Delhi Court August 1997 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Reliance Chemptex Ind. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1997
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT495TriDel
1. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-original dated 9-11-1994 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur, In the impugned order the Collector of Central Excise confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,94,257.02 under Section HA of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The Collector also ordered confiscation of goods pertaining to nine 1 lots under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The personal Penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was also imposed on the appellant under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants are engaged in manufacture of various varieties of blended yarn out of polyester staple fibre, artificial staple fibre (Viscose) and non-cellulosic synthetic waste (NCSW). During the month of February, 1994, the officers of respondents seized 895 packages of man-made yarn out of which 165 samples were drawn for chemical tests. The Deputy Chief Chemist, Central Excise Laboratory, Bombay gave a test report and only 11 samples were found to be differ...
Collector of Customs Vs. Indian Organic Chemicals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1997
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT131TriDel
1. The Respondent herein imported differential Pressure Indicator which is originally assessed under sub-heading 90.26 of C.T.A. Subsequently notice for differential duty was issued as the department thought that the goods were assessable under Heading 98.06 instead of 90.26 as originally assessed. Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand for differential duty holding that item was Poly Extruder and therefore was properly classifiable under Heading 90.06. Being aggrieved by the order the appellants went up in appeal and the Collector (Appeals) on perusal of the catalogue found that the subject goods were self contained differential Pressure Indicator and Controller which can be used with any Dynisco low level 350 Ohm plastic or general purpose transcender making it suitable for a wide variety of applications. The lower Appellate Authority held that the goods in question were complete instruments by themselves and not part of any other equipment and such complete instrument cannot b...
Indian Oxygen Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1997
Reported in: (1997)LC819Tri(Delhi)
1.1 The appellants herein submitted a price list with effect from 1-4-1987 for sale to their resellers (dealers) in respect of commodities, namely, Nitrogen Standard and Nitrogen Dry manufactured by them. The prices declared were Rs. 695.00 for Nitrogen Standard and Rs. 705.00 for Nitrogen Dry.1.2 In an earlier price list effective from 1-4-1986, the appellants declared the prices to their resellers at Rs. 795.00 and Rs. 805.00 respectively and after reduction of turn-over tax and Central Excise duty elements, the assessable value was approved at Rs. 684.39 and 693.00 as against the assessable values subsequently arrived at with effect from 1-4-1987 at Rs. 588.30 and 606.71.1.3 The lower authorities have held that the price to the resellers is not acceptable as declared in the price list with effect from 1-4-1987 on the ground that there has been a clause in the Agreement between the appellants and their resellers (dealers) that the latter would promote the sales of the appellants' pr...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Ideal Electronics
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT94TriDel
1. The respondents herein are manufacturers of Room Coolers, ceiling fans, Washing Machine and domestic appliances classifiable under Chapter Headings 84 and 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.2. The Principal inputs used by the respondents in the manufacture of the above mentioned goods are copper wires, polyester films, and stampings and capacitors. The respondents were maintaining a consolidated RG 23 A Part II Register in respect of inputs utilised in the final products, in pursuance of the Board's letter No. F. 21/41/87, dated 20-4-1987 which provided conditional relaxation with regard to maintenance of consolidated RG 23A Part II Register for those intending to avail this facility. The condition was that monthly statement in the prescribed proforma along with monthly RT 12 Return was to be filed by the assessee availing of; such relaxation showing utilisation of common inputs utilised in the final product, credit of input and amount of duty paid on each final product and ...
Jaypee Rewa Cement Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1997
Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT429TriDel
1. The present appeal pertains to taking of Modvat credit on explosives and furnace oil. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cement. They claimed Modvat credit of duty on the use of explosives in the mining area and furnace oil used in generation of electricity and its subsequent use in the manufacture of cement. The department alleged that Modvat credit will not be admissible on explosives as the same were not used in the factory premises and that Modvat credit will not be admissible on furnace oil as it is not directly used in the manufacture of Cement.2. Shri N. Madhava Rao, the ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants, submits that insofar as admissibility of Modvat credit on explosives is concerned, their case is fully covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of AC.C. Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 415; in the case of Indian Rayon & Industries Ltd. v. CCE, reported in 1995 (76) E.L.T. 358 and also in the case of CC...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Adways
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)917; AIR1998Delhi141; 68(1997)DLT328; 1997(42)DRJ721
Mohammad Shamim, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the orders dated May 29, 1997 and June 16, 1997 passed by an Additional District Judge whereby he directed the parties to maintain the status quo regarding the hoardings put up by the plaintiff/respondent (hereinafter referred to as the `respondent' in order to facilitate the reference).(2) Brief facts which gave rise to the present appeal are as under: that the respondent herein filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as the `appellant' for the sake of convenience), their servants and agents from removing, defacing and damaging the advertisements put up by the respondent on the sit mentioned in Annexure P-1 annexed with the plaint. The respondent Along with the said suit moved a application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (`CPC' for short) for an ad interim injunction (vide Annexure P-1) whereupon the learned lower Court issued notices returnable...
Bharat Lal Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1997
Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)384; 70(1997)DLT43; 1997(42)DRJ765
Vijender Jain, J.(1) Petitioner has filed the petition for making the award rule of the Court. Respondent filed its objections to the award being made rule of the Court. Award in this case was made by Mr. Banarasi Dass. Super intending Engineer of the respondent on 7-6-1991.(2) Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Rajesh Kumar, has contended that the award under Claim Nos. 5, 6 and Additional Claim No. 7 is based on no evidence and no reasons whatsoever have been given by the Arbitrator for making the award and, thereforee, the award be set-aside.(3) Yet another contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent is that the award under Additional Claim No. 2 could not have been granted to the claimant petitioner as in terms of Clause 2 of the agreement a penalty was levied on claimant-petitioner. Lastly learned counsel for the respondent has contended that by not awarding the counter claim No. 3 by which the respondent has claimed a sum of Rs. 29,895.00 towards compensation ...
Nepc Agro Fields Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1997
Reported in: 1998(46)DRJ177
Arun Kumar, J. (1) The learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4 submits that the respondents will make the assessment in accordance with the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It is further submitted that till the procedure prescribed under the Statute is followed, no demand against the petitioner will be enforced. It has been further pointed out that the order by which the operation of the bank account of the petitioner has been stopped has already been withdrawn. In view of this statement on behalf of the respondents, this petition does not survive. The same stands disposed of. (2) The petitioner will co-operate with the respondents in any inquiry which the respondents may hold. (3) Copies of this order be supplied to counsel for the parties dasti. ...
Ashwani Kumar and anr. Vs. State (Government of National Capital Terri ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1997
Reported in: 70(1997)DLT34; II(1998)DMC481
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) The petition challenges the framing of charges under Sections 406,498A and 304B all read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners are Ashwani Kumar and his mother Sushila Devi. (2) Ashwani Kumar's younger brother Arvind was married to Rita Rani on July 9, 1995. On September 1, 1995 she died of poisoning and was cremated on September 3, 1995. The very next day her father Daulat Ram lodged a First Information Report leading to the arrest and subsequent trial of the petitioners and ethers. On September 6, 1996 the charges as noticed above were framed not only against the petitioners but also against Hompal Singh father of Ashwani Kumar and Arvind, the husband of the deceased. (3) As far as the charge under Section 406 read with Section 34 is concerned it was conceded by the learned State Counsel for the State and rightly so, that there is no material on the record to justify the framing of the said charge as against the petitioners. (4) As far as the ...
Cas Engineers Private Limited Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1997
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT671TriDel
1. By the captioned application, the applicants have submitted that in the Trademark Certificate No. 485771, dated 12-2-1988 when this certificate was produced before the Bench it was found that there was ink-blotch at the place of signature of the certificate of Trademark.It has now been explained that a different name of an earlier officer appeared in the Trademark Certificate. In view of measures of economy for utilising the certificate, the name of the Registrar of Trademark had to be blotched since he had retired from the post and a new officer had taken over the charge. We are satisfied with the explanation. We, therefore, proceed to hear the stay petition.2. The learned Counsel submits that for Air-conditioners the benefit is admissible under Notification No. 75/87 which was amended by Notification No. 11/94 effective from 1-4-1994. He submits that the certificate issued tinder Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 to the appellants clearly shows that they were registered owner...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »