Delhi Court February 1998 Judgments
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Perfect Circle
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1998
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT233TriDel
1. Respondent is absent in spite of notice of hearing. There is no representation and no request for adjournment. However, respondent has sent a telegram requesting for a copy of the memorandum of appeal. We find that a copy of the memorandum of appeal had been sent to the respondent along with communication dated 20-6-1991. We have heard Shri A.K. Agarwal, SDR and perused the papers.2. This appeal has been filed by the department against the order passed by the Collector (Appeals), Bombay in this and three other appeals filed against various orders of the Assistant Collector, Nasik, Div. I. One of the orders passed in question is order dated 4-8-1989.The dispute relates to rejection of claims of certain deductions on the part of the respondent.3. On an earlier occasion the respondent filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging the earlier order passed by the Assistant Collector denying certain deductions. The writ petition was dismissed.Respondent challenged this decis...
Tag this Judgment!Associated Switchgears Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1998
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT437TriDel
1. The appellant filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.480-CE/MRT/96 dated 7-10-1996. The benefit of Modvat credit of Rs. 79,8357-taken on C.R. Coils/Strips falling under sub-heading 7209.30 denied on the ground that they have not declared the input C.R.Coils/strips falling under sub-heading 7209.30 of the Central [Excise] Tariff Act., 1985 has made been described by the appellant by that declaration shall under 57G of the Central Excise Rule 1944.2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submit that appellants had filed the detailed declaration declaring 33 items as inputs for their final products and they have declared strips of iron falling under Chapter No. 72 sub-heading 72.11 as inputs. He further submits that the Notification No. 177/86 dated 1-3-1986 provides only Chapter heading in respect of description of inputs and in respect of description of final products. He further submits that difference between Chapter Heading 72.11 and 72.90 is of only that Chapter...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Associates Engg.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1998
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT236TriDel
1. This Appeal filed by the Revenue against the impugned order dated 20-6-1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. When the matter had come up for hearing on 15-10-1997 the Bench observed that the authorisation is not proper and in view of the request made by the ld. DR time was given to enable him to file relevant copy of the note sheet order. Further the matter again come up for hearing two or three times. Shri Nunthuk, ld. DR today places the copy of the notesheet order. From the perusal of the order we find that the Superintendent has placed the draft appeal along with the grounds of appeal and put up for approval with the authorisation letter before the Collector. There is no indication whether Collector had applied his mind with reference to the impugned order for filing appeal or not.There was no mention of his approval for filing the appeal. After applying his mind he should give authorisation in favour of the concerned officer for filing the appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Mahinder Pal JaIn Vs. Jai Bhagwan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1998
Reported in: 71(1998)DLT766
Usha Mehra, J.1. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order of the Additional District Judge whereby the judgment and decree passed by the Sub Judge in his favor in Suit No. 366/80 has been set aside. Against the decree passed by Subjudge the present respondent preferred an appeal before the Additional District judge. The learned Additional District judge after considering the case of the parties held that Issues No. 3 & 4 pertaining to the applicability of Delhi Rent Control Act and question of jurisdiction of Civil Court could not be decided on the basis of oral testimony. For that parties were required to produce notification. He accordingly remanded the case back. He further directed that the Trial Court would record evidence of the parties on these two issues namely Issue No. 3 which read as 'Whether the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act are not applicable to the premises in suit?' and Issue No. 4 Which read as 'Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit?' Part...
Tag this Judgment!M.B.S. Hygince Product Pvt. and ors. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1998
Reported in: 1998IIAD(Delhi)593; 71(1998)DLT640
Jaspal Singh, J.1. At one stage the petitioner was engaged in the manufacture/production of sanitary towels/napkins. Admittedly it has since ceased to manufacture them. Its unit stands closed with the machinery also disposed of. It claims that it plans to upgrade the facilities of manufacturing sanitary towels napkins. Its grievance is that since such upgradiation will call for an investment of well above Rs. 3 crores and as the manufacture or production of sanitary towels/napkins is reserved for the small scale sector, the proposed investment of well above Rs. 3 crores would take the petitioner Company out of small scale sector. It has thus chosen to challenge the legality of reserving the manufacture/production of sanitary napkins only for small scale sector.2. The Notification reserving the production of sanitary napkins for manufacturing by small scale sector purports to be in exercise of powers under Section 29B(1) of the Industries (Development and Regulations) Act, 1951 (hereina...
Tag this Judgment!Barnes Investment Ltd. Vs. Raj Kumar Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1998
Reported in: 1998(44)DRJ796
D.K. Jain, J.1. EA No. 343/97 has been filed by one M/s. United Towers India (P) Limited for impleadment as well as for recall, set aside and variation of the warrants of attachment issued by this Court on 4 May 1994, in respect of property No. 22, Barakhamba lane, New Delhi (subsequently corrected as 20, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi). EA No. 344/97 has been filed by Raj Kumar Gupta - Judgment debtor No. 1, for recall of the said warrants of attachment. These arise under the following circumstances:On the basis of judgment dated 29 March 1988, obtained under the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933, Part-1, from the High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division, Commercial Court, England, in suit bearing No. 1988 Folio No. 1090, M/s. Barnes Investment Limited and two others against Raj Kumar Gupta (judgment debtor No. 1) and seven others, styled as defendants, the plaintiffs, (hereinafter referred to as the decree holders) filed execution No. 135/92 against Raj Kumar Gupta-...
Tag this Judgment!Girnar Spinning Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT720TriDel
1. These appeals are directed against the order dated 27-2-1989 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise. The appellants are alleged to have manufactured and removed steam without payment of duty during the period August, 1983 to April, 1984 and May, 1984 to February, 1986. The Additional Collector upheld the demand amounting to Rs. 25,216.50 P and demanded duty of Rs. 1,33,458/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 60,000/- in E/Appeal No. 1734/89-D.2. Arguing on behalf of the appellants, the learned Counsel submits that they are fully eligible to exemption under Notification No.179/77, dated 18-6-1977 which exempts the goods if in relation to the manufacture, no process is carried out with the aid of power. In their case the manufacture is without the aid of power. The diesel operated pump to which the Additional Collector referred, is used only for drawing water from the well and to lift it to the overhead tank. Thus it is not used merely for making steam but is also used for o...
Tag this Judgment!Swami Samartha Shetkari Va Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-1998
Reported in: (1998)LC183Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-original No. 38/88, dated 13-10-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Aurangahad.2. It was alleged that the appellants Wrapping Registers indicated yarn of higher counts than what was declared to the department and on which duty was paid.3. Arguing for the appellants, the learned Counsel submits that the Wrapping Register only indicates the average counts of yarn which comes from different ring frames. It is a record maintained by the Mills only for quality control purposes and cannot be considered an authenticated record to indicate counts of the yarn. When they find yarn of higher counts coming out, they immediately take corrective measures so that yarn confirms to the count which is intended to be sold. During the relevant period, in fact, the count of yarn was tested by the Deputy Chief Chemist and there was not a single case in which there was any variation. It only indicates that the yarn was sold actually confirming to t...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. India Glycols Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-1998
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT125TriDel
1. Whether the following items are eligible items for the purpose of Modvat credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules is the issue to be considered in this appeal: 2. Heard both sides. It was the contention of the assessee that the above items are capital goods and they are eligible items and the Tribunal had an occasion to consider the eligibility of these items and in a number of cases it has been held that these items are eligible capital goods. On the other hand Shri Srivastava, ld. DR submitted that with reference to the wires and cables, the Tribunal has taken a different view in the case of J.K. Pharma Chem. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli reported in 1997 (21) RLT 868. He also submitted that air-conditioners had not taken part in the process of manufacture of the finished product and the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Shanmugaraja Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 84 held that humidification plants though helps in maintaining certai...
Tag this Judgment!Solar Packaging (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-1998
Reported in: (1998)(61)ECC254
1. This appeal is directed against order-in-original dated 18-1-1990 of Additional Collector of Central Excise, Rajkot.2. The Appellants are alleged to have removed Typewriter Ribbons without discharging duty.3. Arguing on behalf of the Appellants the ld. Counsel submits that the impugned goods were in the nature of only slitted cotton fabrics and had not attained the essential character of the typewriter ribbons. In this connection he referred to the statement of Shri Deora, Proprietor, M/s. Crown Stationers who stated that essential operations required for manufacture of typewriter ribbons were carried out only at their factory.4. Ld. DR draws attention to the Interpretative Rule 2(a) and submits that Additional Collector rightly relied upon this rule to hold that the slitted cotton fabrics had attained the character of finished goods and therefore in terms of Tariff Heading 96.12 which refers to tape or similar ribbons inked or otherwise the goods were liable to duty.5. We have hea...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »