 68(1997)DLT348; 1997(42)DRJ658
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) The appellant stands convicted and sentenced under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. I am inclined to accept the appeal on the following three grounds.(2) Through the Station House Officer and so also the Investigating Officer state that after the recovery of Charas from the possession of the appellant the C.F.S.L. Form was filled in, it is clearly borne out from the statement of the Moharir Malkhana and so also from the entries made by him in the Malkhana Register (Ex.PW 23/A) that no C.F.S.L. Form was actually deposited with him and that even when sample was sent to the C.F.S.L. that Form was not handed over to the Constable carrying the sample parcel. The position thus boils down to this that though C.F.S.L. Form may be taken to have been filled in, it can neither be taken to have been deposited with Moharir Malkhana nor can it be taken to have been sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory. In Chameli Devi v. State, 1993 Jc...
Tag this Judgment!Tony Electronics Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1998)62TTJ(Del)351
ORDERChopra, AM.1. These two appeals are filed by the assessee-appellant against Commissioner (Appeals) orders dated 7-1-1993 dismissing its appeals preferred against order passed by the assessing officer under sections 201(1A) and 221 of the Income Tax Act.2. Facts in brief are these. The previous year for the relevant assessment year 1989-90 is of 21 months, i.e., 1-7-1987 to 31-3-1989. To enable transitional previous year to take effect, the appellant closed its accounts once on 30-6-1988 and then on 31-3-1989. In the Audit Report furnished with the return filed on 9-10-1990, it was mentioned that there is delay in deduction and deposit of tax by the appellant. The details in the audit report were noted as under :ParticularsAmount (Rs.)Date ofdeductionDue date of depositDate of depositInterest8,91130-4-198831-8-198814-6-1989Salary1,4707-3-198814-3-198817-3-1988Interest7,76931-3-198931-5-198914-6-1989Contract Payment69431-3-198931-5-198914-6-1989Contract Payment3,80331-3-198931-5-198...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Bose Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT686TriDel
1. Shri K.K. Anand, the ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants, submits that the appellants are actual users of some bulk drugs and entered into an agreement with a Hongkong Supplier for supply of Sulphadiazine BP 80; Furazolidone BP 80 and Theophyl-line Anhydrous BP 80. He submitted that the appellants in the instant case placed orders for supply of Furazolidone BP 80 and Theophylline Anhydrous BP 80. The goods came by air and Bill of Entry dated 1-11-1993 was filed for clearance of the goods; that clearance of goods was allowed by endorsing the Bill of Entry 'out of Customs charge'; that the goods were detained while being taken on 2-11-1993 on the ground that some investigations are required. He submits that since they came to know that there might be a mixup in the supply, they contacted their Hongkong Supplier on 8-11-1993 and received reply through a fax message dated 8-11-1993 stating that a mistake had occurred in the Supplier's Warehouse; that due to new staff at the wareho...
Tag this Judgment!Systems and Stampings Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT345TriDel
1. This is a stay application w.r.t. the order of Commissioner (A), Allahabad dated NIL.2. Ld. Counsel stated that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Die Cast Rotor/Stator falling under chapter sub-heading 8503.00; stampings under chapter sub-heading 8812.00 and cover sets of 18" fan falling under chapter sub-heading 8503.00.3. The officers on their visit to the factory on 26-7-1994 seized the excess stock which was found over and above the recorded balance in RG 1 Register. The officers also found 101 steel sheets and 72 aluminium ingots as against the NIL balance in form IV Register.4. The officers recorded the statement of Shri R.K. Shukla authorised signatory of the appellants who stated that the excess stock seized was duty accounted for in the raw material account and would have been duly entered in the RG 1 Register after final inspection. He also apprised the seizing officers that the appellants had vide their letter dated 13-4-1992 addressed to the Range Superin...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Rajapalayam Mills Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT180TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue the order-in-appeal dated 25-11-1988 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras, is under challenge. In his order-in-appeal, the Collector of Customs (Appeals) had observed that from the catalogue produced and from the details furnished it was clear beyond doubt that the goods in question i.e. spares for reiter unifloc automatic bale blending machine were parts of the numerical control panel for the said reiter unifloc automatic blending machine. He has recorded that this fact had been accepted by the original authority and that Heading No. 8538.90 is specific for parts of numerical control panel. He had directed the reassessment of the goods under Heading No. 8538.90 of the Customs Tariff. The order-in-appeal was issued in November, 1988.2. As this is the appeal filed by the Revenue, the Department was asked to serve the notice on the respondents M/s. Rajapalayam Mills Ltd. When the matter had come up on 14-11-1996, the Bench had direc...
Tag this Judgment!