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.
Hindustan Syringes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1998
Reported in: (1999)(80)LC64Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 105/93 dated 15.10.1993 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi confirming the demand of Rs. 9,86,223 against the appellant under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000 under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of hypodermic syringes, during the relevant period 1988 to 1992, was selling the goods to wholesale dealers and was also selling a part of the goods to UNICEF under a contract entered into in response to global tenders. Appellant filed price lists in Part I declaring the wholesale price to dealers.Appellant did not file price lists in Part II declaring the price payable by UNICEF, which was to be paid in US Dollars. Appellant was clearing the goods sold to wholesale dealers as well as to UNICEF on payment of duty on the approved prices in price lists in Part I. In respect of the aforesaid period it was found subsequent...
Gurbaksh Singh (Nb Sub) Vs. the Chief of Army Staff and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1998
Reported in: 1998(47)DRJ656
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner, while working in the Indian Army, had to undergo Hernia operation on the 25th of August, 1995. On the 11th of October, 1995, after examination of the petitioner by the Medical Board in view of the operation, he was placed on low medical category 'CEE'. Later on after he fully recovered, on the 23rd of April, 1996 he was examined by the Medical Board and on examination of the petitioner, being completely fit, he was upgraded and placed on medical category 'A'. He was working as Nb.Subedar. As per rules, he was to retire on the 31st of December, 1996. Proceedings to that effect had been issued in January, 1996. After he was placed in category 'A', his case was not considered for promotion. 2. The petitioner filed the CM.8390/96 praying for injunction restraining the third respondent from discharging the petitioner from service. Therein the petitioner had stated that the third respondent on the 7th of December, 1996 had sent a letter to the Headqu...
Boinpally Madhava Rao Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1998
Reported in: 75(1998)DLT503; 1998(47)DRJ549
R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to release Samman Pension under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (formerly known as Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme, 1972) (hereinafter 'the Scheme' for short).2. The petitioner is a resident of Andhra Pradesh. The Andhra Pradesh State has recommended the case of the petitioner for the release of the pension. However, the recommendation made by the State Government has been turned down by the Central Government after consideration.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made available a copy of the Scheme for our perusal. The relevant parts thereof are extracted and reproduced hereunder :-'4. WHO IS ELIGIBLE?For the purpose of grant of Samman pension under the scheme, a freedom fighter is:- (a) A person who had suffered a minimum imprisonment of six months in the mainland jails before Independence. However, ex-INA personnel will be eligible for pension if the imprisonment/ detenti...
Rajasthan Cylinders and Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1998
Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT96TriDel
1. Assessee being aggrieved by the Order-in-original dated 29-10-91 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur has filed the present appeal.2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of LPG cylinders was so manufacturing on their own and also on job work basis for Indian Oil Company (IOC), a Government of India Undertaking. The dispute in this appeal relates to the correct assessable value and duty payable on LPG cylinders manufactured on job work basis and supplied to IOC- The dispute relates to the period November, 84 to October, 86 governed by several price lists filed by the appellant and approved by the Department. At page 21 is seen a copy of one of the price lists along with covering letter dated 21-12-85 at page 20. Appellant indicated in the covering letter cost of bare cylinders, cost of self closing valves, cost of imported steel sheets per cylinder supplied by IOC and fabrication charges per cylinder. The data regarding cost of imported steel sheets supplie...
Yuil Measures (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT181TriDel
1. This is a Misc. Application filed by the applicant company for modification of the Stay Order No. S/262-63/98-NB, dated 23-4-1998.2. Arguing the Misc. Application Shri J.M. Sharma, Id. Consultant submitted that from the date of passing of the order the financial condition of company has further deteriorated. He submits that the applicant had taken up the matter with their Bank and the Bank refused to grant them any advance against hypothecation of the raw-materials etc. He submits that in the meantime BIFR has also declared the company as a sick unit and that the rehabilitation etc. of the unit is under consideration. The Id. Consultant also refers to a decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Lakshmi Cement v. CEGAT, 1995 (75) E.L.T. 474 (Delhi) wherein the Hon'ble High Court had held as under :- "4. In the instant case, admittedly, the goods are in the custody of the Customs Authority. On this aspect there is no dispute and there cannot be any dispute. If so, the question ...
Bombay Pharma Products Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1998
Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT135TriDel
1. The Appeal has been filed by M/s. Bombay Pharma Products against the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise order dated 19-11-1992 disallowing 25% discount to the dealers holding that the discount was given to cover expenses for sale promotion, advertisement, etc. that such discount is no discount at all.2. None was present on behalf of the Appellants when the matter was called. They have submitted, in their appeal memorandum, that in the field of medicine grant of 25% discount is most normal which was given to the whole-sale dealer; that these wholesale dealers sold the goods after retaining their profit in semi-whole and for doing so they have to pass on discount for the profit of the retailers; that all the advertisement expenses had been borne by them and hence amount of 25% discount could not be included in the assessable value.3. The ld. SDR, Shri K. Srivastava submitted that it is evident from the Appellants' letter dated 16-1-1984 that the seller would be responsible for adver...
Universal Ferro and Allied Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1998
Reported in: (1999)LC513Tri(Delhi)
1. The common-appellant in these appeals is not represented in spite of notice of hearing, but has sent a request for decision of the appeals without hearing the appellant's representative. We have heard Shri K.Srivastava, SDR and perused the papers.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Appeal No. Date of order ap- No. of appeals disposed Nature of the pealed against of by Collector (Appeals) proceeding--------------------------------------------------------------------------------747/93-A 26-11-1992 10 8 refund claims two demands748/93-A 18-1-1993 1 Demand749/93-A 19-1-1993 1 Refund claim750/93-A 1-1-1993 1 Two demands751/93-A 10-2-1993 1 Demand752/93-A 26-11-1992 5 Five refund claims 3. Against the order dated 26-11-1992 passed by the Collector (Appeals), appellant is required to file ten separate appeals before the Tribunal, but has filed only a single appeal. Therefore, this appeal has to be treated as an appeal only against one of the app...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Pratap Rajasthan Special Steel
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1998
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT437TriDel
1. The short question which arises for our consideration in this case is: whether various structures like trusses, beams and purlines etc.which had been made by the process of cutting and welding tantamount to manufacture. The Addl. Collector who adjudicated the matter relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Aruna Industries v.C.C.E., Guntur 1986 (25) E.L.T. 580 has held that for a manufacturing process to take place change of- identity of product is a must, cutting, welding, drilling do not tantamount to manufacture and that assembling of structural and shapes for building construction is not manufacture. It is also held in that case that the goods which are not manufactured or not moved from the factory are not excisable and the factory did not include construction site the trusses and drillings were not items of manufacture.2. Arguing for the Revenue Shri D.S. Negi, SDR submitted that name, character and end-use of the product is relevant to decide the issue.The it...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Amol Decalite Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT222TriDel
1. In these two appeals filed by the Revenue, the issue involved is whether waste product known as Bag House fine, obtained during the process of manufacturing filter aid powder is an excisable product.2. M/s. Amol Decalite Ltd. manufacture Filter aid powder, classifiable under Heading 28.51 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, from Perlite Ore by heating it in a furnace. The final product is graded according to the particle size and is assigned a grade number. The waste in the form of very fine powder, known as bag-house fine, which is not usable as filter aid powder, was graded by the Respondents as 414 and 424. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand of excise duty under order dated 29-1-1991 holding that the filter aid powder of grade 414 and 424 is a fully manufactured product and is capable of being sold in the market and needs to be classified as "filter aid powder". The Assistant Collector, in a subsequent order dated 26-2-1992, however, held that waste of filter aid powd...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Modi Business Machines Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT112TriDel
1. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh being aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal dated 29-10-1991 passed by the Collector (Appeals) Chandigarh has filed this appeal. Respondent is absent in spite of notice of hearing. We have heard Shri R.D. Negi, SDR and perused the papers.2. Respondent, engaged in the manufacture of electronic typewriters and certain accessories, was filing price lists in Part-V (retail price) from time to time, declaring prices, deductions and certain additions.Price lists were finalised directing the respondent to furnish details of actual cost of transportation, insurance and octroi. Show cause notice dated 9-2-1989 was issued proposing demand of differential duty of Rs. 1,06,351.97 recoverable on account of differential amount charged by the respondent for installation kit, installation freight, handling, octroi etc. Respondent resisted the notice, and the Assistant Collector granted some relief while confirming, major "part of the demand. In appeal, Collector ...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »