Delhi Court April 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.
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Unichem Trading Co. (Pvt.) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-1998
Reported in: (1998)LC124Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL), Jodhpur are a registered dealer to receive furnace oil. They received the same under the cover of original invoices dated 17-8-1994 and 30-1-1995 without having the duplicate copy of the said invoices which were the valid documents for availment of Modvat credit. The above said registered dealer further supplied this furnace oil to the respondent herein under the cover of invoices issued under Rule 57GG on the basis of original invoices as referred to above. The respondent availed Modvat credit on the basis of duplicate copy of the invoices issued by the dealer. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent as well as to the dealer (HPCL) for showing cause as to why Modvat credit of Rs. 3628.22 may not be recovered being availed wrongly under improper document and why penalty should not be imposed.2. The Assistant Commissioner, however dropped the demand but imposed penalty of Rs. 1,000/- on HPCL:, Jodhpur.3. The department filed...
Karnataka Board Products Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-1998
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT535TriDel
1. The appeal is against the Order-in-Appeal dated 10-9-1990 passed by Collector (Appeals), Bangalore upholding the order passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore directing the appellant to pay duty on their clearances of excisable goods from their depots with reference to the invoice price charged for such supplies effected from the depots. The plea was taken before both the lower authorities by the respondent that the fact that they had been permitted to avail of the facility of invoice value assessment under Rule 173C (11) should not deprive them of the benefit of exclusion from the assessable value of certain expenses incurred subsequent to removal from the factory. The plea did not find favour with the authorities who held the view that since the appellant had opted for invoice price assessment, the payment of duty for sales made at the depots will be with reference to the prices in the invoices, issued there. This finding has been assailed in the present ap...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Dwarikanath Steel Strips Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-1998
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT176TriDel
1. The question involved in the present appeal of the Revenue is whether a chemical known as input described RUSTILD DW is entitled to the benefit of Modvat credit u/r 57 or not.2. It has been explained by the learned Advocate Shri K. Kumar for the respondent that 'RUSTILD DW is used for lubrication of the final product of steel strips so that it does not catch the rust. The input is therefore, directly used in the manufacture of final product. The entire case of the Revenue is based on misapprehension of the fact that the input 'Rustild' is used for lubrication of the machine used in the manufacture of steel strips. This fact is apparent from the impunged order.3. Heard both sides. In view of the aforesaid position and fact, I do not find any substance in the Revenue's appeal. Consequently, I dismiss the appeal....
Motor Industries Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT246TriDel
1. Shri Rohan Shah, learned Counsel for the appellant states that the issue involved in this appeal stands covered by a Tribunal decision in appellant's own case as reported in 1995 (75) E.L.T. 65. He adds that though the department has challenged this .decision before the Supreme Court and that appeal has also been admitted by the Supreme Court, there is no stay granted against the Tribunal order. Under the circumstances he pleads that the Bench may like to follow the earlier Tribunal decision and allow the instant appeal. Giving the essential facts involved in the matter, he states that the products involved in the present appeal are parts of nozzle and nozzle holder which are parts of internal combustion engines. Benefit of Exemption Notification 217/85 has been claimed by them which was denied by the authorities on the ground that nozzle and nozzle holder stand excluded from the scope of the said exemption notification and accordingly the component parts thereof cannot be placed a...
Techno Electronics Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-1998
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT221TriDel
1. The appeal challenges the order passed by Additional Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh demanding Central Excise duty of Rs. 2,000/- from appellant on the ground that appellant had evaded duty on television sets by misdeclaring the cost of their manufacture as Rs. 4,950/-. By so declaring the cost of manufacture of TV sets, appellant took the benefit of exemption notification allowing the rate of duty of Rs. 1,500/- as against the higher duty of Rs. 2,000/- applicable if the price of the TV sets exceeded Rs. 5,000/-.2. Arguing the case of the appellant, Shri Naveen Mullick, learned Counsel states that the department had not disclosed the basis for increasing the cost of the different items that go into the manufacture of TV sets including the labour cost. Apart from contesting the basis of costing adopted by the department as above, Shri Mullick raised an alternative plea that even if for argument's sake, the costing applied by the department is accepted as correct, there is n...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sai Electricals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-1998
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT646TriDel
1. The question involved in the present case whether a declaration submitted u/r 57G to the Superintendent is sufficient for the purpose of that Rule. The Lower Appellate Authority has held that in view of the Tribunal judgment in the case of Metalfab Industries reported in 1994 (74) E.L.T. 734, the declaration made to the Supdt. is valid because the concerned Supdt. is a part of the Divisional Office.2. It is against the aforesaid order that the Revenue has now come up in appeal.3. Learned JDR Shri D.K. Nayyar has stated that filing of declaration before the Asstt. Collr., C. Ex. and obtaining acknowledgement from him is a mandatory requirement; that haying not been done by the respondents herein, the declaration cannot be treated as received by the Revenue Authorities and therefore, Modvat credit is required to be denied.4. Opposing the contention of the ld. DR, Shri Surinder Mullick, learned Advocate reiterated the findings of the Lower Appellate Authority as already set out above....
Ntpc (Up) Ltd Vs. Swadesh Polytex Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-1998
Reported in: 1998(45)DRJ478
Vijender Jain, J.1. This application has been filed by the plaintiffs-applicants to amend para-53 of the plaint by inserting paras-53 (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H) and (I), which are to the following effect:53.A. That a notice for holding 27th AGM of the defendant No. 1 Company on 5.12.1997 was issued on 29.10.1997. The said notice of the AGM provided for the following in its agenda: Ordinary Business 1. To consider and adopt the Balance Sheet as on 31st March, 1997 and the Profit and Loss Account of the Company for the year ended on that date and the report of the Board of Directors and Auditors thereon. 2. To declare dividend. 3. To appoint a Director in place of Shri K.L. Koul, who retires by rotation and being eligible offers himself for re-appointment. 4. To appoint Auditors and to fix their remuneration and for that purpose to pass the following Resolution as a Special Resolution: 'Resolved that pursuant to Section 224A and other applicable provisions, if any, of the Co...
Ram Pistons and Rings Ltd. Vs. Dr. Banwari Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-1998
Reported in: 1998(46)DRJ175
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. This is the defendant's appeal, who is aggrieved by the decree directing his ejectment from the Flat No. E-35, 3rd floor, Himalaya House, 23 , Kasturba Gandhi Marg,New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit accommodation') as also for recoveryof mesne profits passed by the Additional District Judge in regular Civil Suit No. 125/89. 2. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs on the allegation that the appellant/defendant was inducted in the suit accommodation as a tenant at the rate of Rs. 4.475/- per month under the respondents and that the defendant's, tenancy was duly terminated by the notice to quit dated 28.12.1988.3. The suit was resisted on the ground that the defendant's tenancy has not been duly terminated and the eviction suit was barred under the provisions of the Delhi RentControl Act. A plea was also raised in defense that the notice to quit stood waived and the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree for ej...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Triveni Engineering Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-1998
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT572TriDel
1. In this appeal Department has challenged the Collector (Appeals) Order allowing capital goods credit in respect of brass tubes and pipes as parts of boiler under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules.2. Shri Nayyar, ld. SDR, submitted that during the material period the boiler was covered by Explanation 1(d) of Rule 57Q and as such the pipes and tubes as parts of boiler will be eligible for being considered as capital goods. As the boilers have been specifically mentioned in Explanation 1(d) to Rule 57Q, the parts thereof are eligible capital goods for the purpose of capital goods credit.3. In view of these facts, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed....
Procter and Gamble India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-1998
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT305TriDel
1. The Stay Petition seeks waiver, for the purpose of hearing of the appeal filed by the petitioner/ appellant, pre-deposit of an amount of Rs. 1,10,40,613/- demanded as duty and amount of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed as penalty by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore vide his Order No. 10/Commr./CEX/Ind.-II/97, dated 10-12-1997.2. Shri Arshad Hidayatullah, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sar-vashri V.S. Nankani and P.K. Ram, learned Advocates appeared for the petitioner. He stated that appellant was clearing detergent powder in bulk packing on payment of duty from their factory in Mandideep in the jurisdiction of Indore Collectorate. Such duty paid detergent powder was being repacked by another manufacturer in the jurisdiction of Kanpur Collectorate in 20 gm and 30 gm sachets. Learned Counsel assailed the order as having been passed by the Commissioner without jurisdiction. He explained that the demand of duty has been raised by Commissioner of Indore in respect of such repacked De...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »