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.
Consolidated Hoists (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-1998
Reported in: (1998)LC434Tri(Delhi)
1. Appellant engaged in the manufacture of hoists was paying duty on the basis of invoice price under Rule 173C(11) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in respect of the period from October 1984 to 30-4-1989.Show cause notice dated 19-10-1989 was issued proposing demand of differential duty, confiscation of assets of the appellant and imposition of penalty. Around 90% of the production was being sold to M/s. Greaves Cotton (G.C.) under a contract entered into in 1983 and the balance was being sold to industrial consumers. Industrial consumers were given discount ranging from 5% to 10% G.C. was receiving discount of 22-1/2% on an average. Show cause notice proceeded on the basis that in computing the assessable ' value of the goods sold to G.C. only discount at the rate granted to industrial consumers only can be deducted. It was alleged that G.C. was only an agent of the appellant and not an independent wholesaler. Though appellant resisted the notice. Collector passed an order confirmi...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Kanoria Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-1998
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT119TriDel
1. This is an application filed by the assessee for rectification of mistake with reference to Final Order No. 2812/96-A, dated 23-7-1996.2. Arguing for the applicants, in support of the application, Shri A.P.Mathur, ld. Advocate submitted that the respondents could not attend on the date of hearing since they had sent an application requesting for adjournment and to supply a copy of the appeal memo and same was not brought to the notice of the Bench which resulted in passing the Ex-parte order. He submitted that apart from the merits whether 5% or 10% is to be added to the assessable value in respect of the goods captively consumed, the mistake has crept in the order as the Bench has not taken note of the findings given by the Collector (Appeals) that the demand issued beyond the period of six months was time barred.3. Shri Ali, ld. DR submitted that since the point with reference to the limitation has not been considered by the Assistant Collector, it may not be said to be the mista...
Minicomp Private Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-1998
Reported in: (1998)LC256Tri(Delhi)
1. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of computers, had cleared during the period 14-3-1983 to 4-2-1985 computers with peripherals paying Central Excise duty on only the Central Processing Units (CPU) only without including the cost of peripherals and software in the assessable value. They were issuing for each computer supplied three separate invoices for the CPUs, peripherals and the software. After scrutiny of the records, show cause notice dated 3-7-1987 was issued to the appellant alleging short payment of duty of Rs. 20,67,146.41. After the appellant replied-to the notice resisting the allegation and appeared for per- sonal hearing, Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad passed Order-in-Original No. Collr/28/88, dated 17-10-1988 demanding duty of the amount proposed in the show cause notice and imposing penalty of Rs. 7,50,000/-. The appeal challenges the said order.2. On behalf of the appellant, learned Counsel Shri Rohan Shah made submissions assailing the Collector's find...
Kishan Chand Chopra Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-1998
Reported in: 72(1998)DLT378; I(1998)DMC480
Devinder Gupta, J.1. This petition was instituted on 22.3.1992 praying for quashing of FIR No. 56/90 registered at Police Station, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi on 21.3.1990 for offences under Sections 406/494/498A, IPC; to restrain the respondents from arresting the petitioners in connection with commission of the afore-mentioned offences and to stay further proceeding.2. Because of the subsequent developments after institution of the petition including the fact that challan has since been presented, it is the admitted case of the parties that the only point, which now survives for consideration in this petition is of the jurisdiction of the Delhi Courts to entertain and try the criminal case instituted on the basis of FIR No. 56/90 of Police Station, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. The fact that question of jurisdiction alone remains to be decided in this petition is also evident from the order passed by the Supreme Court on 28.10.1996 in Criminal Appeal No. 1894/96 titled as Sri Kishan Chand Chopr...
Suresh Kumar JaIn Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Delhi229
K.S. Gupta, J.1.Petitioner filed petition under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short the Act) alleging that he is a contractor and is the sole proprietor of M/s. Sewa Sons Builders. Respondents 1 & 2 awarded the work of construction of 16 nos. additional type-I quarters in Central Jail Complex to the petitioner and an agreement No. 100/EE/PWD-11/89-90 containing arbitration clause was expected between the parties. Certain disputes having arisen between the parties, by the letter dated 2.11.95 respondent No. 3 was appointed as arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes. Respondent No. 3 entered upon the reference and has made published the award on 29.2.96. It was prayed that respondent No. 3 be directed to file the original award Along with arbitration proceedings in Court. 2. In response to the notice of the filing of the award, respondents 1 & 2 filed objection petition being is No. 6712/97 against the award dated 29.2.96. Objection petition has been contested by the pe...
Atita Traders Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-1998
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT321TriDel
1. In the present appeal M/s. Atita Traders, Ahmedabad have challenged the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad dated 25-8-1989 demanding a duty of Rs. 40,424.50 and imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on them.2. At the outset ld. Counsel for the appellants fairly stated that the order-in-original mainly dealt with the question of clubbing of clearances of the present appellants and that of two other firms, namely, Ananta Chemicals and Plastics Pvt. Ltd. and Aparajita Traders.He also stated that the appellants were raising the question of dutiability of the products for the first time before the Tribunal.Since the question went to the root of dispute he would seek leave to make submission on the said question. The ld. DR objected to the raising of the said issue since the question of excisability had not been raised before the lower authorities, it cannot be raised before the Tribunal at this stage as this would necessitate fresh enquiry and investigation into the matter...
Tamilnadu State Transport Corp. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-1998
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT153TriDel
1. The appellants manufactured bus bodies. One input namely Aluminium paint was manufactured by them. The show cause notice dated 15-5-1990 alleged that such paint captively consumed was liable to duty. Duty amounting to Rs. 3,08,945.45 was demanded. Allegation such to penalty was also made. The Additional Collector in the impugned Order confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/-resulting in the filing of this appeal before us.2. The appellants have requested for disposal on merits which we proceed to do after hearing Shri H.K. Jain, learned SDR.3. Vide a communication dated 18-2-1998 the appellants have stated that their name that is Pandiyan Roadways Corporation Limited has been changed to Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai Division-I) Limited. We allow this application for changing name.4. In the appeal memorandum two points have been made. Firstly, that the paint was of short shelf life and not marketable and, therefore, could not called 'goods' in term...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Umbergaon Rubber (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-1998
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT603TriDel
1. Issue involved in the above appeal filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, is the eligibility of compounded rubber manufactured by the respondents, herein, to the benefit of Notification No. 152/87, dated 25-5-1987. The respondents are manufacturers of compounded rubber which is further used in the manufacture of unvulcanised rubber sheets as intermediate products, which are later converted into vulcanised sheets used, in turn, in the manufacture of hawaii chappals. The Notification No.152/87 exempts compounded rubber falling under Heading No. 40.05 and the schedule to the CETA, 1985 from the whole of duty of excise leviable thereon which is specified in the said schedule when such compounded rubber is used in the factory of production for the manufacture of goods falling under Chapter 40. The case of the department is that since compounded rubber is used in the manufacture of hawaii chappals, which do not fall under Chapt...
Yogesh Corporation Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-1998
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT302TriDel
2. The matter relates to the classification of products obtained by slitting the polyester films into thin strips by cutting machine. The appellants have claimed that the goods so produced were classifiable under Item No. 15 of erstwhile Central Excise Tariff while the Revenue had sought to classify them as yarn under Item No. 18 of the said Tariff for period 16-3-1972 to 16-6-1977 and under Item No. 18-II(iii) of the said Tariff thereafter.3. We have heard Shri Satnam Singh, SDR. We have gone through the facts on record and have also gone through the relevant Tariff Entry.4. The main ground taken by the appellants is that they were engaged in the slitting of the polyester metallised sheets into various thickness as per the requirement of the market and the slitting process did not fall within the ambit of the manufacture of man-made yarn. We find that what the appellants were bringing were the polyester metallised sheets and the product being manufactured were the metallised yarn. Th...
Sadhna Textile Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-1998
Reported in: (1998)LC445Tri(Delhi)
1. Appeal E/2652/89-A is directed against Order-in-Original No. 41/88, dated 1-12-1988 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I. The other three appeals are directed against Order-in-original No. 91/91, dated 5-11-1990 also passed by the Additional Collector, Central Excise, Bombay.2. M/s. Sadhna Textile Mills and M/s. Paragon Textile Mills were processing grey cloth supplied by M/s. Rainbow Textiles and the processed goods were being cut and packed by M/s. Polytex Packers and supplier of grey cloth, the merchant manufacturer was selling the processed, cut and packed goods. Job workers were paying duty on the prices declared by them and approved by the Department. Job workers declared the prices on the basis of information furnished by merchant manufacturer. Department found that the price at which the merchant manufacturer was selling the goods in wholesale was higher than the approved price. Accordingly, show cause notice dated 20-12-1987 was issued to all the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »