Delhi Court October 1998 Judgments
Special Prints Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-06-1998
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT759TriDel
1. The issue involved in both these appeals is the taxability of nickel perforated cylinders to duty under Chapter 8442, each time when designs are developed and fixed on the cylinder. Arguing the appeal, Shri S.N.Thakkar, ld. Advocate submitted that the appellants purchased duty paid (under 8442) nickel perforated cylinders from their manufacturers.These cylinders are used in the printing of fabrics. Each time the design proposed to be printed on the fabric is changed, a new design is developed and fixed on the nickel perforated cylinders. He submits that this process of fixing a new design on the cylinder does not involve manufacture as no new product is made. Only either a design is imparted on to a blank cylinder or one design is replaced by another design. He draws our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in U.O.I, and Ors. v. J.J. Glass Ind. Ltd. [1998 (1) Supreme 6D] wherein the Apex Court has held that the activity of printing on glass bottles does not amount to manu...
Tag this Judgment!Rakesh Juneja and Others Vs. Baba Chakravorty Darvesh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-06-1998
Reported in: 1999IAD(Delhi)18; 1(1999)CLT560; 76(1998)DLT681; 1999(48)DRJ138
ORDERDR. M.K. Sharma, J.1. This suit was instituted by the plaintiffs against the defendants seeking for cancellation of the documents specifically mentioned in the plaint under the provisions of Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act.2. The present suit relates to a plot of land situated at E-255, Greater Kailash, Part-II, New Delhi, which was developed by DLF Housing and Construction Limited. The said Company sold various residential plots of land of different sizes and the plot in question was sold by the said Company to Smt. Gurdial Kaur wife of Shri Umrao Singh vide registered Sale Deed dated 27th July, 1964. Said Smt. Gurdial Kaur further sold the said plot to Shri Thakur Singh and Shri Lashkar Singh vide a Sale Deed duly registered with the Sub-Registrar on 21st March, 1966. The said co-owners namely, Shri Thakur Singh and Shri Lashkar Singh sold the said plot of land to Shri Satinder Singh vide a Sale Deed duly registered with the Sub-Registrar, New Delhi, on 14th December, 1970...
Tag this Judgment!Daisy Trading Corporation Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-06-1998
Reported in: 1999(48)DRJ807
ORDERDR. M.K.Sharma, J.1.This common order shall dispose of the petition filed under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act as also the objection filed by the petitioner under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act. 2. In pursuance of the contract entered into between the petitioner and the respondent No.1, disputes and differences arose between the parties and the matter was referred to the sole arbitrator, the respondent No.2 in accordance with the arbitration agreement. The respondent No.2, the arbitrator entered into the reference on 9.11.1990 and directed respondent No. 1 being the claimant to file its Statement of Claim by 21.11.1990 and also directed the petitioner to file its Counter Statement of Claim after receiving copy of the Statement of Claim from the claimant and posted the case for hearing on 17.12.1990. 3. On 17.12.1990, the respondent No.1 was present through its officer and the petitioner was present through its counsel. The arbitrator found that the parties were yet t...
Tag this Judgment!Mahabir Parsad Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-06-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)Crimes1; 76(1998)DLT324
ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, by which the appellant Mahabir Parsad was convicted under Sections 363, 366 and 376, IPC. Brief facts necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under:- 2. In this case, the accused appellant is very closely related to the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix, Vidya Devi, is the sister-in-law (his wife's younger sister) of the accused. The appellant, a hawker, was married to Sushma, the elder sister of the prosecutrix . Sushma was a patient of Tuberculosis and so the accused was keen to marry the prosecutrix Vidya Devi. 3. Shyam Lal, PW-1, maternal uncle of the prosecutrix lodged a report with the Police that his sister's daughter Vidya Devi was living with him for about 1-1/2 years and that the accused was residing in the house adja-cent to his house have been missing since 31.7.1975. Shyam Lal further mentioned in the FIR that Sushma was suffering from T.B.,...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Bal Kishan Dabas Vs. University of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-06-1998
Reported in: 1998(47)DRJ343
K. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in History in the second respondent college of the Delhi University. The petitioner had served as a Lecturer in History on ad-hoc basis as per following details: -18.11.1993 to 17.03.199419.03.1994 to 30.04.199418.07.1994 to 17.11.199421.11.1994 to 20.03.199522.03.1995 to 30.04.199517.07.1995 to 16.11.199518.11.1995 to 17.03.199619.03.1996 to 30.04.199616.07.1996 to 15.11.199618.11.1996 to 17.03.199719.03.1997 to 30.04.19972. According to the petitioner, the University issued an advertisement in February, 1995 mentioning that the University intended to fill up three permanent posts of Lecturers in History. The petitioner had also appeared for interview. Ultimately, two Lecturers were appointed. The third post was not filled up. There was an advertisement again in 1996-97 and the third post had been reserved for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.V.K.Rao, vehemently contended that in...
Tag this Judgment!J.B. Salvex Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-1998
Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT197TriDel
1. The short question involved in these appeals is whether the oil extracted from rice bran by solvent extraction process is liable to cess under the Vegetable Oil Cess Act, 1983 or not. This question revolves around the controversy whether the vegetable oil as defined under Section 3(h) of the National Oil Seeds and Vegetable Oil Development Board Act covers the Rice Bran Oil or not.2. Lower Authorities of the Revenue have relied upon Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment in the case of Andhra Pradesh Rice Bran Solvent Extractors Association v. Union of India [1988 (37) E.L.T. 198 (A.P.)] holding that Rice Bran Oil would be liable to cess.3. As against the above judgment the assessee have relied upon Allahabad High Court judgment in the case of U.P. Solvent Extractors Association v. Union of India reported in 1989 (39) E.L.T. 18 (All.).4. Ld. Advocate Shri G.R. Sethi appearing for M/s. J.B. Solvex Industries (P) Ltd. and Ors. and also for Motia Oil Ind. Pvt. Ltd. has pointed out that th...
Tag this Judgment!Chopra Felt Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT394TriDel
1. Heard both sides. Short question involved in these two matters is whether the processing of calendered cotton fabrics undertaken by the appellants further with the help of Zero Zero Machine (without the stenter attachment) shall bring the product in the net of excise duty or not. It is the case of the Revenue that the said processing amounts to shrink-proofing with the aid of power. Therefore, a duty amounting to Rs. 22,727/- and Rs. 14,254.63 has been evaded by the appellants. On adjudication the said duty has been confirmed against the appellants penalties of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 2,500/- has been imposed on the 2 appellants herein respectively. In the matter of Chopra Felt the seized goods have also been confiscated and fine of Rs. 560 has also been imposed in lieu of the confiscation of the seized goods.2. Ld. Advocate Shri K.K. Anand has submitted that the issue whether the processing undertaken with the help of Zero Zero Machine (without the stenter attachment) amounts to the p...
Tag this Judgment!Gharda Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT426TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Gharda Chemicals Ltd. is whether the benefit under Notification No. 201/79 is available in respect of inputs which is used in the manufacture of intermediate product which is exempted from payment of duty.2. When the matter was called none appeared on behalf of the Appellants. They have submitted their written arguments. We hard the Id. SDR and perused the records including the written arguments. The Appellants manufacture products namely Quinaxalinol (Q) and Orthophenylone Diamine (OPDA). They are using a product known as Ortho Nitro Chloro Benzene (ONCB) in the manufacure of OPDA which in turn is used captively in the manufacture of product Q. The Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-Ill disallowed the benefit under Notification No. 201/79 in respect of product ONCB on the ground that it was used in the manufacture of OPDA which is exempted under Notification No. 118/75.3. After hearing the Id. DR and perusing the records ...
Tag this Judgment!National Tyres Retreading Vs. Commr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-1998
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT784TriDel
1. M/s. National Tyre Retreading Company is aggrieved of the impugned order dated 2-5-1997 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the adjudication order in which the tyres imported by them were confiscated under Customs Act for importing without import licence, ordered to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 1,25,000/-and classified the tyres under sub-heading 4011.50 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act for the purpose of levying additional customs duty.2. Shri M.C. Sharma, ld. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Appellants mentioned at the outset that the issue regarding import licence is not being contested and he is praying only for a lenient view regarding the quantum of the redemption fine. He submitted that the imported goods were actually tyre casings where the tread had been eroded beyond the legal safety limits and as such were components for retreaded tyres; that worn out tyres with the remaining pattern/grooves less than 2 mm. indepth were known in t...
Tag this Judgment!Haryana State Electronics Dev. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-1998
Reported in: (1999)(82)LC745Tri(Delhi)
1. The Appellants are aggrieved by the imposition of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 226 read with Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules for violation of Rule 173C read with Rule 173Q and Rule 9(1) and 9(2) of the CE Rules, 1944.1.2. The duty demand on cost of inputs supplied by M/s. BHEL in the assessable value of the product (Test Jigs) manufactured by the appellants herein has already been paid.2. Arguing on behalf of the Appellants Shri J.S. Agarwal, Ld. Advocate submitted that in view of the fact that the appellants paid the duty demand even without waiting for the issue of show cause notice, there is no mala fide intention of evading payment of duty and hence the penalty imposed requires to be set aside. On the other hand the Ld. DR submitted that the factor of payment before issue of notice to the manufacturer as well as to the suppliers, of course has been noted by the adjudicating authority who has imposed low penalty and therefore no interference is called for in the impu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »