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.
Khodiar Pottery Works Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-22-1998
Reported in: (1999)(63)ECC218
2. The appellants herein a manufacturer of ceramic product were found to be manufacturing refractories ceramics support (Setters) falling under Heading 69.01. These are captively used by them for manufacture of the ceramic product such as Toilet-ware, Kitchen sinks and wash basin etc.3. A show cause notice dated 8th August, 1991 was issued to the appellants proposing recovery of duty of Rs. 8,16,881.80 for the period August, 1986 to March, 1991 for the aforesaid ceramics supports manufactured by them and used captively. On adjudication the said amount of duty has been confirmed. A penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on the appellant's Co. and Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the Chief Executive of the appellants Co. Shri H.M. Trivedi. Hence this appeals before us.4. Ld. Advocate Shri B.D. Desai has submitted that no demand of duty is sustainable, because 1. the said goods are fully exempted during the entire period by Notification No. 221/86, dated 2-4-1986.We have heard both sides. We have...
Derby Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-22-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT672TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Derby Textiles Ltd, the matter relates to the availment of Modvat credit on the strength of the invoices which were not pre-authenticated as per the Rules and which did not bear the printed serial numbers. M/s. Derby Textiles Ltd., Jodhpur had received the goods from M/s. Pawan Enterprises, Jodhpur who were not a dealer, and M/s. Pawan Enterprises had received the goods from M/s. Nirup Synchrome Ltd., Bombay. The invoices issued by Nyrup Synchrome Ltd. were not preauthenticated and did not bear the printed serial numbers.The serial numbers were rubber stamped from a Franking Machine. The adjudicating authority considered that it was a mandatory requirement under Rule 57A(6) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 57 GG(5) of the Rules to maintain the invoices which bear printed serial numbers. On appeal, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi, while giving relief in respect of the invoices in respect of which the show cause notice wa...
Shree Kansara Sarvodya Sahakari Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-22-1998
Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT325TriDel
1. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of copper circles and claimed exemption under Notification No. 74/65, dated 1-5-1965, or in the alternative, under Notification No. 54/62, dated 24-4-1962. The impugned order rejected the exemption on the ground that they are not entitled to either exemption notification as the scrap used by them in the manufacture of ingots (from which circles were manufactured) was not classified under sub-item (1) or sub-item (la) of Tariff Item 26A.2. Arguing the appeal, Shri G. Shiv Das, learned Advocate submits that their entitlement to Notification No. 54/62 is beyond questioning, as they fulfil the requirements of the notification.3. The said notification exempts "Circles...in the manufacture of which copper falling under sub-item (1) or sub-item (la) of said item made out of old scrap of copper or copper alloys, or scrap obtained from duty paid virgin metal is used".4. Shri G. Shiv Das, learned Advocate submits that there is no dispute that they ...
Saroj Taneja Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-22-1998
Reported in: 1998VIAD(Delhi)829; 77(1999)DLT233
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The matter lies in a very narrow compass and the facts of the case could be stated in very short terms. 2. The petitioner in the writ petition, Mr.K.K.Taneja, was presented before the General Court Martial and was dismissed from service. He filed the CW.1253/78 challenging the court martial proceedings. That writ petition was allowed on the 2nd of November, 1987, and ultimately, the judgment of this Court was upheld by the Supreme Court. Later on, a notice under Section 19 of the Army Act, 1950 read with Rule 14 of the Army Rules, 1954 was issued. On the 30th of October, 1991 this Court passed ad interim orders in the following terms:- 'CWP.3382/91 Rule. CM.5645/91 Notice for 4th of December, 1991. In the meanwhile, the respondents shall not act on the basis of the impugned show-cause notice dated 29th of August, 1991. Dasti, as prayed.' 3. The ad interim order was modified in the following terms on the 10th of May, 1993:- CM.5645/91 in CW.3382/91 The petit...
Munna Ali Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-22-1998
Reported in: 1998(47)DRJ746
J.B. Goel, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29th and 31st January, 1996 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicting the appellant for offence under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (for short the 'Act') and sentencing him to RI for 10 years and a fine of Rs. one lac and in default of payment of fine RI for 1/1-2 years.2. Briefly, the facts are that the SHO, Police Station Kashmere Gate Along with SI Ram Singh and Cts. Rajinder Singh, Ravinder Kumar and Bali Ram were on patrolling duty in Government vehicle, at about 8.30 p.m. they were present at Boulvard Road Chowk, secret information was received by SI Ram Singh that a person wearing particular clothes was standing at Mini Bus Stop at ISBT having charas in a bag. This information was reduced into writing. The said SI organized a raiding party joining one Ashok Kumar a public witness and Constables with him; the appellant was apprehended at ...
Rajeshwari Devi Bahukhandi Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-22-1998
Reported in: 76(1998)DLT262; 1999(49)DRJ51
K. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The petitioner is the stepmother of the deceased, Gyan Prakash Bahukhandi who was killed at the time of Indo-Pak War in 1971. That fact is not disputed by the respondents. As a matter of fact, some financial assistance also had been given by the Government, The petitioner being a nominee, who had been nominated by the deceased in the service records as nominee, had claimed family pension.2. The respondents have not filed any reply and no counsel appears for the respondents today. Major Vijay Kumar Sharma represented that the counsel had been engaged in this case and, thereforee, he prayed for time to instruct the counsel. The writ petition was filed in 1996 and the respondents had not taken any steps to file the counter. thereforee, I am unable to accede to the request of Major Vijay Kumar Sharma.3. The fact that the deceased was killed in the Indo-Pak War in 1971 is not disputed. The dependant of the soldier would be entitled to family pension. The attitude of th...
Verma Trafag Instrument P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-1998
Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT327TriDel
"5 KW, Flange Heater (suitable for 415 V, 50 Hz, 3 phase supply) with Explosionproof terminal box. EEXde II C, with 1 Ex-Limiter 350 deg. C Heating elements Nos. 6. dia. 12.8 mm made of AISI 316L, flange DN 100, PN 16. S.S. cable entires for power & control, suitable, for Steam & Nitrogen Heating".2. Department has classified the aforesaid product under Tariff Heading 85.16. "85.16 - Electric instantaneous or storage water heaters and immersion heaters; electric space heating apparatus and soil heating apparatus; electro-thermic hair dressing apparatus (for example, hair dryers, hair curlers, curling tong heaters) and hand dryers; electric smoothing irons; other electro-thermic appliances of a kind used for domestic purposes; electric heating resistors, other than those of Heading No. 85.45." 3. Appellants however, contend that the correct classification of the product will be under tariff Heading 8419.90 parts which is described below :- 84.19 - Machinery, plant or laboratory...
Amar Forgings Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT251TriDel
1. The dispute is in respect of classification of products of Iron & Steel, roughly shaped by forging of bars, rods, blooms, billets, slabs, sheets etc. The appellants claimed the classification of these products under Tariff Heading 7208.00. According to Department, these items are classifiable under Tariff Heading 7308.00.2. When the matter was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellants. However, there was a request from them to decide the case on merits. Accordingly, we proceed to pass this order after hearing Shri R.D. Negi, learned DR.3. In the Memorandum of appeal, it was submitted by the party that the Board has issued Circular F. No. 139/79/87-CX.4 dated 18-9-1989 following the order of the Supreme Court in the case of TISCO v. Union of India, 1988 (35) E.L.T. 605 (S.C.) that decision on castings should be applicable mutatis mutandis. In classification of forgings as well.It was also clarified that entries in Chapter 72 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 are to be i...
Escorts Employees Ancillaries Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT158TriDel
1. The issue involved in this case is the demand of duty on goods which had been removed by the appellant under 57F(2) procedure. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of carburettor. They receive zinc as input and take Modvat credit of duty paid on the inputs. They manufacture float chamber (FC) body and master chamber (MC) body for the manufacture of carburettor by the process of casting. These are sent under 57F(2) challans to certain job workers for carrying out processes like fettling and deveurring and part of the goods so sent did not come back to the appellant from the premises of the job worker.The demand of duty is on such goods. The demand has also been made under the extended period of time as provided in proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act.2. Arguing the appeal Shri R.C. Gupta, learned Counsel submits that the demand of duty is not justified. He submits that the appellants were only liable to reverse credit taken on the inputs used in the manufacture ...
U.S. Choudhary Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-1998
Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT925TriDel
1. The appeal is directed against the order passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur demanding Service Tax of Rs. 22,615/- under Section 68(3) read with Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 along with interest at the rate of 18% from the appellant Shri U.S. Choudhary a Stock Broker. In addition, he has also imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The demand of Service Tax and interest from the appellant and the imposition of penalty were ordered on the ground that appellant had not paid service tax in respect of three transactions of sale of shares.2. Appearing for the appellant Ms. Manjula Gupta, learned Counsel stated that the transactions in question were sales to Stock Brokers registered with Stock Exchange other than U.P. Stock Exchange with which he is registered. Service Tax is attracted only for services provided to an investor. A member of Stock Exchange is not to be considered as an investor for purpose of levy of Service Tax.3. Appe...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »