Delhi Court August 1998 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1998 Page 2 of about 237 results (0.023 seconds)Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT728TriDel
1. These are 15 appeals filed by the above appellants against Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, (Appeals), Ghaziabad upholding orders-in-original passed by the Assistant Collector rejecting refund claims filed by the appellants on the ground that plastic components for audio-cassettes were exempted from payment of duty and, therefore, no Modvat credit on these inputs was admissible and, therefore, the appellants, who are purchasers of these plastic components, will not be entitled to any refund. The Assistant Commissioner had further held that the question relating to unjust enrichment will not be applicable to the case of the appellants.2. Appellants M/s. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. and others are engaged in the manufacture of audio-cassettes falling under sub-heading 8523.12 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Audio-Cassettes falling under sub-heading 8523.12 were exempted from payment of duty vide Notification No. 117/90, dated 16-5-1...
Tag this Judgment!R.M. Mittal Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collr. of Cus. (Judicial)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT582TriDel
1. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 22-6-1998, passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi.2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant made import of impugned goods and filed bill of entry describing the goods as mild steel melting scrap and claimed assessment under sub-heading 7204.10 of the Customs Tariff. On the inspection of the goods, it was found that the goods were steel plates of uniform size. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant on the ground that the appellant had misdeclared the goods and the impugned goods are correctly classifiable under Heading 7211.90 of the Customs Tariff and the goods were liable to be confiscated under Section 112(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. After adjudication the adjudicating authority ordered the confiscation of goods under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and gave option to the appellant to redeem the goods from payment of fine of Rs. 40,000/- and of personal penalty of Rs. 10,000/...
Tag this Judgment!Cc Vs. Sony India P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(79)LC588Tri(Delhi)
1. Short question involved in this matter which survives before us is whether hand tools such as screw driver, bit Tweezer, plier, wire stipper etc. are to be treated as consumer goods or they are to be treated as non-consumer goods i.e. capital goods. The adjudicating authority has held the goods to be capital goods. Therefore, this appeal has been filed by the Revenue contending that these are consumer goods and the licence is required for their importation.1.2. In order to appreciate the aforesaid controversy the reasoning of the adjudicating authority, namely, Commissioner of Customs after having examined the definition of capital goods and consumer goods, has come to the following conclusion: It goes without saying that the items are of high quality precision types and are meant for professional work. They would not be used in a household or domestic purpose or by an ordinary consumer. They are eminently suited for industrial application, that too, any high-tech industry, like hi...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan Polymers and Resins Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT639TriDel
"In the instant case, the procedures were violated/not followed. Mere intimation vide letter dated 17-5-1995 to the Asstt. Commissioner that they intend to move the goods and then without even giving time to react, the goods were removed, would not amount to intimation. I find that this letter dated 17-5-1995 was apparently received in the Asstt. Commissioner's Office on 5-6-1995 (as per endorsement) by which time the transfer had already taken place. I see lot of force in the various grounds of appeal of the Department and allow the appeal." 2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that M/s. Rajasthan Polymers and Resins Limited (in short 'RPRL') received a quantity of 150 MT of Styrene Monomer through Bill of Entry No. 3603, dated 15-5-1995 during the period 18-5-1995 to 25-6-1995 and 148.730 MT of Styrene Monomer through Bill of Entry No. 3653, dated 15-5-1995 during the period 25-5-1995 to 5-6-1995 from M/s. Greaves Limited who is a Trading Company of this input. According to...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Alpump (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT203TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the impugned order dated 12-12-1989 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Madras.2. The dispute is in respect of classification of Pulley flange. While classifying the Shafts, Pulley Hubs under Heading 8483.00 the Collector (appeals) classified pulley flanges under 8413.00 on the ground that they constitute raised edges on the rim of a wheel or circular structure which would not merit classification under Heading 8483.00.The relevant tariff description under Heading 84.83 reads as under: "Transmission shafts(including cam shafts and crank shafts) and cranks; bearing housings and plain shaft bearings; gears and gearing; ball screws, gear boxes and other speed changers, including torque converters fly wheels and pulleys, including pulley works; clutches and shaft couplings (including universal joints)." 3. According to the department, in view of the tariff description it is evident that the pulleys have been explicitly covered by the afo...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. Smt. Rajeshwari Pandey
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998VIAD(Delhi)649; 75(1998)DLT238; 1998(47)DRJ837
ORDERC.M. NAYAR, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated February 22, 1997 passed by Shri J.R.Aryan, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi.2. The respondent filed a petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The point of contest was that the respondent could not be considered holding any independent right and title in the suit property so as to establish one of the essential ingredients of Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. It was, thereforee, examined as to whether the respondent could be held entitled to relief of seeking petitioner's eviction from the tenanted premises when her bona fide was not in question. The other plea which was raised before the Rent Controller as well as before this Court related to the interpretation of the provisions of Section 14(6) of the Act which will be taken up for discussion at a later stage.3. The property bearing No.87, Jor Bagh, New Delhi is the su...
Tag this Judgment!Sandeep Chandra Vs. Vice-admiral Subhash C. Chopra (Rtd.) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IAD(Delhi)73; 76(1998)DLT776; 1998(47)DRJ308
ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. The facts in brief are that in a petition preferred by the petitioner [C.M. (Main) No. 406/93] on 28.10.1993, notice was directed to be issued to the respondents therein. It is alleged that the said notice was taken and tendered to the respondents on 29.10.1993 at about 5.30 p.m. Respondent No. 1 after reading the notice not only abused the petitioner and the process server, but also hurled abuses against the Court. Offensive, abusive and derogatory language was used by respondent No. 1 and he refused to receive the notice. For this alleged act on the part of the respondent the petitioner on 1.11.1993 filed this petition praying for initiating proceedings against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act and to punish them in accordance with law for the alleged contempt, alleged to have been committed by them. 2. The petition instituted on 1.11.1993, came up before the Court on 2.11.1993 and was adjourned from time to time till 10.8.1994, where the foll...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Steel Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: II(1998)ACC685; 1999ACJ1380; 1998VIAD(Delhi)887; 76(1998)DLT314; 1999(48)DRJ460; [1999(81)FLR923]; (1999)IILLJ1334Del; (1999)121PLR1
ORDERC.M. Nayar, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the Order dated 19th August, 1996 passed by Shri Shiv Lal Singh, Commissioner Workman's Compensation. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent was employed with M/s Durga Steel, appellant herein as a machine man on a monthly salary of Rs.900/-. On 17th August, 1992 while he was on duty he sustained injury in his right leg and his leg is completely paralysed and thereby he lost his 100% earning capacity. He is unable to walk or uplift the load and is also unable to do the same work on machine by standing. The respondent was aged about 22 years. He was admitted to ESI Hospital and then he was shifted to Irwin Hospital (Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narain Hospital). He sent demand notice to the Management but no amount has been paid as compensation. The appellant Management failed to appear before the Commissioner and they were proceeded against ex-parte on 23rd December, 1993 which order was set aside on 18th May, 1994 ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Indian Tube Mill Metal Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(105)ELT187TriDel
The respondents herein imported steel wire rods in coils and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 204/92 dated 19-5-1992 and also provided quantity based advance licence issued in favour of M/s. Indian Auto Industries for claiming such benefits. The said advanced licence had already been endorsed for transferability by the licensing Authorities and allowed the import of non-alloy steel round/wire rods and confirming to British standard 220M07 and 230M07. The respondents were asked to specify as to what is the size and specifications of wire rods used in the resultant product i.e. bolts and hot forged nuts made of non-alloy steel. Vide their letter dated 7-11-1994 the respondents replied that the size of the resultant product was within 6mm to 60mm. But they did not disclose any specifications of non-alloy steel used for the purpose of said resultant products.2. On adjudication, it was held that the goods imported were not entitled to the benefit of duty free clearance under Notific...
Tag this Judgment!Siddharth Engineering Works Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT451TriDel
1. The appellants herein are purchasing particle board, laminated sheets and adhesive material. They are cutting the particle board in specified size according to requirement of their customers who are three manufacturers of steel furnitures. They cut the similar size of the laminated sheets and fix them together with the help of adhesives.A question arises whether the boards so manufactured by the appellants and supplied to a manufacturer of steel furniture could be treated as identifiable essential component of steel furniture so as to take them out from the benefit of Notification No. 60/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 (as amended). The Additional Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad has held that the laminated particle board supplied as mentioned above by the appellants to the three manufacturers of steel furniture, made these boards as identifiable essential components of steel furniture and therefore, the benefit of Notification No. 60/86-C.E. could not be extended to these parts.2. ...
Tag this Judgment!