Delhi Court September 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.
Moosa Haji Patrawala Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT55TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 30-5-1989 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals).2. On the basis of the Revenue appeal, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) held that the "shafts" manufactured by the appellants are classifiable under 8483.00 and not under 8414 since the "shafts" are goods in Central Excise Tariff Act and in view of Section Note 2(a) of Section XVI, they would be more appropriately classifiable under sub-heading 8483.00.3. The appellants have submitted written submissions and are not present. Learned DR reiterates the Department's arguments submitting that these are specific goods described under 8483.00 and this classification is supported by the HSN Notes.4. We have heard the learned DR and perused the record of the case. The Collector (Appeals) has gone only by the description of the heading without indicating what the shafts actually are. The appellants on the other hand have contended that the CTH 84.83 which refers to trans...
Shriram Bearing Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1997
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT404TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original dated 30-10-1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Patna, confirming the demand in respect of the period from 19-2-1977 to 15-11-1979 in terms of the show cause notice dated 19-4-1982.2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of Ball Bearings, filed several price lists during the period 1976-79 declaring cash discount of 2% during one period and 11/2% during succeeding period and on approval of the same, cleared the goods to the depots at the discounted value. In other words, duty was paid on the basis of the assessable value after deducting the cash discount. Show cause notice was issued stating that such discount was not eventually allowed to all customers "on the point of sale" as per terms and conditions given in the price lists. It was, therefore, not deductible under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Appellant resisted the notice contending that since cash discount was known to the trade and offered to all...
Jindal Strips Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT747TriDel
1. The Commissioner in the impugned order which is the Order-in-Original had held that kiln and furnace is essentially a plant or equipment used for the manufacture of final products of iron or steel by bringing about a change in the raw material. The appellants contended that the lining materials in question which are essential for the manufacture and are used as components/accessories for the efficient functioning of the kilns/furnaces, are to be extended the benefit of Modvat credit in view of the explanation l(b) under Rule 57Q. On this contention, the Commissioner held that the Modvat credit has been taken on refractories prior to 16-3-1995 when these were not specified as capital goods under Rule 57Q(1). The Commissioner further held that these are used in kilns-lining purpose only. He disallowed the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 10,37,606/-.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel products. For heating sheets, arc furnac...
Eleind Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1997
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT484TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Eleind Engineering Pvt. Ltd., the matter relates to the classification of the Alsint Two Bore Insulators' oval shape imported by the appellants and the applicability to the exemption Notification No. 97/89-Cus., dated 1-3-1989 as amended. The goods were imported by post and were declared as 'porcelain for laboratory use . The appellants sought classification u/s.h. No.9025.90 of the Customs Tariff as parts of the pyrometer. They also claimed the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No.172/89-Cus. The appellants had explained before the adjudicating authority that these insulators were used for insulating high temperature Electromotive Force (emf) originated through metal resistance and were suitable for use in pyrometer. The goods were classified by the Asstt. Collector, Customs Foreign Post Office, New Delhi u/s.h. No. 8546.20 of the Tariff as electrical insulator of ceramic. On appeal, the Collector, Customs (Appeals) observed that ...
Madhusudan Vegetable Products Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT78TriDel
1. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of soap filed Price List Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5, all of 1987 claiming various deductions. The Assistant Collector disallowed deduction of interest on receivables and annual trade discount. The Collector (Appeals) confirmed the disallowance of the annual trade discount, set aside disallowance of deduction of interest on receivables and remanded the case for decision on the question of deductibility of interest on receivables. This order was passed in view of the Supreme Court recalling the judgment in the earlier MRF Ltd. case [1987 (27) E.L.T. 553 (S.C.)]. The order is being challenged in relation to the annual trade discount.2. According to the appellant, every dealer is given a trade discount at the rate of 50 paise per carton of 12 kg. of soap, the quantum being calculated and paid after the end of the year. The Assistant Collector agreed that this is one of the sale conditions noted on the reverse of the invoices. That being so, the existence of...
Abnash Chander Chopra Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1997
Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)932; 68(1997)DLT858
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.(1) By this writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner seeks quashing the letter of allotment dated 5.2.1991, received by him from the respondent-DDA, offering allotment of flat No. 10 (ground floor) Rohini, New Delhi at the cost of Rs. 2,60,438.67. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to allot the said flat at the rates prevailing on 15.12.1989, when the flat No. 53, Block B, Pocket 11, Sector 18, (second floor), Rohini, New Delhi was allotted to him. (2) The respondent-DDA prepared and published a scheme called 'Registration Scheme of New Pattern 1979 of intending purchasers of flats to be constructed by DDA' providing the procedure for allotment of flats constructed by it. The petitioner had got registered himself for allotment of a flat under the said scheme. The cost of a flat under the scheme was fixed at Rs. 42,000.00 . A draw was held on 15.12.1989 and vide allotment-cum-demand letter dated 14.2.1990 a flat beari...
D. Rana @ Dharmesh Prill @ Dharmesh Rana Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1997
Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)880; 1998CriLJ354; 69(1997)DLT746; 1997(43)DRJ328
A.P. Misra, C.J.(1) Heard, learned counsel for the parties. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, as also agreed by the learned counsel for the parties, it is being disposed of finally at the admission stage. (2) The petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 25.9.1996 passed by the respondent No. 2 and for the direction to set him at liberty forthwith. The brief facts of the case are as under: ON4th April, 1996 Shri Imad Ali Hussain Ali, holder of Iraqi Passport, reported at Customs counter with one black coloured brief case in the Customs departure hall of Igi Airport, New Delhi for onward journey to Oman by flight No. RJ-193. After clearance, while he was stopped by the Customs authorities and it is alleged that from his possession foreign currency equivalent to Rs. 10,97,000.00 approximately was recovered and seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 by the Customs authorities. It is also alleged that from his possession certain documents we...
Mohd. Naseem Vs. Chaman Ara Begum
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1997
Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)256; 71(1998)DLT130; 1997(43)DRJ325; 1997RLR667
Vijender Jain, J. (1) Bawa Shiv Charan Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Decree Holders, states that this application is not necessary and wishes to withdraw the same. (2) Dismissed as withdrawn. Ex. 163/91 & EAs. 127-128/95 & 322/95 (3) This is an application (EA 127/1995) under Section 47 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'CPC') by Mohd.Saddique, husband of the deceased Judgment Debtor. Mr. B.I. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Objector-husband of the deceased Judgment Debtor, has contended that the decree was obtained by fraud and, thereforee, the same cannot be executed and the decree be set aside. Another contention raised by Mr.B.I. Singh is that the suit, which was filed by the plaintiff/Decree Holder was for mandatory injunction and no order in the execution proceedings can be passed for delivery of possession. In support of his contention, he has cited a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Sarup Singh Vs . Daryodhan Singh :...
Jona Caps and Containers Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT310TriDel
1. These two appeals arise from Order-in-Original No. 25/88, dated 4-5-1988 passed by Collector of Central Excise, Cochin in terms of which he demanded Central Excise duty of Rs. 15,72,664.75 from the firm M/s. Jona Caps and Containers and its partners, and imposed a penalty of Rs. one lakh on the firm besides imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on Shri M.J. Johnson, its Managing Partner. The said decision was taken by the Collector on the ground that the firm had manufactured certain quantity of crown corks that fell under Item 41 of Central Excise Tariff during the period before 28-2-1986 and under Tariff sub-heading 8309.10 thereafter and that they cleared the same without payment of the duty leviable thereon. The Collector based his finding of such clandestine production and clearance of the goods on the statements recorded from their employees who mentioned about the shifts and the days the factory worked, the production capacity per shift as well as the statements of some of the ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. King Plastics
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-1997
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT647TriDel
1. This is a Department's appeal against the order of Commissioner of Central Excise (Judicial), Bombay dated 11-7-1990.2. Learned Departmental Representative stated that the respondents were engaged in the manufacture of 'Plastics pulverised powder', classifiable under Heading 3901.90, out of duty paid plastic granules and were undertaking colouring of plastic granules on job work basis.It was noticed that they were not holders of Central Excise licence and were clearing the goods without payment of duty. Hence, a show cause notice was issued and the Collector of Central Excise adjudicated the case. The Collector (A) has, however observed that Chapter Note 6 was to be read in conjunction with Chapter Note 3 and held that no case was made out against the party before 1-3-1988 and dropped the proceedings.The department has come up in appeal against this order as Chapter Note 6 had been amended and in its amended form, it became applicable notwithstanding anything contained in Note 3 to...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »