Delhi Court August 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.
Versat Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-1998
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT132TriDel
1. Appellant having been filed this appeal against the original order dated 24-3-1998 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-3 confirming demand of Rs. 5,15,208.43 against the appellant and imposing penalty of an equal amount Under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 and of Rs. 5 lakhs under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and denying benefit of Modvat credit of duty paid on one of the inputs namely, capsules, has filed this application Under Section 35F of the Act seeking waiver of the requirement of pre-deposit. This application is opposed by Shri K. Srivastava, SDR. We have heard both sides.2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of microphones, was filing price lists from time to time during the period 1992-97 declaring the wholesale prices at which the goods were to be sold to M/s. AKG Acoustics (India) Ltd. (for short AKG) and was clearing the goods on payment of excise duty on the approved prices. The department came to know subsequently that unde...
Cce Vs. Sparton Batteries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-1998
Reported in: (1999)(80)LC43Tri(Delhi)
1. Original order No. 168/90-91 dated 5.4.1991 passed by Additional Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi confirming demand of duty of Rs. 38,575.10 is under challenge in this appeal.2. Respondent, engaged in the manufacture of electric storage batteries and battery plates since 1.4.1978 had not applied for central excise licence, nor followed central excise procedure and was clearing the excisable goods without payment of duty. This was discovered by the central excise officers who visited the factory premises on 29.3.1979.It was found that during the period from 1.4.1978 to 29.3.1979, respondent had manufactured and removed 1448 storage batteries without payment of duty and without filing classification list or price list, had purchased 90 motorcycle batteries and sold the same in the respondent's own brand name, had charged different prices from different customers, which prices were different from the prices shown in the respondent's trade price list and had manufactured and clea...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Sudhakar Litho Printers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT238TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the order-in-appeal dated 15-3-1990 is under challenge. The matter relates to the additional demand, under communication dated 16-12-1988 read with communication dated 28-7-1989 both issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Vijayawada, for the period April, 1982 to November, 1982. The Additional demand was of Rs 1,41,804.72. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had observed that no show cause notice was issued for the demand in question and that as the classification lists had been finally approved on 2-4-1983, the demand was hit by time-bar as the same had been made after a period of five years.2. We have heard Shri R.S. Sangia, JDR, for the appellants/Revenue.Shri V.J. Francis, Advocate, appeared for the respondents, M/s Sudhakar Litho Printers.3. Shri R.S. Sangia, JDR, submitted that the assessments were provisional. Even when the classification list has been finally approved, the assessments were not finalised, and they were fina...
Goramal Hari Ram Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-1998
Reported in: (1999)(82)LC630Tri(Delhi)
1. Order-in-appeal No. 154-155/94 dated 17.3.1994 confirming original order No. 74/93-94 dated 4.10.1993 is under challenge in this appeal.2. Appellant filed several price lists declaring different prices for wholesale dealers in Delhi and outside Delhi and also claiming certain deductions. The controversy regarding deduction does not survive now.The Assistant Collector held that the higher price charged from dealers in Delhi will govern the sales to outstation dealers also. On that basis, a demand was also made for the period 27.7.1992 to 9.10.1992 and the demand was subsequently confirmed. These orders were challenged by way of two appeals before the Collector (Appeals) who passed a common order dismissing the appeals. Appellant should have filed two separate appeals but has filed only one appeal. We treat the present appeal as the one against the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) confirming the demand confirmed by the Assistant Collector.3. There is no dispute that appellant ...
Mahendra Pratap Singh Ratra and anr. Vs. N.K. Metals and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-1998
Reported in: [1999]97CompCas152(Delhi); 1998CriLJ4383; 1999(1)Crimes181; 75(1998)DLT155; 1998(47)DRJ87
D.K. Jain, J. 1. In this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the petitioners pray for setting aside of the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on August 17, 1996, directing framing of charge against them under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the Act').2. Mahendra Steel Tubes Limited, accused No. 1, issued certain cheques signed by its chairman-cum-managing director, accused No. 2, in favor of respondent No. 1 for purchasing certain goods from them. The said cheques, on presentation were received back unpaid with the remark 'insufficient funds'. Thereupon, a legal notice was issued on behalf of respondent No. 1 to the affronted company demanding payment and there being no response to the notice, a complaint under the said section was filed against the company, and its three directors, viz., the chairman-cum-managing director and the petitioners, the other two directors of the company. After pre-summoning evide...
Asea Brown Boveri Limited Vs. Chiranjiv Lal Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-1998
Reported in: 4(1998)CLT356; 75(1998)DLT773; 1999(48)DRJ585; (1998)120PLR58
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. The plaintiff filed the present suit seeking, inter alia, the following reliefs:'(A) Decree the suit of the plaintiff against the defendant directing the defendant to execute and register in favor of the plaintiff lease deeds every three years and when so claimed by the plaintiff with respect of Flat No. 402, Guru Angad Bhawan, 71, Nehru Place, New Delhi on the terms and conditions stated in the lease deed dated 1.12.79 and on payment of enhanced rent by 10% at the time of exercising each option. (B) Injunct the defendant from in any manner interfering with the rights of the plaintiff as a lessee in the aforesaid subject property. The defendant be injuncted from in any manner disturbing the possession of the plaintiff or evicting the plaintiff from the subject premises till it pays the enhanced rent by 10% every three years. Costs of the suit be awarded. Such other and further orders be passed as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstanc...
Garware Polyester Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT930TriDel
1. Common appellant in these appeals has made a request for adjournment on the ground that a similar matter is pending in appeal before the Supreme Court. Pendency of a matter in Supreme Court may not invariably be a justifiable ground for adjournment of an appeal pending before the Tribunal; this is particularly so in these cases. There is already a decision of the Supreme Court which may be helpful in deciding the legal controversy in these cases. Appellant is not represented. The request for adjournment is refused. We have heard Shri K. Srivastava, SDR and perused the papers.2. Appeal E/765/90-A has been filed by the appellant challenging the Order-in-Appeal No. SKM-2131/89-B.L. dated 20-10-1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay, setting aside the Order-in-Original No. K-II/202/88, dated 12-9-1988 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. The Assistant Collector passed order on approval of the price list in Part-I filed by the common appe...
Guljag Chemicals and Plastics Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-1998
Reported in: (1999)(82)LC637Tri(Delhi)
1. These appeals are directed against the common order-in-appeal No.266-273/92 dated 18.3.1992 passed by the Collector (Appeals), New Delhi, dismissing several appeals filed by the appellant against the orders of approval passed by the Assistant Collector on eight price lists filed by the appellant. The lower authorities had concurrently disallowed certain deductions.2. The lower authorities disallowed deduction of handling charges and C&F agents' remuneration expenses. These deductions are not admissible in law, 3. The lower authorities also declined deduction of quantity discount, bank charges for realisation of sale proceeds and cost of HDPE bags claimed to be durable and returnable. The Collector (Appeals) rejected the claim for deduction relying on his earlier order No. 421/91 dated 24.8.1991. We find that the Tribunal has set aside this order in an order reported in 1993 (63) ELT 710 (T) : 1993 (44) ECR 453 (T). Since the Collector (Appeals) did not go into the merits of the...
Kay International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-1998
Reported in: (1999)(80)LC47Tri(Delhi)
1. Order No. 28/92 passed by Collector of Central Excise, Delhi, confirming demand of Rs. 8,47,352.10 as central excise duty short paid on clearances during the period 1986-87 and imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules is under challenge in this appeal.2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of Rotary Twin Lobe Compressors and Spares etc. was availing exemption under notification No. 175/86 in respect of clearances effected during the year 1987-88.One of the conditions of the notification was that the total value of clearances of the manufacturer during the preceding financial year should not have exceeded Rs. 1.50 crores. The value of clearances shown in the monthly RT-12 returns for the period 1986-87 was Rs. 1,49,60,245.84. It appears refund of Rs. 2,97,337.43 had been sanctioned during the said year. In 1986-87, appellant also collected Rs. 1,49,013.38 as incidental charges from two of the contracting parties to whom rotary compressors had be...
Rajasthan Tools Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-1998
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT467TriDel
1. Order-in-Appeal No. 172/CE/JPR/93/2267, dated 5-10-1993 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi confirming the Order-in-Original No. 35/93, dated 16-7-1993 passed by the Assistant Collector, Jodhpur disposing of the application filed by the appellant under Rule 173H(2) (c) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 by holding that the process undertaken on old circular saw by brazing new duty paid segments shall amount to manufacture and the assessee shall pay appropriate duty of excise on the circular saws which emerged, is challenged in this appeal.2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of Circular Saws, on occasions receives back old and damaged saws for replacement of damaged "segments" by new segments by adopting certain processes. Accordingly, appellant submitted an application before the proper officer under Rule 173H(2) (c) of the Rules for permission to retain segments manufactured by the appellant for use in the repair of old and defective saws received in the...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »