Delhi Court May 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.
Hero Honda Motors Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1998
Reported in: (1998)(78)LC912Tri(Delhi)
1. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of Hero Honda Motor vehicles was selling the same to various dealers at approved wholesale prices.The dealers were required to attend to three free after-sales service to the buyers. On production of the service coupons, appellant was paying the dealers @ Rs. 25/- per service at the relevant time by way of credit notes. The lower authorities held that this cost element should be included in the assessable value. These orders are now challenged.2. It is clear from the decision in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. 1998 (25) RLT 547 (T) : 1998 (76) ECR 290 (T) that the cost of free after-sales service would not be part of the assessable value. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal....
Solapur Zill Vinkar Sehkari Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT181TriDel
1. These are two appeals filed by (1) M/s. Solapur Zill Vinkar Sehkari Federation and (2) by the Chairman of the Federation against the order dated 31-7-1989 passed by the Addl. Collector, Aurangabad.2. When the matter was called none was present for the appellants but it is seen from the record that the appellants have by letter dated 6-5-1997 submitted some written submissions and requested for disposal of the case in their absence.3. We have heard Shri Satnam Singh, ld. DR submitted that the dispute relates to a classification matter. He also submitted that the dispute is now covered by an earlier decision of this Tribunal in Bhor Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E. reported in 1997 (95) E.L.T. 377 (T) which has been confirmed by the Supreme Court by their order dated 22-10-1997 in Civil Appeal Nos. 7127 to 7130 of 1997 filed by M/s. Bhor Industries against the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal. We have gone through the relevant portions of the judgment in Bhor Industries Ltd. and we find t...
Pratap Steel Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1998
Reported in: (1998)(78)LC911Tri(Delhi)
1. The dispute in the appeal relates to inclusion of the cost of free after-sales-services in the assessable value of agricultural tractors manufactured by the appellant and cleared to wholesale dealers.Appellant was keeping back this cost element from the dealers' margin and on satisfaction of due performance of the services, the amount withheld would be passed on to the wholesale dealers. That the cost of free after-sales-services cannot be included in the assessable value is clear from the Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. 1998 (25) RLT 547 (T) : 1998 (76) ECR 290 (T). We, therefore, set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals....
Collector of Central Excise Vs. J.K. Cement Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1998
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT209TriDel
1. The issue for determination in this batch of Cases is as to whether the Assistant Commissioner has jurisdiction to adjudicate cases involving duty amounts exceeding Rs. 50,000/-. The lower authority by whose order the Revenue is aggrieved, has held that the Asstt.Commissioner has no jurisdiction to adjudicate cases where the duty amount involved is more than Rs. 50,000/-.2. We have heard Shri P.K. Jain, the ld. SDR and Shri Ashok Sagar, the ld. Advocate appearing for M/s. J.K. Cements. We find that in the case of CCE v. Jaydee Agro Chemicals and Ors., it was held that circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, restricting powers of the Asstt. Commissioners to adjudicate cases involving duty amount below Rs. 50,000/- are only administrative circulars which cannot take precedence over Notification No. 8/1944 and Notification No. 93/89. The Tribunal has held that by the Circulars, the Central Board of Excise and Customs had administratively limited the powers of th...
Pearl Engineering Polymers Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT465TriDel
1. These are three applications for waiver of pre-deposit and the stay of recovery of amount of Customs Duty and penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi under the impugned order. M/s. Pearl Engineering Polymers Ltd. have been asked to pay duty amounting to Rs. 4,18,12,425/- and penalty of Rs. one crore. Shri Chand Seth, Chairman-cum-Managing Director has been imposed a penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs and Shri Arun Gupta, Director has been imposed a penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs.2. Shri V. Sridharan, ld. Advocate submitted that the applicant is engaged in the manufacture of Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Chips and for this purpose a factory was set up with Technical Collaboration of M/s. Zimmer AG Germany; that according to the agreement, the applicant had to pay DM 8 lakhs for supply of know-how and DM 26 lakhs for Front End Engineering Package (FEEP); that the Colloborator has sent 112 volumes of know-how and FEEP by courier.Ld. Advocate submits that know-how and FEEP have come...
Steel Fabricators Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1998
Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT140TriDel
1. The only question arising for consideration is whether the Collector (Appeals) was justified in denying appellant the benefit of SSI Exemption Notification 175/86 and in reversing the order passed by the Assistant Collector which extended the benefit.2. The unit of the appellant started functioning in 1981. Appellant applied to the Directorate of Industries of the State concerned for registration as small scale unit. The Director issued provisional registration certificate in March, 1981 but appellant got permanent registration only on 18-8-1988. The Collector (Appeals) has taken the view that during the period from 1-4-1988 to 31-6-1988 appellant would not be entitled to the benefit of notification since there was no permanent registration during the period.3. The view taken by the Collector (Appeals) is not sound. The provisional certificate was granted for the period till 14-5-1981. It may be that the provisional certificate would have been renewed from time to time till the reg...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Drop Forging (India)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1998
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT174TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Bombay) dated 22-8-1990. The issue is whether forgings manufactured by the process of drop hammer are classified under Chapter sub-heading 7308.00 (structures...of iron and steel) or under Chapter sub-heading 7208.00 (flat-rolled products of iron or non-alloy steel...).2. When the matter was called none was present for the respondents despite notice. Since the appeal has been filed by the Department, it was decided to proceed with the matter on hearing the Departmental Representative.3. Shri A.K. Agarwal, ld. SDR, narrated the facts leading to the present appeal. Respondents had filed classification list bearing No.64/87 and had classified their forgings under sub-heading 7208.00 in respect of steel forgings and under sub-heading 7413.00 in respect of brass forgings. In the classification list the respondents had described the forgings as-"forgings with rough appearance and large diamentional t...
Surinder Pal JaIn Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1998
Reported in: 1998IVAD(Delhi)322; 74(1998)DLT273
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as work assistant Engineer (Civil) in the scale of Rs.110-200 in December 1968. Though stated as temporarily appointed, he continued to be in the employment of the respondents. On 23.09.1976, the petitioner was placed under suspension by Vice-Chairman DDA on the ground that the prosecution was launched against the petitioner under Section 302/203 IPC as having been responsible for causing murder of his wife.2. The DDA having regard to the fact that the petitioner was accused in criminal case involving a serious charge had to decide whether to keep him under suspension or terminate his service, as his appointment was under Rule 5(1) of the Temporary service Rules, 1949. The DDA had decided and it is on record, to dispense with the service of the petitioner because the alleged person had committed the extreme offence of murder. Perhaps it was thought that the payment of subsistance allowances would be for indefinite period because no...
R.K. Gautam Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1998
Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)380; 75(1998)DLT136
ORDERY.K. Sabharwal, J. 1. The appellant was appointed as a Principal by Memo dated 21st July, 1995. However, by memorandum dated 23rd December, 1997 issued by the Commissioner of Kendriya Vidyalya Sangathan as competent authority, the appointment of the appellant as Principal was cancelled on the ground that he did not possess the essential qualifications. The Memorandum dated 23rd December, 1997 is the subject matter of challenge in CW No. 14/98 filed by the appellant. The learned single Judge in terms of order dated 2nd February, 1998 has issued Rule in the writ petition. The application for grant of stay filed along with the writ petition has been, however, dismissed and the application seeking vacation of exparte order of stay has been allowed. By a detailed order, learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that:'A reading of the reply would show that the petitioner himself has admitted that he did not possess the required qualifications but what he would state is that his ap...
Satish Kumar Pawha Vs. Shri Suraj Parkash Pawha and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1998
Reported in: 73(1998)DLT368; 1998(46)DRJ129
ORDERC.M. Nayar, J.1. The present matter relates to the Award dated March 30, 1983 made by late Mr.Justice V.S.Deshpande, former Chief Justice of this Court. The matter was referred to the sole arbitration of the learned Judge by the order of the Court (Hon'ble Mr.Justice D.R.Khanna) passed on November 12, 1981 in suit No.761 of 1981 Satish Kumar Pawha vs. Suraj Prakash Pawha. The reading of the Award will indicate that the following claims were made by the claimant Satish Kumar Pawha:Credit to be given as per the balance sheet as of Diwali 1980 for Rs.14,722/- as share of profits. The interest was claimed on this amount as it was not paid from Diwali of 1980. The learned Arbitrator recorded the following findings in respect of this claim:'He based his claim on clause 12 of the partnership deed for interest. But this clause refers to contributions made by partners over and above their Capital which are to be treated as loans to the partnership business and to carry interest at 12 perce...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »