Delhi Court March 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.
Dhanman Precicast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1998
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT269TriDel
1. Whether Iron and Steel casting manufactured by the appellants should be classifiable under Chapter 73 as claimed by the appellants or under Chapter 84 to 87 according to the department is an issue to be considered in this case.2. Shri Sekhar, learned Advocate, appearing for the appellants submitted that the issue involved in this case has been covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shivaji Works Ltd. v. C.C.E., Aurangabad, reported at 1994 (69) E.L.T. 674. He submitted that the appellants before selling raw castings to the various customers only to carry out the operation of felting and removal of surface defects. No machining has been done by the appellants and further process has been carried out by the customers. It was also brought to our notice the findings given by the Collector at page 14. The relevant portion is as under :- "In conclusion I hold that the Iron & Steel castings and cast articles meant for machinery parts or Motor vehicle parts even though ...
Maharashtra Agro-indus. Dev. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1998
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT142TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Maharashtra Agro-Industries Development Corporation Ltd., the issue for our consideration is the classification of the product which had been referred to by the appellants in their C/list as Ready to Serve Beverages (RTS). They had sought classification of the RTS beverages under sub-heading No. 2001.20 of the CETA which covered the following: Preparation of vegetables, fruit, nuts or other parts of plants, including jams, fruit jellies, marmalades, fruit or nut puree and fruit or nut, pastes fruit juices and vegetables juices whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter.Under speaking appealable order, the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise, Division I, Nagpur decided the classification of the said RTS beverages under sub-heading No. 2202.90 which covered the following : Natural or artificial mineral waters and aerated waters, containing added sugar or other sweetening matter or flavoured; other non-alcoholic beverages, not including ...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. E.i.D. Parry (i) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1998
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT212TriDel
1. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur has filed this appeal against the combined Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur allowing the appeals filed before her by M/s.Paliwal Mill Steel (I) Ltd., and M/s. E.I.D. Parry (I) Ltd., (respondents herein) on the limited ground of lack of jurisdiction on the part of the concerned Assistant Commissioner to adjudicate demand cases involving more than Rs. 50,000/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter to the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner/Additional Commissioner to readjudicate the matter after issuing the corrigendum/addendum wherever necessary to the show cause notices.2. Both the appeals filed by the Commissioner challenging the aforesaid Order-in-Appeal have been posted for hearing today. While Departmental Representative Shri Sanjeev Srivastava is present on behalf of the Commissioner, only Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned Counsel for one of the respondents M/s. E.I.D. Parry Ltd. is present,...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Pharma Packaging
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT219TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the eligibility of the benefit under exemption Notification No. 245/83, dated 13-9-1983 (as amended) in respect of the patent or preparatory medicaments - product called 'Vermisol'. The respondents M/s. Pharma Packaging were engaged in the manufacture of P or P medicaments on their own behalf as well as on behalf of other loan licensee, in this case M/s. Khandelwal. They had filed price list in respect of the products cleared on their own behalf and in respect of the product Vermisol, claimed the benefit of Notification No. 245/83-C.E., dated 13-9-1983. The benefit was proposed to be denied on the ground that they had not availed of the benefit under this notification uniformly in respect of the products manufactured by them. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, observed that M/s. Khandelwal Laboratories were the actual manufacturer of the product in question and that they had claimed 15% discount as required ...
Maharashtra Electronics Corpn. Vs. Collector of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1998
Reported in: (1998)LC7Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Maharashtra Electronics Corporation Limited, Nagpur, the order dated 18-2-1994 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, Indore is under challenge. The learned Collector (Appeals) had not gone into the merits of the refund claim and had confirmed the order passed by the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise on the ground that the appellants had not challenged the order passed on the Bill of Entry by filing appeal.2. Ms. Reena Kher, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants referred to the Tribunal decision in the case of Kirloskar Electric Co.Ltd. v. C.C., Madras - 1994 (71) E.L.T. 1019 (Tribunal) where the Tribunal had taken a view that the refund claim against the assessment in Bill of Entry or approval of classification list was maintainable and it was not necessary for the assessee to first challenge the said assessment in the B/E or approval of the C/List, by filing an appeal.She submitted that the refund claim had been filed within time a...
Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Capital Flour Mills (P.) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1998
Reported in: (1998)66ITD305(Delhi)
1. The Assessing Officer has submitted this Miscellaneous Application under section 254(2) seeking rectification of the order of the Tribunal dated 30-9-1994 in ITA No. 7641/Delhi/1989. It has been pointed out in the said application that an assessment for assessment year 1983-84 was made by the Assessing Officer on 12-1-1989. This was the first assessment and not a case of re-assessment made under section 147.Since no return was earlier filed by the assessee and no assessment was earlier made, it was not a case of re-opening an assessment made earlier. The Assessing Officer had therefore rightly charged interest under sections 139(8) and 217 of Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal has deleted the interest levied under sections 139(8) and 217 by holding that such assessment made by the Assessing Officer under section 147 cannot be treated as regular assessment. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Modi Industries Ltd v. CIT [1995] 216 ITR ...
Sahdev Brothers Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1998
Reported in: 1998IIAD(Delhi)647; 1998(1)ARBLR402(Delhi); 72(1998)DLT419; 1998(45)DRJ67; 1998(2)RLR93
C.M. Nayar, J.1. The present petition has been filed under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for filing of the Award dated 3rd May, 1991 in Court and for making the same rule of the Court.2. The petitioner was awarded the contract under the name and style of 'Construction of A.G.V.C. 1982. SH: construction of parking and widening of existing roads, Phase II.' Disputes and differences arose between the parties and the matter was referred to the sole arbitration of Shri Banarsi Dass by the Engineer Member of the respondent Authority who had resigned and the matter was adjudicated by Shri R.C.Malhotra.The claims and counter claims may be reproduced as below:- 'ADDITIONAL CLAIM NO.1: Claimants claim Rs.40,000/- towards refund of earnest money/security deposit. 'ADDITIONAL CLAIM NO.2: Claimants submit that rescission should be set aside. ADDITIONAL CLAIM NO.3: Claimants claim Rs.12,000/- on a/c of cost of procure- ment of 800 mm dia pipe NP2, which could not be incorporated before the...
Avtar Singh Chadha Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1998
Reported in: 72(1998)DLT541
Lokeshwar Prasad, J.1. The petitioner, named above, in his capacity as the sole proprietor of M/s. Bharat Engineers & Consultants, has filed the present petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), averring that the respondents had invited tenders for construction of a puce School Building at M.C Primary School, Sheikh Sarai, Phase-II, New Delhi. It is stated that the petitioner tendered for the construction of the said building and his tender was accepted by the respondents vide letter dated 8th May, 1995. It is further stated that an Agreement for the construction of the above said school building was entered into between the parties which contained an arbitration clause (Clause No. 25) providing for an Arbitration in the event of disputes arising between the parties. It is stated that disputes as detailed in para 4 of the petition, have arisen between the parties and the petitioner vide letter dated 25th January, 1997 ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. S.K. Kabbur (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-1998
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT516TriDel
1. The issue for determination in the above appeals is whether the process of mixing duty paid formulated/standardised/prepared synthetic organic dyes purchased by the respond-ents herein with one or more than one dyes/diluents/Glauber's salt, soda ash, dextrine, etc. either by grinding or by pulverising amounts to a process of manufacture within the meaning assigned to it in terms of Note 6 to Chapter 32.2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein who are holders of Central Excise Licence to manufacture S.O. dyes falling under the erstwhile Tariff Item 14D and under Heading 32.04 of the CETA, 1985, also bring dyes from outside and carry out the process of mixing one dye with one or more other dyes and also mix the duty paid bought out dyes with diluents such as Glauber's salt, soda ash, dextrine etc., and then sell such dyes under their brand name. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise classified such dyes under sub-heading 3204.29 and ordered that they are cha...
Manohar Punjabi Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-1998
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT147TriDel
1. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in the impugned order imposed "a penalty of Rs. 25.00 lakh on Shri Manohar Punjabi under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, which has been proved to have been concerned in carrying and keeping 31 Fax machines which he knew or had reason to believe were liable to confiscation under Section 111 (d) of Customs Act, 1962". Being aggrieved by this order, the appellant had filed the captioned appeal.2. The facts briefly stated are that on receipt of information, Delhi Police searched the outhouse of Premises at 201, Sainik Farms, New Delhi on 22-4- 1989. They called the DRI Officers who associated in the search. Since the two outhouses which were searched were a part of the place occupied by the Counsellor of Uganda High Commission, he was requested to clarify whether the outhouses were in his occupation. The Counsellor denied to have any control over the outhouses and the outhouses were forced open. On search of one of the two rooms, Police re...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »