Delhi Court October 1998 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1998 Page 15 of about 203 results (0.008 seconds)Bezel Pharma (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT323TriDel
1. The appellants have sent a letter, dated 16-6-1997 briefly summerising their pleas and requesting that the case may be decided in their absence on the basis of their written submissions. Accordingly we have gone through the records and heard ld. SDR. In the written submissions, briefly, the appellants have mainly stated in their written submission that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products falling under Chapter 30. In addition to their own branded products, they manufacture branded pharmaceutical products of other persons in their factory on loan licence basis. Their factory is an undertaking registered with the Director of Industries, Maharashtra as a small scale industry under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951.2. During the years 1986-87 and 1987-88 they were manufacturing Zoacide-V tablets using Miconazole Nitrate and Newmycin Sulphate as ingredients, Decanazole cream using Miconazole Nitrate as ingredient, and Es-tolin in S...
Tag this Judgment!Rose Business Forms Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT320TriDel
1. The appellants have sent a letter, dated 11-12-1997 requesting for decision on merits. Accordingly, we have gone through the records and heard the ld. DR. In the appeal memo, it has been stated, inter alia, that the appellant is mainly and principally a Printing Industry engaged inter alia, in the manufacture of manifold business forms (continuous computer stationery) required for use in computer printer peripherial units and also rulled papers. Both these items are known as articles of stationery. For the above purposes, off-set printing machineries are installed in the appellant's factory.1.2. The appellant purchases duty paid paper from the market and manufacture, by carrying out printing processes with the aid of the printing machineries, printed computer stationery (Manifold business forms) and rulled papers which are both of them articles of stationery.Printing is a predominant process carried out by the appellant.1.3. On or about 15-10-1989, the appellant filed a classificat...
Tag this Judgment!Syndet and Chemical Industries Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT85TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi on 15-7-1992.2. Learned Advocate, Shri. A.R. Madhav Rao for the appellants stated that the appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of detergent powder. The appellants are taking Modvat credit on the poly bags received by them. During the course of manufacture, especially during the filling of detergent powder in the bags, certain bags got damaged and rejected and they were no longer fit for use as bags. The appellants have cleared the rejected poly bags by claiming classification under sub-heading 3915.90 with full exemption under Notification No. 53/88-C.E.2.1. Ld. Counsel submitted that the Assistant Commissioner passed Order-in-Original by classifying the rejected bags under sub-heading 3923.90 and also held that Modvat credit to the extent of duty paid on such rejected bags should not be allowed. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that Modvat credit cannot be denied in the present case in ...
Tag this Judgment!Bharatia Industries Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(82)LC607Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the duty can be demanded for the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act.2. In brief the facts of the case are that M/s. Bhartia Industries manufacture Motor vehicle parts viz. lever set gear shift control assembly for M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. As they were not including the cost of the components/parts received free from M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. in the assessable value of the motor vehicle parts manufactured and removed by them, a show cause notice dated 6.6.1991 was issued to the appellants for demanding differential central excise duty amounting to Rs. 13,77,680.13 for the period from 1986-87 to 1989-90. The Collector confirmed the demand of duty for Rs. 11,69,239.70 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/-under the impugned order.3. Shri Pradeep Jain, Ld. Advocate, submitted that the Appellants had not wilfully suppressed the fact of non-inclusion of value of components supplied to them free by Maruti Ud...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmi Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC256Tri(Delhi)
1. The appeal is against the Order-in-Original dated 22-2-1990 passed by the Additional Collector, Central Excise, Chandigarh ordering confiscation of goods valued at Rs. 16,26,159/-but holding that as the same had already been provisionally released to the appellant, they should be deemed to have been redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/- which was ordered to be appropriated against the amount of security deposited under the B-11 Bond executed in that behalf by the appellant. Duty on the confiscated goods was directed to be paid after accountal in the statutory records. In addition, duty of Rs. 3,28,275.76 paise was demanded in respect of the goods short-accounted and on goods held to have been removed without payment of duty leviable thereon. Penalty of Rupees one lakh was also imposed on the appellant.2. The impugned order has been passed by the adjudicating authority following the visit of the Central Excise officers to the premises of the appellant situated in th...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Ishwar Arts
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT757TriDel
1. The Revenue has filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 27-7-1992 passed by the C.C.E. (Appeals), Ahmedabad.2. Ld. DR stated that respondents who are manufacturers of thermoware had filed C/List 6-9-1990 in respect of "Rigid PU Foam" used as insulation material and obtained by injecting chemical by INSITU process in thermoware showing it under sub-heading No. 3921.11 but claiming that the said product is non-excisable. The Asstt. Collector, C. Ex. did not agree and approved the said C/List subject to levy of duty under C.S.H. No. 3921.11. The Appellate Collector set aside the Asstt. Collector's order on the ground that the said rigid PU foam generated inside the thermowares is not marketed separately as 'goods'.3. The Department's contention is that the assessee, in the process of manufacture of thermoware, utilises chemical like polyol & isocynotes both of which are unstable and which are injected into the cavity around the thermoware i.e. between the inner & o...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. K.J. Vakharia and Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT774TriDel
1.2 The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of man-made fabrics.For printing purpose they purchased nylon bolting cloth and metal/wooden frames from the market and manufacture printing frames out of them. They used these printing frames captively. No exemption was available to such printing frames till 2nd September, 1987 when they were used captively by such manufacturers. A Notification No.39/90-C.E. (N.T.), dated 10-10-90 came to be issued under Section 11C of the Act, doing away with the requirement of recovery of duty payable on such printing frames falling under Chapter Heading 84.42 which were captively used during the period 28-2-86 to 2nd September, 1987. A show cause notice was issued to the respondents asking them to show cause as to why duty should not be recovered from them on the printing frames under the Chapter Heading 84.42 during the above period on the ground that the respondents did not declare the production of the printing frames and did not file classific...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh Chand Gupta (Dr.) Vs. Shri Shiv Sarup Gupta
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998VIAD(Delhi)605; 76(1998)DLT165; 1998(47)DRJ602; 1998RLR627
ORDERC.M. Nayar, J.1. This petition is directed against the judgment dated August 24, 1995 passed by Shri H.S.Sharma, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. The eviction petition of the petitioner filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was dismissed.2. The petitioner let out the premises at D-219, defense Colony, New Delhi comprising of two bed rooms with bath rooms, study room, drawing-cum-dining room, glazed verandah and kitchen on the first floor and a servant quarter on the barsati floor by an Order dated July 22, 1978 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi in a petition under Section 21 of the Act. The premises were, admittedly, let out for residential purposes. It was next next alleged that the respondent illegally and unauthorisedly took forcible possession of one room on November 1, 1987 and civil and criminal proceedings are pending inter-se between the parties. The petitioner has claimed that he does not ow...
Tag this Judgment!BIn Sabt Jewellery Llc Dubai (Uae) Vs. Commission of Income-tax and or ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998VIAD(Delhi)628; 76(1998)DLT161
ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. The petitioner is a bullion dealer in Dubai and a major exporter of bullion to India. In July, 1998 the petitioner received an order for supply of gold from Shri Ganesh Exports, New Delhi. Pursuant to the order so received, the petitioner dispatched a consignment consisting of 200 it bars of gold. The documents were forwarded to the Punjab National Bank, Okhla Indl. Estate, New Delhi instructing the bankers to retire the documents against cash. The consignment having reached New Delhi Air Cargo Complex by Air India flight on 24.7.98, the customs authorities got suspicious because the telephone numbers of the bank as well as those of the notified consignee as entered on the airway bill were of 6 digits. Enquiries from the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. confirmed that the said telephone numbers were not in existence in any location of Delhi. The notified consignee was not found at the given address. The bankers were also not in a position to identify or provide the...
Tag this Judgment!Kishore Zarda Factory (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. J.P. Tobacco House and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1999Delhi172
ORDERP.K. Jain, J.1. In a suit for permanent injunction, restraining infringement of trade mark, copyright, passing off, damages etc., in respect of the trade mark 'SHIVDATA' in relation to chewing tobacco, the plaintiffs have primarily prayed for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, its servants, agents etc., from manufacturing, exporting, selling, offering for sale, directly or indirectly, its product under the trade name 'SHOVA' with identical colour scheme of pink and grey on the tin, brown and pink on the cartons, same lettering, get up, placement, similar picture of lord Shiva in oval shape in the background of mountains and blue sky on tins cartons which are substantial reproduction or colourable imitation of the plaintiff's tin/carton and from doing any other thing which is likely to lead to confusion or deception, resulting in passing off the defendants' goods as those of the plaintiffs. Along with the suit they have filed the present application (IA No. 7081/95) ...
Tag this Judgment!