Delhi Court March 1998 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1998 Page 23 of about 261 results (0.038 seconds)Prestige Foods Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT135TriDel
1. This is a stay application filed with reference to the order of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Indore dated 20-1-1997.2. Learned Counsel stated that the appellants are engaged in the processing of Soyabean Seeds and Oil Cakes, Linseed Seed and Oil Cakes, Groundnut Seed and Oil Cakes and Rapeseed seed and Oil Cakes and produce therefrom solvent extracted raw oil with the aid of power in their plant at Dewas. They are holder of L 6 licence. During the period 1-1-1984 to 31-12-1984, the appellants had produced various quantities of soyabean oil, linseed oil, groundnut oil and rapeseed oil through the process of solvent extraction. In respect of the aforesaid period, the appellants had filed the returns in the prescribed proforma under Rule 4 of the Vegetable Oil Cess Rules, 1983 showing the amounts of oil produced and removed from the appellants' factory. This fact could be verified by the department from its records. In addition, the appellants were maintaining statutory r...
Tag this Judgment!international Transformers (P) Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT61TriDel
1. Shri T.K. Srivastava, ld. Advocate arguing for dispensing the pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 81,013,02 (sic) submits that the applicants are engaged in the manufacture of electrical transformers. A dispute arose whether the transformer oil supplied with the transformers is eligible to Modvat credit or not. The Department alleged that the transformer oil was not eligible to Modvat credit inasmuch as transformer oil is put into transformer only after the manufacture of transformer was complete. The transformer oil acted as coolant and cannot be regarded as an input in terms of Rule 57A. The ld. Counsel cites and relies upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of NGEF Limited v. CCE [1996 (87) E.L.T. 722] and in the case of same company reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 238. The ld Counsel submits that in their case the transformer oil was filled in the transformer before its clearance and, therefore in terms of decision of South Regional Bench of this Tribunal, they were entit...
Tag this Judgment!Nirmala Devi and ors. Vs. Sh.Bhuwaneshwar Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998IIAD(Delhi)644; 72(1998)DLT387
1. The petitioner has filed this contempt petition, alleging the violation of the order dated 21.3.1997, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ petition No.830/97.2. The petitioner had filed the said writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the Delhi Administration with regard to taking over the management of petitioner No.3 viz. the Managing Committee, Jan Kalayan, who were running a School at Khasra Nos.432,433, Village Ghonda Gujran Khadar, Ill aqua Shahdara, Delhi. A further direction in the nature of mandamus was sought for the respondent to hand over the vacant possession of the property including the land in the aforesaid Khasras. Along with the writ petition, the petitioners moved an application for interim stay, whereby an ex parte restraint was sought to the respondent from carrying on construction on the aforesaid plot. Further direction was sought on the respondent to hand over vacant possession of the property in question. It is ...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Aluminium Cables Vs. Cit, Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998IIAD(Delhi)633; (1998)148CTR(Del)604; 72(1998)DLT474; [1998]232ITR192(Delhi); 1998RLR231
R.C.Lahoti, J.1. Statement of case has been drawn up and the following question( referable to assessment year 1978-79) referred for the opinion of the High Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessed :'Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in disallowing weighted deduction u/s 35B of the Income-tax Act on the following expenses :- a) Insurance charges on export sales 71,903 b) Freight from factory to port 6,90,260 c) Ocean freight 7,17,883' 2. The assessed is a company manufacturing AAC and ACSR conductors. During the assessment year 1978-79 the assessed had export sales of Rs 2.98 crores and local sales of Rs. 2.15 crores. The assessed claimed weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Act at Rs. 16,52,219/- as per revised return as against Rs. 3,77,886/- claimed in the original return. The ITO allowed weighted deduction of Rs.1,84,044/-. The assessed carri...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Kumar Vasisth Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998(46)DRJ116
K. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The writ petitioners were working in Modi Rubber Limited (Respondent No.8).The services of the petitioners dispensed with in accordance with the terms of employment. The petitioners have challenged the order stating that the 8th Respondent Company without any notice and without any departmental enquiry had terminated the services of the petitioners. Exactly in the similar circumstances the point was considered by me in CW No.379 of 1998 on 09.02.1998 (V. Machinery Versus Union of India and ors. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Vijay Hansaria submits that a few crucial aspects dealt with by this court in Kuldip Mehta v. Union of India and Ors. 1993(2) DL 196 had not been considered in that case and having regard to the circumstances of this case and the management of the 8th Respondent Company by the government the entire position had changed and if they arc considered the court may take a different view.2. The learned counsel relying upon the judgment of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Chaturvedi Steels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT370TriDel
1. In the impugned order, denial of deemed Modvat credit on M.S. Ingots and Mis- rolls was confirmed. Being aggrieved by this order, the appellants have filed the captioned appeal.2. The facts, in brief, leading to the present appeal are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of angles, bars, etc. and claimed deemed Modvat credit in terms of the Govt. Order No. F. TS- 36/94- TRU, dated 1- 3- 1994. The Department alleged that re- rollable material on which deemed Modvat credit was claimed, was purchased from Central Railway, Jhansi; that the scrap purchased from the Railway is clearly recognisable as being non- duty paid because the scrap had not suffered duty at any stage. It was also alleged that re- rollable material purchased from Kabaris is also not admissible for deemed Modvat credit in the light of the Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Revenue Lr. No. B- 22/5/86- TRU, dated 7- 4- 1986 as they are clearly recognisable as being non- duty paid. The lower authorities, there...
Tag this Judgment!LupIn Labs Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT132TriDel
1. The captioned appeal is against disallowing Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,02,133.70 and imposition of penalty of Rs. 40,000/-.2. In the impugned Order, it has been held that the Appellants had received certain items in their factory before 16-3-1995 and took credit on them in RG 23C Part II on 31-3-1995. It has been stated that Rule 57Q(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944, provided that "no credit of the specified duty paid on capital goods specified in the Explanation 1(d) of Rule 57Q shall be allowed, if such capital goods were received in the factory before 16-3-1995". It has been alleged that the Appellant availed the credit on the goods received in the factory prior to 16-3-1995 and hence the Modvat credit.3. Credit of duty under Rule 57Q was also denied on Pressure Switches, Ultra Sonic Cleaner, Control System, Effluent Treatment, Plant, PTFE Line Tube, Rubber Hoses, SS Stool/SS Top, SS Cover, Static Converter, Electric Cable.4. Shri M.P. Devnath, the ld. Advocate appeared fo...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C Ex. Vs. Apurva Containers Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT86TriDel
1. These are two appeals filed by the department - one against the order of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad and the other against the order of Collector (A), Ahmedabad. The basic issue involved in both the cases being the same they have been heard together.2. Ld. DR has drawn attention to the Board's order directing filing of these appeals and the grounds of appeal. According to ld. DR, the Collector has heavily relied upon Board's instructions circulated under F. No. 126/4/89-CX. 3, dated 5-9-1989 (Circular No. 51/89-CX. 3) which clarifies about the ex-cisability of coating solution/coating paste prepared by paper manufacturing mills for captive consumption. This product is used for finishing the paper manufactured by paper industry.Whereas the product under reference is used as prepared glue or adhesive for pasting one layer of paper on the other; rolled on the fibre drum till the required thickness is achieved. Thus the assessee's products viz., "Cepol D.V. (S...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Eastern Enterprises
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT875TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the order dated 14-8-1991 passed by the Addl. Collector of Customs, New Delhi is under challenge.The Addl. Collector has passed the following order :- The goods should be assessed provisionally on the basis of the prices of these bearings as per the 1979 price list less 80% with 20% extra duty deposit for difference of duty between invoice value and the 1979 price less 80%. The Assessing Officer should obtain a copy of the 1979 price-list from the Bombay Customs House for the above purpose. The importer should submit a valid import licence for the goods for a CIF value as per 1979 prices less 80%. He should also submit valid licence for the bearing 7516 as per his undertaking in his letter dated 5-6-1991. I drop the charges of misdeclaration in the SCN." 2. It is seen from the order that the charge of mis-declaration has been dropped. The adjudicating authority has observed that the importer had indicated the description "TAM Brand Bearings" in ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Garg Steel and Alloys Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT329TriDel
2. The issue relates to admissibility or otherwise of deemed credit under Ministry's Order No. TS/36/94-TRU, dated 1-3-1994 in case of small scale units exceeds clearance of Rs. 75 lakhs. It was held by the Dy. Commissioner that after clearance crossed the value of Rs. 75 lakhs exemption under Notification 1/93 was no longer available. Commissioner (Appeals), however, following the decision of the Tribunal in case of C.C.E., Coimbatore v. Sri Venkateswara Steel Industries reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 446 held that Deemed Credit continued to be admissible to SSI units even after crossing the exemption limit of Rs. 75 lakhs.3. None present on behalf of the Respondents when the matters were called. In case of Sri Venkateswara Steel Industries (supra) it was held by Tribunal that the deemed credit under Ministry of Finance Order No. TS-36/94-TRU, dated 1-3-1994 continues to be admissible to SSI units even after crossing the exemption limit of Rs. 75 lakhs when the unit starts paying full ...
Tag this Judgment!