Delhi Court October 1998 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.
Minor Manufacturers Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-26-1998
Reported in: (1999)(63)ECC245
1. Classification of kraft folders of specific sizes and of some interlinking channels which are supplied together, though not fitted together, to their customers by the appellants herein. The Revenue has classified the product in the impugned order under Tariff Heading 94.03 as parts of filing cabinet whereas the appellants herein contend that kraft folders are covered by Tariff Heading 4818.90 and steel interlinking channels for those folders are covered by Tariff Heading 8505.00.2. Whether the demand of duty for the period 1-10-1987 to 25-10-1989 treating the same as falling under Tariff Heading 94.03, as held by the adjudicating authority is barred by time or not.2.1 Relevant facts for dealing with the aforesaid two questions are as follows :- 2.2 The appellants herein filed a classification list w.e.f. 1-3-1987 in respect of the two folders, namely, systems folders and latra folders under Tariff sub-heading 4818.90 and claimed exemption under Notification No. 43/86 dated 10-2-198...
Associated Packaging Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-26-1998
Reported in: (1999)(63)ECC182
1. In all these four appeals, the common issue which arises for determination is the correct classification of the item 'HDPE fabrics laminated with LDPE on both sides' manufactured by the assessees herein--the department seeks classification under subheading 3920.32 (prior to 1.3.1988 and under sub-heading 3920.28 subsequent to 1.3.1988). Heading 39.20 reads as under: Other plates, sheets, films, foil and strips of plastics, non-cellular, whether lacquered or metallised or laminated, supported or similarly combined with other materials or not". Heading 3920.32 covers "Flexible plates, sheets, films, foil and strips". From 1.3.1988 the corresponding heading 3920.38 covered "flexible, laminated sheets ". The manufacturers claim classification of the item as other articles of plastic falling under sub-heading 3926.90.2. We have heard Shri V Lakshmi Kumaran. learned Counsel for M/s.Associated Packaging Industries and M/s. Moneeto Plasti-Fab (P) Ltd., Shri K.K. Anand. learned Counsel for ...
international Electron Devices Vs. Commr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-26-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT238TriDel
1. These are two appeals filed by the appellants accompanying with stay applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and stay of recovery proceedings.2. By the impugned order, the Commissioner has; confirmed demand of duty amounting to Rs. 1,03,49,982.13 as short levied under Section 28(1) proviso of Customs Act, 1962. He also observed that Rs. 16 lakhs have already been deposited by the appellants voluntarily. He imposed penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs on the appellant M/s. International Electron Devices Ltd., under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962. In addition, he also imposed personal penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- on Shri Sudhir Kumar and Rs. 1,00,000/- each on Shri G.K. Taneja and Shri R.K. Tandon under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Shri B.V. Kumar appearing for the appellants submitted that he has no information whether the other notices namely G.K. Taneja and R.K. Tandon have filed appeal or not. After hearing for sometime with reference to the stay applications, we felt th...
Saheli Marbles (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-26-1998
Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT48TriDel
1. The applicants submit that notice for hearing on 28-5-1998 on which date the appeal was dismissed for non-appearance was sent to the appellants factory, but, due to heavy slump in the marble market, only watchman was available at the factory gate and they did not forward the hearing notice to the Director of the Company. The hearing notice was also not received by the appellant's Counsel. In these circumstances, no one represented the appellants and the appeal was dismissed for default. The appellants pray for restoration of the appeal and hearing on merits. The learned DR fairly leaves the matter for decision by the Bench.2. We accept the explanation of the appellants, set aside the dismissal order, restore the appeal and fix it for hearing on 16-12-1998....
Gopal Zarda Udyog Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-26-1998
Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT426TriDel
1. Shri Vivek Kohli, learned advocate prays for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the following amounts duties :- Rs. 6,14,17,770/- demanded from the three applicants herein in respect of a product which the Revenue classifies as mixture of chewing tobacco falling under Heading 24.04. Learned advocate submits that the disputed product is not at all marketable because that product can be converted into salable chewing tobacco only by them and not by any other person. Apart from that he also submits that even if the assumption of Revenue is considered to be correct, the appellants would be entitled to Modvat credit on the final branded chewing tobacco in which the disputed product has been ultimately used and utilised. It is not disputed by the Revenue that the said disputed product has been utilised in the branded chewing tobacco which has been cleared on payment of duty.Therefore, whatever demand of duty is confirmed against the appellants the same will be liable to be tak...
Victor Cable Industries Limited Vs. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-26-1998
Reported in: 76(1998)DLT740
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. In relation to contract for supply of 90 kilometers of underground electric cables contained in Purchase Order dated 11.3.1992 issued by the respondents, the petitioner made supplies of entire goods. While effecting the aforesaid supplies in terms of the Purchase Order, disputes arose between the parties and, thereforee, the petitioner filed a petition in this Court under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act being Suit No. 1055/1994.2. This Court by order dated 8.11.1994 directed for appointment of an arbitrator in accordance with the arbitration agreement between the parties. In terms of the aforesaid direction, the respondent No.3 was appointed as the sole arbitrator by order dated 21.12.1994. The respondent No.3 entered upon the reference and after giving detailed hearing and after receiving evidence on record made and published his award on 6.2.1996. The aforesaid award was filed in this Court as against which objections have been filed by both the parties. ...
Sat Pal Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-26-1998
Reported in: 1998VIIAD(Delhi)724; 1999(1)ARBLR223(Delhi); 77(1999)DLT33; (1999)121PLR74; 1999(1)RLR577
Mohd. Shamim, J.1. This is a petition under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for issue of a direction to the arbitrator i.e. respondent No. 3 herein, to file the award dated May 25, 1995.2. In pursuant to the said prayer a direction was issued to the learned arbitrator to file the award. The award was filed in pursuance to the said direction as is manifest from the order dated September 10, 1996. Notices were issued to both the parties with regard to the filing of the award. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed objections to the said award (vide is No. 258/97) while the petitioner did not choose to file any objections thereto.3. A perusal of the objections filed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 reveals that the respondents have confined their objections to claims Nos. 1,3,4,7,8 and counter claim.FINDINGS:Claims Nos. 3 & 4 4. Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Sharma has vehemently contended that the claimant herein did not complete the work within time and a penalty of Rs. 4,000/-...
B.R. Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-26-1998
Reported in: 1998(47)DRJ723
Vijender Jain, J. 1. The charges framed against the petitioner were | - 1. Unauthorised entry into the Quarter No. VIII/61 of 7121143/ N K Sandil, on 20.9.83. 2. Misbehaviour with Smt.Kamla Devi, w/o Naik N K Sandil at about 1000 hrs. on 20.9.83. 3. Threatening Smt.Kamla Devi, w/o Naik N K Sandil on 20.9.83. On the basis of. the aforesaid charges, the petitioner was dismissed vide order of the respondent dated 19.3.1984. The Appellate Authority also upheld the order of dismissal and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on 16.7.1985. The fate of the petitioner was sealed by the the Reviewing Authority which also dismissed the petition of the petitioner on 8.5.1986. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order passed by the respondent was whimsical, arbitrary and showed complete non-application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. This Court while exercising writ jurisdiction is not sitting in appeal over the orders passed by the respondents, how...
Rupani Textile Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-1998
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT946TriDel
1. These are 8 appeals filed by the appellants with reference to the common impugned order involving common issues and therefore they are clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order. "M/s. Mahavir Group of Industries, M/s Rupani Metal Reed Manufacturing Works and M/s. Rupani Textile Industries should collectively pay Central Excise duty totalling Rs. 5,54,922.00 (Rupees Five lakh Fifty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Two only) (Basic Excise Duty Rs. 5,17,527.42 + Special Excise Duty Rs. 7,394.50) forthwith under the provision of Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. I confiscate the seized goods valued at Rs. 16,000/- under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. These goods having been handed over to Shri Dhirajlal N. Rupani under Supratnama, those goods may be redeemed, if required, by Shri Dhirajlal N. Rupani. or his firms: M/s Mahavir Group of Industries and M/s. Rupani Metal Reed Manufact...
Cce Vs. Banas Kantha Distt. Co. Op. Milk
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT182TriDel
1. The controversy in the present case is whether sweetened partly skimmed milk powder (SPSMP) is the same as sweetened skimmed milk powder (SSMP). Lower appellate authority/has, relying on Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment in the case of A/L/3. Food Specialities Ltd., reported in 1991 (51) E.L.T. 310 (P & H) has held that they are two products and are different. Hence the benefit of Notification No.4/90 has been extended to the SPSMP. It is against the aforesaid findings that the Revenue has come in appeal before us.2. Revenue's sole ground is that Chapter Note I of Chapter 4 equates skimmed milk, partly skimmed milk and full cream milk within the expression 'milk' used in Chapter 4. Therefore, partly skimmed milk powder and skimmed milk powder, according to the Revenue, are one and the same thing. And hence, benefit of notification is not applicable to the partly skimmed milk powder since it is the same thing as skimmed milk powder according to the Revenue.3. We have heard ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »