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.
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Khetu Ram Bishamber Dass
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-08-1998
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT653TriDel
1. These two appeals involve the issue of classification of preparations containing snuff of tobacco in any proportion. The period of dispute in Appeal No. E/4669/91-D is 1-12-1989 to 6-2-1990, while the period covered in the second case is from August, 1990 to December, 1990.2. The respondents are manufacturer of snuff of Tobacco. They filed refund claim on account of differential duty as their claim was that their product was classified under Central Excise Tariff 2404.60. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claims holding that duty has been correctly charged under Central Excise Tariff sub-heading 2404.50.The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh upheld the assessees' claim with regard to the classification of the product under Central Excise Tariff sub-heading 2404.60. However, he rejected the claim for refund on the ground that the grant of refund would amount to unjust enrichment of the respondents since they had passed on their duty burden to their customers...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Muzaffar Nagar Steel Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-08-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT244TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the order-in-appeal dated 6-3-1997 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad, is under challenge. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad, after referring to the Tribunal's decision in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. CCE, -1996 (88) E.L.T. 785 (Tribunal) had allowed the Modvat credit in respect of the gear box under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. 2. Prior to 16-3-1995 the components of the electric generating sets were not covered by the scheme of credit of duty paid on capital goods used by the manufacturer of specified goods under Rule 57Q of the Rules; and 3. The Gear Box in question was received in the factory before 16-3-1995 and by virtue of the specific provision made in Notification No. 11/95-C.E. (N.T.), dated 16-3-1995, no such credit was admissible if the goods had been received in the factory before 16-3-1995.3. In reply, Shri Alok Arora, Advocate, referred to the Tribunal's decision...
Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-08-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT384TriDel
1. In this appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Pune dated 9-3-1992, the appellants have challenged a duty demand of Rs. 14,95,893.00 and penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed on them by the Collector (Appeals).2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of inter alia, articles of plastic (Plastic insulated wares) and vacuum flasks. They had two factories one at Talegaon and another at Chinchwad, the main factory being the one at Talegaon. The appellants claim that during the period of dispute i.e. from 1-3-1990 to 21-8-1990, more than 84% of the articles manufactured by them in terms of value were exempt from Central Excise Licensing Control under Rule 174A of the Central Excise Rules since all the goods manufactured in their Talegaon factory were fully exempt from duty. During the relevant period only 4% of the production was carried out in the Chinchwad factory.3. The appellants were served with a show cause notice dated 29-8-1990 alleg...
Utkal Automobiles Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-08-1998
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT277TriDel
1. M/s. Utkal Automobiles Limited (Body Building Division), Jamshedpur have filed this appeal against the order of the Collector (Appeals), Calcutta dated 9-2-1990 by which the Collector (Appeals) held the classification dispute against the appellants and denied them the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 180/88.2. The appellants are engaged in the business of fabrication and mounting of bodies on duty paid chassis received from various customers as per specifications and drawings given by customers. For purposes of fabrication of bodies appellants obtained various aluminium items classifiable under Chapter 76 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985. In the course of fabrication, aluminium scrap and waste arise which are used along with excise duty paid aluminium ingots for purposes of manufacturing parts and accessories of motor vehicle bodies through the process of casting. According to appellants these are used captively in relation to the fabrication of motor vehicle bodies. Th...
Anil Kumar JaIn Vs. R.K. Yadav
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-1998
Reported in: 1998IVAD(Delhi)665; 1998CriLJ3061; 1998(4)Crimes661; 76(1998)DLT955
ORDERCrl. M. (M). 2218/96 1. This revision petition is directed against an order dated 7th August,1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby he set aside the order dated 23rd May, 1994 passed by thee learned SDM and remanded the case to the learned SDM with a direction to implead the legal representatives of the deceased Sh. Moti Ram and then to proceed with the enquiry further.2. The brief facts which gave rise to the presentation of the present petition are as under: that the Magistrate while dealing with the petition under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. or dared the attachment of the property bearing No.XT-1274, Gali-2, Satsang Marg, Rajagarh Colony, Krishana Nagar, Delhi. During the tendency of the proceedings Part No.1 Sh. Moti Ram before the S.D.M. died on 12th March ,1993. One of his legal heirs Sh.Darshan Kumar informed the S.D.M. with regard to his death vide his application dated 24th May, 1993. Thereafter the learned S.D.M. passed an order that the disputed pro...
Y.K. Sharma (Dr.) Vs. University of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-1998
Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)684; 74(1998)DLT261
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a direction to the respondents to give benefits of past services of the petitioner rendered to the respondent No. 2 as against a leave vacancy of a post of Lecturer. 2. The petitioner in pursuance of an interview was appointed as a Lecturer in English as against the leave vacancy of Mrs. Suman Mathur. The said appointment letter is annexed to the petitioner and is dated 12.11.1987. The said letter specifically stipulates that the appointment is on ad hoc basis and against a leave vacancy, the post being held by Mrs. Suman Mathur.3. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner in that capacity worked as a Lecturer in English on ad hoc basis in the respondent college from 14.11.1987 up to the month of December, 1990. Mrs. Suman Mathur, however, resigned from the post of Lecturer in the respondent college on 21.1.1990 and a vacancy having arisen in the college, the same was ad...
Gulab Impax Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-1998
Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)944; 73(1998)DLT525; 1998(45)DRJ649
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The plaintiff have prayed for the following reliefs against the defendants:- 'In the above-noted facts and circumstances of the case, it is, thereforee, prayed that: a) a decree for Rs.5,02,085/- (rupees five lakhs two thousand and eighty-five) be passed in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants; b) pendente-lite and future interest be awarded 18% per annum from the date of suit till its realisation on the above-said amount of Rs.5,02,085/-; d) costs of the suit be awarded to the plaintiffs and against the defendants.' 2. According to the plaintiffs, clearance of the goods for warehousing was arbitrarily delayed and the plaintiffs were put to a great loss. The plaintiffs, from the date of filing of the bill of entries on the 23rd of February, 1987 and the 28th of March, 1987, wrote to the Customs Department for clearance of goods and warehousing and there was no response at all by the Customs Department. On the 3rd of April, 1987, the plaintiff...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. A.J. Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-06-1998
Reported in: (1998)(62)ECC390
1. The respondent herein filed classification list for their product Welding Machine. Under this product they made following :- Welding Transformer (a) Air Cooled, (b) Oil Cooled (c) Welding rectifier and (d) High frequency Unit. They claimed, classification under sub-heading 8515.00. The Assistant Collector, however, issued show cause notice that the welding transformer is basically a transformer and would merit classification under Tariff of Heading 8404.00. The Assistant Collector, however, dropped the proposal of classifying the product under Tariff Heading 8504.00.2. An appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Asstt. Collector's order to the Collector (Appeals). He also did not agree with the pleas of the revenue. Hence this appeal by the revenue.3. Ld. SDR Shri A.K. Agarwal for the Revenue urges that the product welding transformer is basically a transformer and it would merit classification under Tariff sub-heading 8404.00. The welding transformer was cleared without welding...
Hi-tech Poly Pack Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-06-1998
Reported in: (1998)(60)ECC624
1. In this case a demand of duty of Rs. 2,52,052.50 has been confirmed on the appellants for the reasons that they have been held not to be entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 65/87, dated 1-3-1987 on HDPE sacks manufactured by them out of fabrics received by them from outside. A penalty of Rs. 10,000/- has also been imposed for contravention of the central excise duty. The item manufactured by the appellants, namely, HDPE Woven Sacks undisputedly fall for classification under CET sub-heading 6301.00. They are made out of non-duty paid HDPE laminated fabrics produced on circular looms by the fabrics manufacturer. The appellants have availed of the benefit of Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986, as amended, up to the clearance value of Rs. 15 lakh and thereafter paid duty @ 5% adv. Vide letter dated 29-8-1987, they informed the jurisdictional Range Superintendent that they would be manufacturing HDPE Woven Sacks without the aid of power w.e.f. 1-9-1987 and stopped payment o...
C.C.E. Vs. Teksons Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-06-1998
Reported in: (1998)(62)ECC393
The respondent herein are manufacturers of various types of nuts viz. B.S.P. Type, Metric type etc. But they have not obtained any Central Excise Licence for the manufacture of such nuts. Range Supdt. issued a Show cause notice demanding duty of Rs. 4.04.357.50 for the period 25.4.84 for goods viz. nuts as perceived by the superintendent; 2. Contention of the appellants have been that they manufactured and fittings of hose assembly. No manufacture of nuts takes place. The Assistant Collector consulted Technical expert and on the basis of his opinion came to the conclusion that the goods manufactured are fittings of Hose assembly and not nuts. Hence he dropped the show cause notice.3. Revenue in appeal before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) did not succeed. Hence this appeal by the Revenue.4. At this stage it is appropriate to set out the process of manufacture of the goods under consideration which is mentioned in the impugned order. I notice that the entire and fitting is o...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »