Delhi Court November 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.
Nirbhay Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1998
Reported in: 77(1999)DLT181
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. None appeared on behalf of the respondents even on 10.2.1998 and 10.9.1998. The respondent was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 1,000/-within seven days. It appears from the official record that the order has not been complied with. It appears that the respondent is not serious about the matter.2. The writ petition is accordingly taken up today. The prayer of the petitioner in the writ petition is that consequent upon the acquisition of land no compensation has been awarded to him and even the compensation pursuant to the award of the Collector had also not been awarded to him apart from the statutory benefits. Since the respondent has not filed counter affidavit and in accordance with the orders relied on by the petitioner, in CW 3095/92 wherein the Division Bench of this Court 'directed the Union of India to pay to the petitioner the compensation within three weeks from today Along with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date the compensation becomes payable ti...
All India Federation of Tax Practitioners Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1998
Reported in: (1999)151CTR(Del)1; [1998]236ITR1(Delhi); [1998]101TAXMAN401(Delhi)
Lahoti, J.All India Federation of Tax Practitioners, the petitioner, is a registered body having individual members from all over the country and also represents many associations having the object of protecting the interests of tax payers and tax consultants and to ensure that the direct tax laws are just and f air and are administered justly and fairly. The association is aggrieved by Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 ('hereinafter referred to as the Scheme') and seeks to lay a challenge to its constitutional validity.2. The Scheme is contained in sections 86 to 98 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998. The object of the Scheme as explained by the Finance Minister of his speech is:-' 95. Litigation has been the bane of both direct and indirect taxes. A lot of energy of the Revenue Department is being frittered in pursuing large number of litigations pending at different levels for long periods of time. Considerable revenue also gets locked up in such disputes. Deluging the system will not o...
Shyam Oilcake Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-1998
Reported in: (1999)LC40Tri(Delhi)
1. In all these appeals, common question of law and facts are involved, hence they are all taken up together for disposal as per law.2. The question that arises for consideration in these appeals is as to whether the refining process carried out by the appellants on the vegetable oils purchased from the open market will amount to manufacturing process under ithe provisions of Central Excise law and if so whether the new commodity as arising from the same is to be classified under sub-heading 1503.10 of the tariff and as to whether the duty is leviable? 3. The appellants had contended that the refining process undertaken by the appellants does not amount to manufacture under the provisions of Section 2(f) of CE Act. This contention was negatived by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that such process carried out by the appellants is incidental or ancillary to the completion of manufactured product. As regards the classification of the item under Tariff heading 1503.10, the Commis...
Shahnaz Ayurvedics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-1998
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT136TriDel
1. These are five applications as under for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of amount of Central Excise duty and penalty demand and imposed by Commissioner of Central Excise under the impugned order dated 7-8-1998 :(i) M/s. Shahnaz Ayurvedics... Rs. 3,68,04,850/-(Duty) Okhla Indl. Area... Rs. 3,68,04,850/-(Penalty)(ii) M/s. Shahnaz Ayurvedics,... Rs. 4,80,84,599/-(Duty) Noida ... Rs. 4,80,84,599/ (Penalty)(iii) M/s. Shahnaz Ayurvedics... Rs. 92,30,773/-(Duty) Noida ... Rs. 92,30,773/-(Penalty)(iv) M/s. Shaheeb Cosmetics... Rs. 25,00,000/-(Penalty)(v) M/s. Shahnaz Hussain... Rs. 50,00,000/-(Penalty) The learned Sr. Advocate submitted that M/s. Shahnaz Ayurvedics, manufacture patent & proprietory Ayurvedic medicines since 1986; that they had applied and obtained a Drug licence from the Drug Authority under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; that the entire demand is barred by limitation and pertains to a period six months prior to the issuance of the show cause notice; th...
Savita Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-1998
Reported in: (1999)(63)ECC199
1. The appellants herein manufacture inter alia, Liquid Paraffin I.P.They filed a classification list No. 14/85, dated 21-3-1985 in which they claimed exemption from payment of duty for this product in terms of Notification 234/82, dated 1-11-1982 in terms of Sl. No. 21 of the Table annexed thereto. 3 show cause notices were issued proposing denial of the benefit of the Notification and consequential recovery of duty. The details of the notices are under : 1. Show cause notice dated 9-9-1985 demanding duty of Rs. 2,97,322.60 for clearances during the period 1-2-1982 to 31-7-1985. 2. Show cause notice dated 25-4-1986 demanding duty of Rs. 5,13,850.05 for the clearances during the period 1-8-1985 to 31-10-1985. 3. Show cause notice dated 27-5-1986 demanding duty of Rs. 7,33,126.95 for clearances during the period 1-11-1985 to 28-2-1986.All the three notices were adjudicated by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay who held that exemption would be available in cases of clearance to dru...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. United Phosphorus Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-1998
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT836TriDel
1. The sole issue of determination in this appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad is the eligibility of yellow phosphorus manufactured by the respondents herein and cleared following Chapter X procedure for the manufacture of pesticides is entitled to the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 43/88, dated 1-3-1988. The Department's contention is that since yellow phosphorus has not been specifically enumerated in the Notification, it is not entitled to the benefit thereunder.2. After hearing Shri Sumit Dass, JDR and Shri Prakash Shah, Advocate and perusing the case law cited before us, we find that it has already held by the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 479/96-C, dated 19-7-1996 reported in 1996 (16) RLT 177 in the assessee's own case that yellow/white phosphorus are one and the same. Yellow phosphorus is so described due to the presence of the impurities. The Tribunal extended the benefit of Notification No. ...
Hindon Forge (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT372TriDel
1. Ld. Counsel stated that this is a stay explication filed w.r.t. to Order-in-Appeal passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad dated 26-11-1997. The matter relates to availment of Modvat credit. The appellants are manufacturing a number of items and they had filed a declaration in the normal course under 57A in respect of those items.Subsequently they started manufacturing a third item but by mistake did not file a fresh declaration or a supplementary declaration for some time, initially they had missed doing so but subsequently rectified the mistake by filing the required declaration after a gap of about two months when the requirement came to their notice. They also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the said declaration.Department however has proceeded in the matter without considering their condonation application and a show cause notice has been issued and both at the A.C. and the Commissioner's level ex parte orders have been passed and the benefit has be...
Lalwani Earthmovers Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-1998
Reported in: (1999)LC269Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Lalwani Earthmovers Ltd., the Order-in Original dated 23-9-1991 passed by the Addl. Collector of Central Excise, Indore is under challenge. Originally, a show cause notice was issued to the appellants on 13-8-1986 by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Indore. The period involved was the years 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85. The extended period of limitation was invoked for demanding central excise duty of Rs. 48,460.05. The appellants were asked to show cause to the Dy. Collector of Central Excise, Indore. The matter was adjudicated by the Dy. Collector of Central Excise, Indore and on appeal, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) remanded the matter for re-adjudication after agreeing with the submissions of the appellants that with effect from 23-12-1985 the show cause notice for the extended period was to be issued only by the Collector of Central Excise. Thereafter, another show cause notice was issued to the appellants on 17-1-1990 by the Add...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. True Graph Charts Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT341TriDel
1. This appeal arises out of the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). In this appeal, the learned Collector (Appeals) held that merely cutting it into smaller rolls would not change its end use or identity.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are cutting jumbo rolls. The department alleged that after slitting, the goods fall for classification under Heading 48.23. The Assistant Collector held that thermal paper roll when cut in various sizes shall be classifiable under Heading 2823.90. In addition, the Commissioner (Appeals) following the decision in the Systems Packaging case reported in 1990 (43) E.L.T. 165 (Tribunal) held that smaller rolls do not become specifically identifiable as articles of paper and therefore, no process of manufacture was involved.3. Against this finding, the department has filed the appeal on the ground that the process of cutting jumbo rolls into thermal paper rolls amounts to manufacture inasmuch as, the thermal paper roll is a diffe...
Easter Industries Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT566TriDel
1. When the stay application came up for hearing it appeared that the impugned appeal itself could be disposed of at this stage. Both sides agreeing, this was done after granting unconditional stay of the sums confirmed in the proceedings.2. On 3/4-3-1996 the jurisdictional officers conducted verification of the physical stocks of fully finished excisable goods in the assessees' factory. They detected insignificant excesses in PET chips and PBT and shortages in fuel oil on which the assessee took correctional action.However, a show cause notice was issued alleging liability to confiscation of the excess quantity of 2218.5 Kgs. of Polyester Film found excess and also seeking penal action against the assessee. The Assistant Commissioner in his finding was satisfied that excesses was not of 2218.5 Kgs, but that it was limited to 270.30 Kgs. He ordered confiscation of this quantity valued at Rs. 56,970.55 but permitted redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. 14,242.64 and also imposed equi...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »