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.
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Century Pulp and Paper
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-1998
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT123TriDel
1. The ld. Collector (Appeals), in the impugned order, held: "I have gone through the case papers carefully. I find there is sufficient force in the contention of the appellant. Approval shall take effect from the date the PL/CL is received in the office. A similar decision has been taken by the Appellate Tribunal in the case of IDPL v. C.C.E.[1987 (27) E.L.T. 356 (T)] wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal has held that the PL/CL is effective from the date of filing and not from the date the approval is accorded." Revenue being aggrieved by this order has filed the present Appeal.2. The facts of the case are that the Appellants submitted revised Price list on 2-3-1992 on account of budgetary changes. In this Price list, the prices at which the woods were ordinarily sold in the course of the wholesale trade were not revised and remained the same as shown in the previously approved price list. But due to increase in the rate of Special Excise Duty, value as claimed for approval by the assessee a...
Lajwanti Kakkar Vs. India Sulphacid Industries Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-1998
Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)11; 77(1999)DLT119; 1999(48)DRJ553
C.M. Nayar, J.1. The present petition is directed against the judgment dated March 30, 1993 passed by Additional Rent Controller, Delhi whereby the eviction petition of the petitioner filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was dismissed.2. The petitioner is the (owner of the property bearing No. K-8, Kailash Colony, New Delhi. Respondent was inducted as a tenant on the entire ground floor except one room 5' x5' shown in colour blue in the site plan comprising of three bed rooms, one study room, one kitchen, one front verandah and lawn etc. It is alleged that in August, 1984 the respondent handed over vacant and peaceful possession of a room and bath room along with rear passage going from the main gate to the petitioner. The premises were let out to the respondent for residential purposes for the residence of B.N. Khandelwal, Secretary of the respondent Company at the relevant time. The eviction petition was moved as the p...
Phool Kumar and Others Vs. Vijay Kumar and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-1998
Reported in: 1998VIIAD(Delhi)229; [1999]1CompCas32(Delhi); 1999CriLJ988; 1999(1)Crimes444; 76(1998)DLT844; 1998(47)DRJ712; ILR1998Delhi974
ORDERD.K. Jain, J.1. This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Code) is directed against the judgment dated 7 December 1996 of Sh.Raghubir Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, passed in respondent no.1 and 2's criminal revisions no.132/96 and 134/96, setting aside the summoning order dated 24 July 1996 passed by Sh.Sudhir Kumar Jain, Metropolitan Magistrate, in petitioners' complaint under sections 451, 427 and 506 IPC, inter alia, against the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kotwali, (respondent no.1) and Patwari Halka, Nangal Thakran, Delhi (respondent no.2) for want of sanction under section 197 of the Code.2. It is pleaded that there was no material before the learned Additional Sessions Judge to set aside the summoning order; the impugned order being illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, the same may be set aside and that of the Metropolitan Magistrate be restored.3. Petitioners herein filed a complaint under the affronted sections...
Shivanshi Ferrous P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-1998
Reported in: (1999)LC139Tri(Delhi)
1. Ld. Advocate, Shri Amit Awasthi submits that the impugned order dated i7-3-1998 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur-I is clearly an order under Section 3A(2) on the basis of declaration of technical parameters made by the appellants herein in respect of their induction furnace. The appellants have being highly aggrieved, appealed against the said order because the capacity of the furnace has been fixed on 12032 MT. per annum. They have accordingly taken up the matter with the Commissioner to redetermine the capacity in terms of Sub-section 4 of Section 3A ibid. Despite, 3 reminders the Commissioner has not undertaken redeter-mination of the capacity and they have not been called for personal hearing to explain their case, as has been done by the said Commissioner himself in respect of some other parties.An example of the same has also been given by the appellants herein. In fact Shri Awasthi has brought to our notice a letter dated 11-10-1998 from the Assistant Com...
Balaji Vegetables Products Pvt. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-1998
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT802TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Balaji Vegetables Products Pvt. Ltd., the main issue for our consideration is whether the demand made vide addendum to the adjudication order dated 31-12-1988 was sustainable.Shri Vinay Garg, learned Advocate had pleaded before us that the adjudication order dated 31-12-1988 was in persuance of the remand proceedings arising out of the two orders in appeal (1) dated 19-2-1987 and the other dated 24-7-1987 and that the period involved in those proceedings was prior to January, 1985. The period involved in the present proceedings is from January, 1985 to January, 1988 for which the learned Advocate pleaded that no show cause notice was issued. The demand was confirmed without any show cause notice vide addendum to the adjudication order which related to the earlier period. He pleaded that the order in appeal which is impugned in these proceedings is not sustainable as the principles of natural justice had not been followed in raising the demand against th...
Commissioner of Cus. Vs. H.C.L., Hewlett Packard
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT362TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal preferred by the Revenue is whether the sound Blaster Cards, Video Blaster Cards and T.V. Coder to generate sound and video signals are classifiable under sub-heading 8473.30 as held by the Commissioner (Appeals) or under sub-headings 8519.99 and 8521.90 as classified by the adjudicating authority in the Order-in-Original.2. Shri R. Panchatcharam learned DR, submitted that the importers had imported multimedia kits containing sound cards and classified whole kit as sound reproducing equipment, but has sought classification of sound card which is one of the components of the kits separately imported as accessory to the computer; that a component of the kit is classifiable under the same heading where the kit is classified unless the component is specifically included in any other heading. He further submitted that the equipments imported by the respondents are merely connected to P.C. and the speakers to produce sound effect or connected to TV scree...
Swarup Fibres Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT348TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Swarup Fibres Industries Ltd. is whether Vulcanised Fibre is classifiable under sub-heading 4823.90 as claimed by them or under subheading 3920.31 as confirmed in the impugned order.2. Miss Monica Singal, learned Advocate, submitted that before 1-3-1988 there was a specific sub-heading in the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act which covered Vulcanised Fibre. The sub-heading was 3913.30.In their earlier case, when the issue of classification of Vulcanised Fibre came before the Appellate Tribunal, it was decided that the product would fall under sub-heading 3913.30 as there was a specific heading in the Tariff. She submitted that even at that time Revenue claimed the classification of the product under sub-heading 3920.22.With effect from 1-3-1988 this sub-heading 3913.30 was deleted from the Tariff. She drew our attention to the process of manufacture which is given in the impugned order (page 19 of the appeal papers) according ...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Choice Copier (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT565TriDel
1. The Collector in the impugned order dealt with two situations. In the first situation the contest was as to the admissibility of Modvat credit on the strength of a certificate issued by MMTC as regards payment of additional duty of customs. The second issue in contest was invoice issued by a trader who was not registered. These two separate contested issues were dealt with by the Assistant Commissioner in a common order. The Commissioner (Appeals) also disposed of both these issues vide the single impugned order. Dealing with the second contested invoice i.e. invoice No. 6125, dated 1-7-1994, issued by the M/s. Bansal Trading Co., he held that by virtue of the issuing trader subsequently having got himself registered, in terms of Board Circular No. 76/76/94-CX, dated 8-11-1994, the invoice became eligible document.Against this order the Revenue had filed two appeals. I have compared the appeal memorandum in appeals in E/1356 and E/1357/98-NB. Both appeals speak of the Commissioner'...
Charanjit Kaur Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-1998
Reported in: (1999)(82)LC736Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal arises from order in original No. 7/92 dated 8.1.1992 passed by Additional Collector of Customs under Section 111(i) Customs Act read with 111(m) and 112(a) of Customs Act. The issue pertains to levy of duty in respect of goods declared under transfer of Residence Rule as baggage which has been brought by the appellant along with her.The covering letter to the impugned order intimates the party to file an appeal before CEGAT. The appellant being guided by the said covering letter has filed this appeal. Learned JDR points out proviso to Section 129(A) which clearly oust the jurisdiction of Appellate Tribunal to deal with an order relating to any goods imported or exported by baggage. He points out that the appeal should have been filed before the Government of India in terms of Baggage Rules. Learned Advocate points out that the party was guided by the covering letter to the impugned order issued by the Additional Collector.2. On a careful consideration of the submission...
Arvind Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-1998
Reported in: (1999)LC411Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal No. 313/90, dated 28-2-1990 rejecting the appeal on the ground that application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is liable to be rejected. It was urged that the appeal could not be filed within the time limit as the appellant was seeking clarification from the department with regard to another item pending in the refund claim. In this regard the appellants had cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. v. MST Katiji and Ors.reported in 1987 (28) E.L.T. 185 (S.C.) and that of M/s. Zenith Electronics reported in 1986 (25) E.L.T. 746.2. Learned Counsel submitted that the delay was not due to any negligence but due to the genuine reasons inasmuch as that they had filed refund claim in respect of two items. The Asst. Collector has decided on only one item. They were waiting from the Asst. Collector a response to their representation and as a result marginal delay was ca...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »