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.
Metlon India Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT339TriDel
1. This application is filed with reference to the order passed by the Collector (Appeals), Ghaziabad dated 21-7-1998.2. Learned Counsel stated that in this case the issue relates to claiming Modvat in respect of 'evaporation boats' in which aluminium wires are placed for heat treatment. They claimed the benefit of Rule 57A but the Department denied the same on the ground that these cannot be treated as inputs and could only be considered as capital goods.Even if the Department was correct, the item would be eligible for Modvat under Rule 57Q. Furthermore whereas there is one judgment in the case of Madhya Pradesh Polypropylene Ltd. v. CCE, Indore 1996 (88) E.L.T. 730 (Tribunal) holding that these items were in the nature of tools and equipments not covered by Rule 57A, there are two other orders - one in the case of India Coffee and Tea Distributing Company Limited v. C.C.E. -1998 (99) E.L.T. 79 (Tribunal) holding that graphite boats were consumable items covered by Rule 57A and anot...
Golden Polymarbles Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-1998
Reported in: (1999)LC442Tri(Delhi)
1. Question involved, in the present matter, is of classification of a product described by the appellants herein as artificial marble treating it as "Marble in slab" under Tariff Heading 25.04 of CETA, 1985."(a) Marble : 70% (b) P.V.C. resin : 10% (c) Calcium Carbonate : 5% and (d) Fillers and pigments : 15%".3. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants as to why their claim for classification of the said product under Heading 25.04 be not modified to Tariff Heading 68.07 as "articles of stone" inasmuch as process of manufacture basically involved solidification of unsaturated polyester resin in the presence of filler material and colourants.4. On adjudication the appellants did not succeed in their claim. Nor did they get success at the lower appellate stage. Hence this appeal before us.5. Learned Advocate for the appellants has submitted that the product is bought and sold in the market as 'marble' inasmuch as predominant content in the product, as evident from the compositi...
Collector of Customs Vs. Caprihans (i) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT388TriDel
1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bombay confirming the duty demand of Rs. 82,798.70 P being the duty recoverable on additional amounts collected as packing charges and slitting charges respectively by the respondents, herein, who are manufacturers of PVC film and sheeting.2. The duty demand was confirmed by the order dated 19-10-1989 of the Additional Collector under which a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was also imposed. However, on appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal set aside the Additional Collector's order and remanded the matter to the Additional Collector for passing fresh order disclosing the result of verification regarding method of packing and despatching of goods by the assessee to the respondents. Before the Additional Collector whose order is in challenge before us, the respondents contended that the verification report of the Superintendent on the method of packing of their goods was based on audit objection and presumpt...
international Engineers and Projects Vs. M/S. Asea Brown Boveri Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-1998
Reported in: [1999]96CompCas548(Delhi); 1999(48)DRJ499
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. By this order I propose to dispose the is No. 3270/98 filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 CPC for restraining the defendant No. 1 from invoking and encashing the bank guarantee No. 207/97 dated 14.7.1997.2. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration and permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 2 from invoking and encashing the bank guarantee on the allegations that in 1994, defendant No.1 had entered into a contract with defendant No. 3 for execution of the work under tender No. PL-PJ-STIC-VCPPL-01 for Veerangam-Chaksu-Panipat Project (Annexure C). The defendant No.1 entered into a contract with the plaintiff to execute the work in accordance with the agreement (Annexure D). The plaintiff was required to furnish a bank guarantee to secure the mobilisation advance of 10% of the contract. Despite submission of the bank guarantee, the defendant No.1 did not release the mobilisation advance in time. The defe...
Chathia Kaur and ors. Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-1998
Reported in: 77(1999)DLT259; (1999)ILLJ1275Del
ORDERCCP23/971. Heard. 2. Though there is a prayer for adjournment but the same is refused being unjustified. Heard finally. 3. There was an award made under Section 33-C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act in favor of late Virender Pandit the husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner No. 2 to 4, which directed payment of Rs. 47,098/- on account of wages. The award having been made on 22.5.1993 was not implemented by the respondents. In the year 1995, the petitioners approached this Courts by filing a writ petition seeking implementation of the award. By order dated 9.11.1995 made in CWP 414/95 this Court directed the award to be implemented within three months from the date of the communication of the order of the Court. Even that was not done. 4. The petitioners thereafter filed present petition under Sections 11 and 12 of Contempt of Courts Act for initiating Contempt of Court proceedings against the respondents. During the pendency of the petition, in the year 1997 the amo...
Naveen Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-1998
Reported in: 76(1998)DLT541; 1999(48)DRJ357
J.B. Goel, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 29th October, 1993 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (ASJ) convicting the appellant for offence under Section 18 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (for short the 'Act') and sentencing him to RI for 10 years and a fine of Rs. one lakh and in default of payment of fine RI for 2 years.2. Briefly, the facts are that SI Prithvi Singh of Police Station Mukerjee Nagar along with Head Constable Lala Ram and Constable Janeshwar on 3.4.1990 at about 6.30 P.M. when present at Batra Cinema had received secret information that one personwould come from Majnu Ka Tilla and go towards Nehru Vihar having opium in sufficient quantity and if he is caught the same could be recovered. The information was reduced in writing. S.I. Prithvi Singh joined two public witnesses Vijay Kumar and Ashok Kumar there and organized a raiding party which took position at Ganda Nala near Nehru ...
Vimal Printery Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-1998
Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT980TriDel
1. In all these three 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 all these appeals is as to whether the appellants are disentitled to the benefit of exemption Notification for small scale industries under Notification 175/86, dated 1-3-1986 on the ground that the raw material namely, 'Duplex-Boards' supplied by M/s. ITC Ltd. contained their house mark ITC on the inner flap? The appellants are manufacturers of printed paper containers falling under Chapter sub-heading 4818.12 of CET from Duplex-Boards falling under Chapter sub-heading 4805.30 of CET supplied by M/s. ITC Ltd. 3. The lower authorities have taken a view that the appellants are not eligible to the benefit of the said Notification as they affixed on the printed packing containers that the trade name [or] the [symbol] of M/s. ITC Ltd. and as M/s. ITC Ltd. are not eligible for grant of the exemption under ...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Vipulam Enterprises (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT666TriDel
1. The assessee in this case purchased hard board from the market as also decorative papers. They pasted the papers on the board and cleared it. The department's allegation was that this amounted to manufacture in terms of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and that duty was once again payable. The plea of the assessee was that the tariff heading did not change and that no process of manufacture was involved.The Assistant Collector in his order held that by virtue of the pasting of the paper a new product commercially known in the market, came into existence and that the duty was required to be levied afresh. The Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order reversed this decision placing reliance on the HSN note under Heading 4411.00 which is on par with Heading 4407.10 in the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. He observed that the goods would remain classified under this heading even where they were covered with paper. On this ground he allowed the appeal resulting in the presen...
S.P. Gupta and Sons Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-1998
Reported in: (1999)(111)ELT651TriDel
1. The short point involved in this case is whether flavoured pan masala manufactured by the appellants is classifiable under sub-heading 2107.91 as claimed by the Department or subheading [2106.90] as claimed by the party.2. Heard Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, learned Advocate for the appellants and department was represented by Shri A.K. Agarwal, learned SDR.3. It was brought to our notice that the issue involved in this case has been covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Amar Products v. Additional Collector of C. Ex., Kanpur reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 500 (Tribunal) holding that the item in question is classifiable under sub-heading 2106.90 by majority order and the view taken by the Tribunal has been upheld by the Supreme Court as reported in 1998 (101) E.L.T. A134. The Tribunal in its order had held by a majority decision that no positive evidence was produced by the Department to show that the product manufactured by the appellant did not contain betelnuts or supari....
Eicher Tractor Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT341TriDel
1. Learned Chartered Accountant, Shri S. Madhavan prays for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of Rs. 18,37,104/- sought to be denied as Modvat credit taken by the applicants on inputs which are admittedly used exclusively in a final product, namely, tractors which are exempted from payment of duty.2. Learned Chartered Accountant points out that the Scheme of Rules 57C and 57CC does not call for this retrenchment of credit, as proposed by the lower authorities. The scheme envisages payment of duty on the goods which were otherwise exempted if inputs are used in manufacture of both dutiable and exempted final products. This they have done in terms of provisions of Rule 57CC(1). Therefore, there is no question of retrenchment of credit on inputs used exclusively in exempted tractors.On the other hand, Revenue's contention is that 57C(1) gives the authority for retrenchment of the said credit because it is not permissible in the first instance at the outset.3. We are of the view ...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »