Delhi Court March 1998 Judgments

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Coromandel Prodorite (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT1021TriDel

1. Respondent is absent in spite of notice of hearing. We have heard Shri M. Ali, JDR.2. Respondent filed price list in Part I in respect of goods sold to buyers and price list in Part II in respect of goods sold under a contract to one of the buyers who was also purchasing goods otherwise then under contract and the prices were approved. Duty was being paid on the two approved prices respectively. Subsequently demand was proposed for payment of duty on goods covered by price list in Part II, on assessable value based on the higher price approved in price list in Part I. The Assistant Collector confirmed the demand but the Collector (Appeals) set aside the same. The Department being aggrieved has field this appeal.3. When on the basis of a genuine contract a price has been agreed upon and goods supplied at that price, the price cannot be enhanced on the ground that in respect of buyers not covered by contracts, a higher price had been collected. We find no ground to interfere and acco...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Tansi Engg. Works

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT264TriDel

1. The respondents in this case were manufacturing tanks, water tank, elpical tank, G.I. drum, fire buckets and similar containers for which the classification claimed by them was under sub-heading 7308.90. A show cause notice was issued seeking to amend classification to sub-heading 8312.90 and seeking to recover the differential duty. The Assistant Collector in his order held that the goods were not containers of base metal intended for packing the goods for sale which alone would merit classification under Heading 83.12. Upholding the claim of the assessees, he dropped the proceedings. The Collector (Appeals) dealing with the application made under Section 35E(4) of the CESA, 1944 by the Assistant Collector, also held similar view and dismissed the application. The present appeal from the revenue arises out of this order.2. We have heard Shri D.S. Negi, ld. SDR The respondents desired disposal on merits.3. The entry under 7308.90 is essentially residuary in character. Where certain...

Detriv Instrumentation and Vs. Collr. of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)LC129Tri(Delhi)

1. M/s. Detriv Instrumentation & Electronics Ltd. imported the goods which they described in the Bill of Entry as Copper Clad Wire. For customs duty purposes, the goods were classified under Heading No.73.15 of the Customs Tariff. For countervailing (CV) duty, the classification was claimed under Item No. 25(14) of the Central Excise Rules. The customs assessed the goods for CV Duty purposes under Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The goods were cleared on payment of duty and subsequently the appellants filed a refund claim, claiming that the correct classification for CV duty purposes should have been under Item No. 26AA of the tariff with benefit of Notification No.116/81-C.E., dated 12-5-1981 with regard to the concessional rate of special excise duty. The claim was rejected by the Deputy Collector of Customs as unsubstantiated. On appeal, the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, confirmed the view taken by the adjudicating authority.2. The appellants have prayed for...

Rajindra Alloys Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT560TriDel

1. Appellants in this case are aggrieved with the Order-in-Original dated 28-8-1995 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur demanding duty amounts of Rs. 4,61,126.40 and Rs. 14,51,720.40 from them. The amounts involved related to deemed credit of duty on inputs taken by the appellants during two periods. These were disallowed by the Commissioner by the impugned order.2. Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of angles, sheets and sections falling under Chapter sub-heading 7216.20 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985 and they were availing deemed credit facility under Rule 57G(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in respect of their inputs for the manufacture of the final products as per their declaration in terms of Govt. of India Order No. 342/5/91-TRU dated 7-7-1992. The Department alleged that the appellants had taken deemed Modvat credit and utilised the same for payment of duty on final products against credit memos and Bills which were under cover of improper docume...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. American Auto Services

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)LC321Tri(Delhi)

1. The short question arising for consideration is whether cash discount claimed by the respondent would be admissible. The cash discount declared by the respondent was in the form of prompt payment discount which was known to the buyers by reason of circulars issued by the respondent. All buyers who made prompt payment were given the discount. Such buyers who did not pay were not given the discount. The show cause notice indicated that the cash discount was not deductible since it was not given to all buyers. The Assistant Collector being satisfied that the discount was given to all buyers who were eligible for the same, dropped the proceedings. The Collector (Appeals) declined to interfere at the instance of the department being aggrieved has filed this appeal.2. From what we have indicated above, it is clear that cash discount was declared subject to the condition of prompt payment and was given to all those who satisfied the condition. The mere fact that some buyers did not make p...

Collector of Customs Vs. Sunshine General Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT120TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the order-in-appeal, dated 26-2-1991 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras, is under challenge. The matter relates to the classification of the goods which were described in the bill of entry as 'Haemometer'. The respondents, M/s. Sunshine General Industries had sought classification of the Haemometer under sub-heading No. 9027.80 of the Customs Tariff which covered instrument and apparatus for physical or chemical analysis. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras, after referring to the explanatory notes to the tariff came to a view that the goods imported had the essential character of glassware and could not be classified as an instrument. On appeal, the order passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs was set aside and the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras, after referring to the sample and catalogue held that the goods were correctly classifiable under Heading No. 90.27 of the Customs Tariff.2. We have heard Shri M....

Daulat Ram Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. The appeal, preferred by the assessee, is directed against the order of the CIT(A) for the asst. yr. 1990-91.2. The first ground raised is against sustaining the addition of Rs. 4,510 out of the cash found at the residence amounting to Rs. 44,510 at the time of search. The facts as borne out from the records are that search and seizure operations were carried out at the business and residential premises of the assessee on 19th September, 1989, by the Department and as a result thereof the Revenue recovered cash, jewellery, valuable articles and books of account and documents. The assessee in the return filed on 27th March, 1991 declared an income of Rs. 1,91,370 consisting of the following : (ii) amount surrendered out of cash found amounting to Rs. 1,64,510 during search operations 1,20,000; and (iii) current income invested in purchase of gold ornaments weighing 200 gms surrendered under s. 132(4) 57,760 1,97,369 2.1. We find that during the course of search cash of Rs. 1,64,510 ...

S.K. Dewan and anr. Vs. Shri K.S. Marwaha

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)264; 72(1998)DLT690; 1998(45)DRJ434

ORDERLokeshwar Prasad, J.1. The present Civil Revision, filed by the petitioners, is directed against an order dated the 10th October, 1997, passed by Shri A.K. Sarpal, Civil Judge, Delhi whereby the learned Civil Judge closed petitioners evidence on the application filed by the respondent under Order XXXIX Rule 2 (A) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CPC').2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present petition lie in a narrow compass. The respondent Shri K.S. Marwaha has filed a suit (S.No. 399/93 entitled Shri K.S. Marwaha v. Shri S.K. Dewan & Anr.) for permanent injunction averring that the respondent is the owner and is in possession of agricultural land, measuring 1 bigha in Khasra No. 645, situated at village Malikpur Kohi alias Rangpuri, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi. Along with the suit, the respondent/plaintiff has also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC. An ex-parte ad inte...

G.K. Malik Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998IVAD(Delhi)69; 72(1998)DLT746; 1998(45)DRJ340; [1998(79)FLR446]

Dr. M. K. Sharma, J.1. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 15.7.1993 passed by the respondents terminating the services of the petitioner effective from 20.7.1993. The petitioner was appointed as a Trainee Officer with the respondent No.1 on 21.1.1991. The said appointment letter dated 19.11.1990 stated that the petitioner would be on training for a period of one year from the date of his joining as an Officer Trainee and that the said period of training might be extended or terminated depending upon the performance of the petitioner, his application, attendance and bearing. It was also stipulated in the said appointment letter that on successful completion of training the petitioner would be absorbed in the regular service of the Corporation and that he would be on probation for a period of 6 months and that the said period of probation could be extended at the discretion of respondent No.1 or could be determined if considered necessary depending upon the ove...

Jaswant Singh Vs. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)883; 72(1998)DLT686; 1998(45)DRJ464

Dr. M. K. Sharma, J. 1. Challenge is made, in this writ petition by the petitioners, to the orders dated 22.4.1978 and 17.5.1978 whereby the respondents have promoted respondents No. 5 to 47 to the post of Assistant Engineers (Electrical). The petitioners have sought for quashing of the said promotion orders with a further direction that the petitioners be considered for promotion to the said post according to the draft R & P Regulations with effect from the date from which the said respondents were promoted with all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioners, at the relevant time, were working as Foreman with respondent No. l. According to the petitioners 43 posts were created in the cadre of Assistant Engineers by upgrading the said posts from the cadre of Superintendents (Technical). The said posts, petitioners state, were required to be filled up in accordance with the provisions of draft Recruitment Regulations, in terms of which the petitioners were eligible to be considered for ...