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.
Pratap Steels Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-05-1998
Reported in: (1998)(78)LC916Tri(Delhi)
1. The short point for consideration in this appeal is whether the cost of free after-sales-services extended to buyers of tractors manufactured by the appellant should be part of the assessable value or not. Appellant was giving fixed discounts to dealers from out of which an amount equal to the cost of after free-sales-services would be kept with the manufacturer as security for performance of free after-sales-services and on the dealers producing the coupons for such services, the amounts will be released to the dealers. There is no dispute about this fact. In this fact situation, the matter is covered by the decision in Philips India Ltd. followed by Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. 1998 (25) RLT 547 (T) : 1998 (76) ECR 290 (T).In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court the contrary decision of the Tribunal in Standard Motor Products Ltd. can no longer be regarded as good law....
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Sandvik Asia Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-05-1998
Reported in: (1998)LC644Tri(Delhi)
1. Collector of Central Excise, Pune has filed the present appeal on a review by the CBEC against Order-in-Original No. 115/CE/ 1987, dated 7-1-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Pune.2. It appears, the assessee also challenged the Order-in-Appeal No.1095/88-A in regard to two aspects, covered by the order, namely, direction by the Collector to the Assistant Collector to work out the short levy for the period of six months prior to the date of the show cause notice and a similar direction for future assessments. By Final Order No. 109/97-A, the Tribunal set aside both these directions and allowed the appeal. At that time neither side brought to our notice the fact that the Collector of Central Excise, Pune has filed an appeal against the same. Shri Joseph Vellapally, learned Counsel states that the assessee was not aware of filing of the appeal by the Department and for the first time the assessee became aware of the present appeal only when notice of hearing of the appea...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Pari Plast Private Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-05-1998
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT108TriDel
1. These are appeals against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad dated 30-5-1991 involving a common issue.2. The respondents have not appeared in spite of notice. However, since prima facie, the matter appears to be a settled issue, we have heard learned DR and perused the records.3. Learned DR stated that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of HDPE tapes from HDPE granules. They had filed classification list under sub-heading No. 3926.90 attracting nil rate of duty under Notification 53/88, dated 1-3-1988 on the ground that these tapes were articles of plastics. The A.C. classified their product under sub-heading No. 5406.90 and confirmed the demand of duty.The Collector (Appeals) allowed the party's appeal, inter alia, on the ground that the HDPE tapes are manufactured of HDPE granules; As such, these cannot be considered to be made of synthetic textile materials.Even in trade parlance, the product is referred to and is known as HDPE tapes and no...
Zakeria Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-05-1998
Reported in: (1998)(62)ECC387
1. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows. The appellants herein are a purchase duty paid ship breaking scrap falling under heading 72.15 on waste and scrap of iron and steel falling under tariff heading 7203. They had been bringing duty paid scrap arisen from the breaking of ships or otherwise even under the old tariff as it existed before 1.3.86. A question has arisen in this case whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of notification No. 208/83 for the period 1.8.83 to 31.12.86. The adjudicating authority had held that they are not entitled to the benefit of the said notification. The reasons given are as follows: The Notice's contention is that their raw material for manufacture of M.S. Plates and M.S. Angles are obtained from breaking up ships boats and other floating structures on which duty has been paid and therefore, they are not entitled to pay further duty on the final product M.S. Plats and M.S. Angles as per Notification No. 208/83 dated 1.8.83 as...
Agarwal Textiles Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-05-1998
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT82TriDel
1. This is an application seeking restoration of the appeal dismissed for default on 25-9-1997 by final order No. 1825/97-A on the ground that none appeared for the appellant and there was no request for adjournment. The appellant alleges that the controversy in this appeal is pending before the Larger Bench of the Tribunal by way of a reference in appeals Nos. E/606/85-B1, E/2106/85-C, E/915/90-C, E/1820-1821/NRB and E/1838/94-NRB and in that view an application for adjournment was made, but the same was not before the Bench. A copy of the application is also submitted along with the ROA. On verification, we find that the question in controversy is pending before the Larger Bench. In these circumstances, we recall final order No. 1825/97-A and restore the appeal to file.2. The Deputy Registrar shall place the papers in Appeals Nos.E/606/85-B1, E/2106/85-C, E/915/90-C, E/1820-1821/NRB and E/1838/94-NRB before the President for constitution of Larger Bench for expeditious hearing of th...
La Medica Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Delhi Development Autho ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-05-1998
Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)621; 73(1998)DLT362; 1998(45)DRJ417
ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. In the Okhla Industrial Area there is an industrial plot bearing No.F-83 owned by Delhi Development Authority, the respondent No.1. The said plot was allotted to M/s.Drug Deal Corporation, a partnership concern, constitution whereof was later on changed to M/s.La Medica ., the petitioner herein. The change in the constitution of firm was brought to the notice of the DDA and acceded to by the later vide its communication dated 12.8.77 to the petitioner. Possession over the plot was delivered to the allottee on 1.11.74. A deed of perpetual lease 'was executed on 28th February, 1977 and was registered too. Nevertheless, the deed of lease was effective from 1.11.74. On 8.1.75, the DDA had issued a NOC for consideration of building plan on the said plot in anticipation of execution of lease deed.2. The lease is under the Government Grants Act, 1895. Clause 5(a) of the deed of lease provides as under :-(5)(a) The lessee shall not sell, transfer, assign or otherwise par...
Prem Sagar Sharma Vs. Central Warehousing Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-05-1998
Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)799; 73(1998)DLT357; 1998(45)DRJ611
DR. M.K. Sharma, J.1.The present writ petition is directed against rejection of the claim of the petitioner for ex gratia payment for the period he spent on foreign assignment. 2. The petitioner joined the services of the respondent as Assistant Engineer (Civil) on 19.11.1976 on deputation from Military Engineering Service. Subsequently the petitioner was absorbed in the Central Warehousing Corporation in pursuance of an order passed on 18.11.1979. While serving as Assistant Engineer (Civil) with the respondent after his absorption the petitioner got his name registered with Foreign Assignment Section of Ministry of Home Affairs for being sent on deputation as Expert in any foreign country. The petitioner was selected as Civil Engineer by the Government of Iraq and consequent upon the said selection the respondent took a decision to relieve the petitioner from the services of the Corporation in order to enable him to join his new assignment with the foreign government in public interes...
Ramesh Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-05-1998
Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)837; 73(1998)DLT349; 1998(46)DRJ118
ORDERDr. M.K.Sharma, J.1. In pursuance of a departmental proceeding instituted against the petitioner, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 8.5.1995 under Rule 34 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). The said charge-sheet contained three Articles of charges which were set out in the charge-sheet. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet which was considered by the disciplinary authority and found to be not satisfactory and accordingly by order dated 15.5.1995 an Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner. It was directed that the enquiry would be conducted on a day-to-day basis and accordingly the said enquiry was conducted from 16.5.1995. On completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report. The disciplinary authority on consideration of the Enquiry Report and the proceedings of the enquiry by his order dated 26.5.1995 dismissed the petitio...
Neelgiri Cements Ltd. Vs. Appellate Authority for Indu. and Financial ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-05-1998
Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)857; AIR1998Delhi379; [1998]94CompCas204(Delhi); 76(1998)DLT882
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. The short question to be determined in this petition is about the legality of the condition imposed by board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) directing promoters of petitioner company to deposit a sum of Rs. 40 lakhs in a No Lien Account and further directing that in case such a deposit is not made, the operating agency would advertise for change of management inviting offers for the take over of the sick industrial company. 2. Petitioner No.1 Company made reference under Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The paid up capital of the Company as on 31st March, 1996 was Rs. 25 lakhs and the accumulated losses on that date were Rs. 342.76 lakhs. The principal financial institution claiming huge amounts from the petitioner company is Punjab National Bank. According to the Bank the company's accounts have been irregular since July 1992. A meeting was held with the Company ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Jagdamba Polymer Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-04-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT70TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad dated 18-4-1991/23-4-1991.2. The respondents have not appeared inspite of notice. However, since prima-facie, the matter appears to be a settled issue, we have heard learned DR and perused the records.3. Learned DR stated that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of HDPE Tapes from HDPE granules. They had filed classification list under sub-heading 3926.90 attracting nil rate of duty under Notification 53/88 dated 1-3-1988 on the ground that these tapes were articles of plastics. The A.C. classified their product under sub-heading No. 5406.90 and confirmed the demand of duty. The Collector (Appeals) allowed the party's appeal, inter alia, on the ground that the HDPE tapes are manufactured of HDPE granules; As such, these cannot be considered to be made of synthetic textile materials.Even in trade parlance, the product is referred to and is known as HDPE tapes and not as article of text...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »