Delhi Court April 1998 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1998 Page 1 of about 161 results (0.007 seconds)Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Indrol Lubricants and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)LC98Tri(Delhi)
1. This is a Revenue appeal against the order passed by Collector (Appeals), Bombay, who has allowed the assessee's appeal seeking re-classification of their product "Indrol TQ" under sub-heading 2710.60 of the CET along with benefit of Notification No. 120/84-C.E., dated 11-5-1984 as amended attracting 'nil' rate of duty.2. The assessee had classified previously the product under sub-heading 2710.99 under the mistaken belief that the product is transmission fluid and not a lubricant in synchromesh gear box in the automotives.Their CL List No. 10/88, dated 1-3-1988 had been approved under sub-heading 2710.99 at 15% Adv. In view of their changed belief, they filed a fresh classification list supported by expert opinion from the head of Chemical Engineering Department IIT (Bombay) and also end-use certificate from M/s. TELCO Ltd., M/s. Bajaj Tempo Ltd. and M/s. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and M/s. United Motors, in which it is stated that 'Indrol TQ' is ordinarily used for l...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Alankar Bottling Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT500TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut, dropping the proceedings initiated under show cause notice dated 27-8-1993 against the respondents herein. The respondents are manufacturers of aerated waters under the brand name of Campa Cola, Campa Orange, Campa Tripp, Campa Lemon and Funday (Mango) falling under Chapter 22 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985, under a franchise agreement with M/s. Campa Beverages (P) Ltd. who are the brand name owners. The premises of the respondents were searched on 28-6-1992 and certain documents were resumed from which it was revealed that during the period 15-5-1989 to 5-6-1992, the assessees had purchased 36 units of Campa Cola beverage base, 2 units of Campa Tripp beverages base from M/s. Campa Beverages P. Ltd. on excise gate passes; but the said quantity of beverage base had not been accounted for in the statutory raw material account viz. Form IV register. The sale of this quantity of b...
Tag this Judgment!Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Raj Spinning and Weaving Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT295TriDel
1. The only issue for determination in these above appeals is the jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector to adjudicate cases in which the duty amount involved is more than Rs. 50,000/-. The lower appellate authority has held that the adjudicating authority viz. Assistant Commissioner has exceeded his jurisdiction since the amount involved in the cases exceeded Rs. 50,000/-. She has, therefore, set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and directed issue of addendum/corrigendum to the original show cause notice by jurisdictional Dy. Commissioner/Additional Commissioner.2. Learned SDR, Shri P.K. Jain states that in the case of CCE, Jaipur v. Jaypee Agro Chemical Ltd. and Others (Appeals No. E/172 to 203/97-NB), the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 188 to 23/98-NB and 213A to 213F/98-NB, has decided this issue, holding that the exercise of the power in such cases by the Assistant Commissioner will at best be only an administrative irregularity and that there was no legal infirmity ...
Tag this Judgment!Paradise Plastic Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT664TriDel
1. Learned Counsel, Shri Bipin Garg submits that the appeal was fixed for hearing on 29-9-1997. The appellants had sought for an adjournment vide their letter received in the Tribunal on 22-9-1997. However, this letter was not put up to the Bench resulting in dismissal of the appeal for non-appearance. In these circumstances, he prays that the dismissal order may be set aside and the appeal restored.3. We have considered the submissions and also perused the copy of the letter containing the request for an adjournment which was received in the Tribunal's Registry on 22-9-1997. We are, therefore, satisfied that the non-appearance on 29-9-1997 was not deliberate. We, therefore, set aside the order of dismissal and restore the appeal and fix it for hearing on 8-6-1998. The ROA application is hereby allowed....
Tag this Judgment!Unicure Pharmaceuticals Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT592TriDel
1. Heard Shri Bharat Shah, Director, who appeared on behalf of the appellants, M/s. Unicure Pharmaceuticals and Shri H.K. Jain, SDR.2. The appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed vide Final Order No. 583/97-C, dated 17-11-1997 in terms of Section 35F of Central Excise Act for non-compliance to the Stay Order dated 21-8-1997.3. The appellants deposited the amount of Rs. 93,872.00 on 25-10-1997.The appellants also vide their letter dated 10-11-1997 intimated to the Registry regarding the deposit of the amount. In these circumstances, the Final Order No. 583/97-C, dated 17-11-1997 is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number....
Tag this Judgment!Krishak Bharati Co-operative Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(61)ECC180
1. Both these appeals arise from common facts involving same question of law and hence they are taken up together for disposal as per law.2. The appellants filed refund claim for duty paid by M/s. Hindustan Petroleum in respect of supplies of NGL at concessional rate of duty for using manufacture of fertilizer. The appellants by their letter of refund claimed excess payment of duty paid by M/s. ONGC, who were the suppliers. The department issued a show cause notice in these refund applications in which it was stated that the appellants are engaged in manufacturing of Liquid Nitrogen/Liquid Ammonia and Urea falling under Chapter No. 28 & 31 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and holding Central Excise Registration Certificate No. 0037-04-01-0027 for the manufacture and clearance of the said excisable products. It was stated that the appellants had filed a refund claim seeking excess payment of duty paid by M/s. ONGC. Hazira, Surat under Notification No. 75/84 dt.1.3.84 as amend...
Tag this Judgment!Century Pulp and Paper Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT287TriDel
1. The contest in this case is about admissibility of certain capital goods under Rule 57Q.2. I have heard Shri M.P. Devnath, ld. Advocate for the appellants and Shri S.N. Ojha, ld. DR for the Revenue.The first contested item is 'hydraulic truck unloader'. The description of this item is given as follows : "Hydraulic truck unloader is a truck running with hydraulic power and is in the nature of a material handling equipment used for lifting and transporting various materials from place to place in the factory. It is used for the specific purpose of baggese handling in baggese yard. It is fixed on specific platform in the baggese yard. The baggese load trucks are mounted on the platform and the unloader hydraulic truck unloader unloads the baggese content in the loader truck with the help of automatic system. It is not in the nature of other trucks that run on the road." 3. Ld. Advocate stressed that this is stationary item and it is not moved. It is used to lift baggese to the platfor...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Wax Oil (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(111)ELT184TriDel
1. The respondents in this case were manufacturing Bees Wax. This product was earlier classified under Heading 1507. The assessees contested this classification and later sought classification under sub-heading 3003.20 with nil rate of duty as pharmaceutical products.They substantiated their claim by production of a certificate from the Food & Drug Control authorities to the effect that Bees Wax produced by them was of Indian Pharmacopoeia Standard. The Assistant Collector classified the product under Chapter 29, permitting benefit of Notification 234/86-C.E. and also dropped the demand for differential duty. The jurisdictional Collector then caused review application to be filed again this decision of the Assistant Collector, claiming, inter alia, that the product merited classification under Heading 1507 only.The Collector in his impugned order observed as under: "However, on careful consideration, it is seen that Chapter Note l(e) of Chapter 15 excludes 'prepared waxes', medica...
Tag this Judgment!Gurdev Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998IVAD(Delhi)734; 1998CriLJ3580; 1998(4)Crimes676; 76(1998)DLT918
ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J.1. This appeal is a sequel to the impugned judgment/order dated 6th July, 1977, passed by the learned Special Judge, Delhi, whereby he convicted the appellant for having demanded and accepted an illegal gratification of Rs.500/- (Rs.100/- received in cash and Rs. 400/- by a money order later on) from one Mohan Singh for getting his pension case finalised.2. The facts and evidence which formed the basis of conviction of the appellant are that the appellant, a clerk in the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, was contacted by one Mohan Singh, a retired member of the Indian National Army, for getting his pension case finalised, who in turn, demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 500/-. Mohan Singh gave a sum of Rs. 100/- which he was carrying with him along with a number of papers relating to the case of the grant of pension , to the appellant. On return to his village, Mohan Singh arranged for funds and remitted the balance of Rs. 400/- by money order which was...
Tag this Judgment!Harjeet Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998IVAD(Delhi)737; 1998(2)ALT(Cri)19; 1998CriLJ3536; 1998(3)Crimes285; 76(1998)DLT511; 1998(46)DRJ96
ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi passed in Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 1980.2. The petitioner was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food and Adulteration Act, 1954 and was sentenced to four months' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. of three months by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.3. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge preferred this revision petition. Brief facts necessary to dispose of this petition are recapitulated as under:4. On 13.6.1978, the Food Inspectors Mr. R.K. Ahuja and Mr. A.P. Singh went to the factory of M/s H.S. Oberoi Sons & Co. and had taken nine bottles of carbonated water from one crate out of a lot of different crates on payment of Rs. 26.40. These nine bottles were divided into three parts and these wer...
Tag this Judgment!