Delhi Court March 1998 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1998 Page 8 of about 261 results (0.021 seconds)Delhi Electric Supply Vs. Collector of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT265TriDel
1. Appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 28-10-1990 passed by the Collector, Customs (Appeals), New Delhi.2. Appellant made import of 'Gland Packing of Air Compressor'.Appellant claimed classification of the goods under Heading No. 84.11 of the Customs Tariff and the respondent assessed the goods under Tariff Heading 84.64 as Gasket. Appellant paid duty as per assessment thereafter, filed a refund claim. The refund claim was rejected by the respondent.3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that 'Gland Packing' is a part of compressor, therefore, it is to be assessed under Heading No. 84.11 of the Customs Tariff. He submits that 'Gland Packings' are part of compressor. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking v. C.C., Bombay [Final Order No. 109/85-B, dated 29-1-1985]. He therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed.5. In this case, the issue is in respect of classification of 'Gland Pac...
Tag this Judgment!Versatile Enterprises Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT148TriDel
1. The appellants M/s. Versatile Enterprises had challenged the Order-in-Appeal dated 26-9-1991 passed by the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh. The matter relates to the classification of the laminated fabrics on the base of man-made knitted fabrics. The Collector, Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh had confirmed the view taken by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Ludhiana that the laminated fabrics with base of man-made knitted fabrics were correctly classifiable under sub-heading No. 5903.29 of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants had pleaded for classification of the said fabrics under sub-heading No. 5903.99 of the said Tariff.3. On behalf of the respondent Revenue, Shri R.S. Sangia, JDR explained the construction of the fabrics in dispute and referred to the relevant Tariff entry with the plea that the view taken by the Appellate Authority was correct.4. We have carefully considered the matter. There is no dispute that the base fabrics on which lamina...
Tag this Judgment!Virender Singh Vs. General Manager, Fruit and Vegetable Project and an ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)17; 72(1998)DLT657; 1998(45)DRJ184; [1998(79)FLR436]
ORDERDr. M.K.Sharma, J.1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the validity of clause 18 of the offer of appointment of the petitioner dated 4.4.1990 and also to regulation 44 of The Fruit and Vegetable Project Officers (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1991. The petitioner has also sought for quashing of the order passed by the respondent No.1 terminating his services under clause 18 of the offer of appointment and as a consequential relief the petitioner seeks for reinstatement in service with full back wages.2. The petitioner was initially appointed as an Executive by the respondent No.1 purely on temporary basis for a period of 3 months at consolidated salary of Rs.2,000/- per month. On 3.1.1990 the petitioner was given a fresh appointment as Executive at a consolidated salary of Rs.2,000/- per month which appointment was also purely on temporary basis for a fixed period of 3 months. On 4.4.1990, the respondent offered the petitioner an appointment as Executive in leve...
Tag this Judgment!Kamlesh Kohli and Another Vs. Escotrac Finance and Investment Ltd. and ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1999Delhi57; 1998RLR321
ORDERY.K. Sabharwal, J. 1. These two appeals, FAO(os) 197/97 filed by the mother and FAO(OS).160/97 filed by the son challenge the judgment and order dated 1st May,1997 whereby their application for leave to defend the Suit filed under Order 37, Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed and decree has been passed against them for recovery of Rs.85,62,500/- with simple interest at the rate of 15% P.A. from the date of the suit till payment.2. The Suit No.2524/93 was filed against Kamlesh Kamal and Company-Defendant No.1 of which Kamlesh Kohali-Defendant No.2 (Appellant in Appeal No. 197/97) is a sole proprietor and Defendant No.3 Rajiv Kohli son of Kamlesh Kohli. The Suit was based on Memorandum of Agreement dated 19th November,1992 entered between the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 Rajiv Kohli has signed the agreement as authorised signatory of his mother.3. In brief the case of the plaintiffs in the suit is that Kamlesh Kohli has been holding a membership ticket of ...
Tag this Judgment!Gopi Nath Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Department of Environment Govt. of N.C.T. of D ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)314; 72(1998)DLT536; 1998(45)DRJ284
ORDERJaspal Singh, J.1. The Delhi Pollution Control Committee (hereinafter called the committee) has issued a direction to the Sub Divisional Magistrate to seal the industrial unit of the petitioner. The writ petition, seeks the quashing of that direction.2. The petitioner is a private limited company engaged in multifarious business activities and it is claimed that casting of iron components in the Cupola Furnace, which is the subject matter of the impugned order is only a small part of petitioner/s business activities being run from a premises residential in nature. On July 3, 1996 directions were received by the petitioner under section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter called the Act) for closure of the unit on the grounds, namely, (1) the Unit was being operated without consent under section 21 of the Act, (2) the Unit had a Cupola Furnace with air pollution potential, and that (3) the Unit was being operated in non-conforming area under ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. G.S.F. Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT77TriDel
1. The issue for determination in this appeal filed by the Revenue is the eligibilty to Anhydrous Ammonia brought into the respondent's factory under Chapter X Procedure for intended use of manufacture of fertilizer to the benefit of exemption from duty under Notifications 145/71 and 40/85. The respondents were captively consuming anhydrous ammonia for manufacture of (1) di-ammonium phosphate; (2) ammonium sulphate; and (3) urea. Besides selling the above three products for use as fertilizer for agricultural purposes, the respondents were also selling them for use as chemicals. Three show cause notices were issued demanding duty in respect of such anhydrous ammonia cleared without payment of duty for the manufacture of above-mentioned three products, which were sold for industrial use as chemicals. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demands holding that since respondents had sold the products for industrial use as chemicals and the same were not bought or sold as fertilizer, the...
Tag this Judgment!Trupti Multi Services Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT700TriDel
1. This appeal arises from the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Pune dated 27-7-1990. The question raised in the appeal is in relation to paragraph 7 of Notification No. 175/86.2. Appellants are manufacturers of cylindrical blocks falling under Heading 8409.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. On a visit to the factory of the appellants by the Central Excise Officers, it was found that the appellants were manufacturing cylindrical blocks and packing them in cartons having brand name of two different manufacturers and clearing the same without payment of duty. The Department alleged that since the appellants were packing the cylindrical blocks manufactured by them in cartons having brand name of other parties and the said parties were not eligible for the exemption under Notification 175/86, the appellants were not eligible for the exemption under Notification 175/86 as amended. The show cause notice alleged that after amendment of Notifi...
Tag this Judgment!Rathi Udyog Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT456TriDel
1.By the order impugned in this appeal, the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut has confirmed duty demand of around Rs. 23.70 Crores, directed payment of interest Under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, imposed penalty of around Rs. 23.70 Crores on the appellant, ordered confiscation of plant and machinery allowing redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 2 Crores. We are not concerned in this stay application with the rest of the order which affects the Directors and employee of the appellant as also another concern.2. Two main allegations against the appellants are of clandestine removal of substantial number of manufactured goods, namely, stainless steel sheets, tor rods and bars and undervaluation of stainless steel sheets in the guise of they being other alloy sheets. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted at the outset that he does not propose to make any submission on merits but is seeking relief Under Section 35F of the Act on the ground that the adjudicating auth...
Tag this Judgment!Malt Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(79)LC425Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Malt Company India Pvt. Ltd., the matter relates to the eligibility of Barley Malt and Malt Extracts to the benefit of Notification No. 367/86-CE dated 29.7.1986. The appellants had claimed that exemption Notification No. 367/86-CE dated 29.7.1986 was effective from the third day of March, 1986 by virtue of the Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had taken a view that exemption Notification No. 367/86-CE was a conditional Notification and as it did not provide for full exemption to Barley and Malt Extract as was the case prior to 28.2.1986 when such products were covered by the exemption Notification No. 55/75-CE dated 1.3.1975, the exemption under Notification No. 367/86-CE could not be given effect to from the back date i.e. from 3.3.1986. Shri Arunabh Choudhary, Advocate submitted that the exemption Notification No. 367/86-CE dated 29.7.1986 was covered by the scheme of retrospective...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Textile Corporation of
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT112TriDel
1. The only question arising for consideration in this departmental appeal is whether forwarding charges collected by the respondent herein from the buyers are to be included in the assessable value. Respondent was collecting half per cent as forwarding charges and paying them to the agent who was performing certain services for the buyers. This was only to ensure that the agent would receive the remuneration for the services rendered by him to the buyers. We fail to see how this amount could be added to the assessable value of the goods manufactured and cleared by the respondent. The appeal is allowed....
Tag this Judgment!