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.
Leader Engg. Works Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-1998
Reported in: (1999)LC363Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Leader Engg. Works filed refund claim for Rs. 4,62,647.04 and supplementary claim for Rs. 14,124.10, received by the Assistant Collector on 17-9-1993 and-27-9-1993 respectively claiming refund on account of annual turnover discount allowed to their customers during 1992-93. The Assistant Collector, under order dated 24-7-1994 rejected the claim as time barred as well as on merit holding that the claims were barred by time limit of six months specified under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act and the annual turnover discount is not an admissible deduction under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Act as the same is not allowed at the time and place of removal of goods. On appeal, the Collector (Appeals) confirmed the order of the lower authority.2. When the case was called, no one was present on behalf of the Appellants who have, however, requested under their letter dated 9-7-1998 to decide the matter on the basis of submissions already made in the memorandum of appeal and in the li...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Citurgia Bio-chemicals Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-1998
Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT114TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of Collector of Central Excise, Surat discharging the duty demand raised on calcium citrate (neutralised fermentation broth) produced by the respondents herein for captive consumption in the manufacture of citric acid, accepting the respondents' contention that the item was not marketable and hence not excisable.2. On hearing Shri H.K. Jain; learned SDR and Shri Willingdon, learned Advocate; we note that the issue has been decided by the Tribunal in the respondents' own case vide Final Order No. 1695/96-WRB, dated 22-5-96 [1996 (87) E.L.T. 267 (Tribunal)] in which the Bench has considered all the material such as the Chemical Examiner's report, various decisions of the Supreme Court, the marketability aspect, etc.and has held that the Department was not correct in contending that the item in dispute was an excisable commodity falling for classification under Chapter 29; but was not a marketable or excisable commodity.Followin...
Brite Paints and Chemicals Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT533TriDel
1. The issue involved in the appeal is whether the benefit of Notification No. 114/73 is available in respect of products - dry distemper colour powder and oxide colour. Shri N. Mullick, learned Advocate submitted that as far as dry distemper is concerned, the issue is settled by the Tribunal in the case of Rako Mercantile Traders v.CCE, Allahabad reported in 1997 (92) E.L.T. 522 (Tribunal) in which it was held that clause (1) of the proviso to the Notification does recognise the fact that such mixture may contain any binding agent and allows the benefit if the percentage of such binding agent does not exceed four per cent by weight. In respect of oxide colour, the learned Advocate submitted that in their classification list they have clearly mentioned that the oxide colour is manufactured by admixture of barytes powder and pigments only. They have nowhere declared that any binding agent is used in the manufacture of oxide colour. For the purpose of clarity, they have mentioned in the...
B.K. Products Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT430TriDel
1. The issue for determination in this appeal is the correct classification of the product "Ghrit Kumari Tel" manufactured by the appellants herein - whether under CET sub-heading 3003.30 as ayurvedic medicine, claimed by the assessee, or under CET sub-heading 3305.10 as perfumed hair oil, as approved by the Central Excise authorities.2. We have heard Shri J.S. Agarwal, learned Advocate and Shri A.K.Madan, learned SDR.3. The appellants obtained a drug licence from the State Drug Controller of Bihar on 11-10-1982 and filed a classification list classifying this product under Tariff Item 68 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff. The list was approved under Tariff Item 68 by the Assistant Collector vide his order dated 27-8-1983, but the benefit of exemption to bulk drugs under Notification 234/82-C.E., dated 1-11-1982 was denied. The benefit of this Notification was extended by the Collector (Appeals) vide his order dated 9-1-1984, on an appeal filed by the assessee. The appeal o...
Jagtar Singh Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-1998
Reported in: (1999)69ITD47(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against order of the CIT(A)-II, New Delhi dt. 28th August, 1991, wherein the assessee has disputed additions of Rs. 1,44,510 and Rs. 12,415 being the opening capital and receipts by way of gift respectively.2. We have heard the assessee's counsel as well the learned Departmental Representative. The assessee's counsel submitted that the AO was not justified in considering the amount of opening capital as the assessee's income by invoking the provisions of s. 69A, because there is no evidence on record that the assessee had become the owner of the capital during the financial year relevant to asst. yr. 1988-89.Explaining the provisions of s. 69A the assessee's counsel submitted that the requirements of the section are that first it has to be proved that the assessee had become the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery, or any other valuable article during a particular financial year which is not recorded in the book; and second is that the assessee ...
Anita Dahiya Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-1998
Reported in: 1998VIAD(Delhi)113; 74(1998)DLT785
ORDERJ.B.Goel, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (for short the 'Code') challenges the legality, validity and correctness of order dated 26.11.1992 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (ASJ) ordering summoning the petitioner under Section 319 of the Code in a case under sections 395/397/34 IPC.2. A dacoity was committed at house No. CP-13, Pitampura, Delhi at about 12.30 p.m. on 18.1.1992 when cash and jewellery were looted after putting in fear of death of two ladies who were present at the said house, namely Smt. Shakuntla Mann and her daughter-in-law, Anita Dahiya (for short 'Anita'), by use of deadly weapons namely, revolver, country made pistol and knives. A FIR was lodged by Smt. Shakuntla Mann on 18.1.1992 when a case under Section 392/34 IPC was registered at Police Station Shalimar Bagh. On investigation, involvement of some more accused was found, however only four of the accused persons, namely Khalil Ahmed, Sushil Jain, Uddal Sing...
Union of India Vs. C.P. Kukreja
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-1998
Reported in: 1999IAD(Delhi)266; 76(1998)DLT871; 1998(47)DRJ170; (1999)121PLR41
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1.The objections to the arbitration award filed by the appellant were dismissed by learned Single Judge by judgment dated 5th February, 1993 for non-prosecution since none had appeared to prosecute the objections. While dismissing the objections for non-prosecution the learned Single Judge further observed that even otherwise glance on objections shows that the same were on merits of the award which could not be gone into by the Court in proceedings under Sections 30 and 33 of Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 and thus the objections were dismissed as meritless. The application for restoration was filed by the appellant on 12th July, 1993 Along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151, CPC for condensation of delay in filing application seeking restoration of the objections and recalling of the order dated 5th February, 1993. The application seeking condensation of delay (I.A. 6302/93) was dismissed by the impugned order observing tha...
Lt. Col. Gael Singh Yadav Vs. Satish Chand Yadav
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-1998
Reported in: 76(1998)DLT719
S.K. Mahajan, J.1. Defendants No. 14 & 16 have filed this application for amendment of their application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure being is No. 1328/97. The brief facts resulting in the filing of this application were:That the plaintiff filed suit for partition of HUF in which the said defendants had 1/12th share each. The applicants/defendants No. 14 & 16 had appointed Mr. M.P. Yadav as their attorney to contest the suit in this Court. On 4th April, 1989 a statement as made by Mr. Yadav in this Court for and on behalf of defendants No. 13 to 16 that out of the free Will and instructions from defendants No. 13 to 16 he was making this statement that out of the share of each of the defendants No. 13 to 16 to which they were entitled l/60th may be given to the plaintiff Lt. Col. G.S Yadav (Retired). On the basis of this statement this Court on 16th April, 1989 passed a preliminary decree specifying the shares of the parties in suit in the property.2. Sometimes late...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Amrit Paper Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT164TriDel
1. This is a Reference Application filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh with reference to the Final Order Nos. A/981 to 984/97-NB, dated 12-9-1997 passed by the Tribunal in Appeal Nos. E/320, E/341-343/96-NB filed by M/s. Amrit Paper & two Others.2. By the said order the Tribunal had, following the ratio of the Larger Bench decision in Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. CCE and Ors.decisions held that Modvat credit will be admissible of Felt Cloth and Wire netting used in or in relation to the manufacture of Paper and Paper Boards, including Paper products. Commissioner in the Reference Application has stated that the Department had not accepted the Tribunal decision on the said question and had filed Reference Application. The said Reference Application was accepted by the Tribunal in Order No. A/83-85/96, dated 31-10-1996. On similar issue, the Department's two other Reference Applications had also been accepted by the Tribunal and referred to the Punjab & Haryana...
Ahuja Radio Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT251TriDel
The appellants herein imported "MU metal Lamination U Type" having a composition of 78% Nickel and having thickness of 0.2 mm. The goods were assessed under Customs Tariff Heading 75.03 at the rate of 60% + 20% + CVD Nil.2. The Department however felt that the goods have been under assessed because the correct classification according to the show cause notice dated 7-7-1982, issued within 6 months of the date of payment of duty, was Tariff Heading 85.15 carrying a rate of duty of 100% + 25% + CVD 20% + 5%.3. On 13-8-1982 the appellants submitted a reply to that show cause notice dated 7-7-1982 and pointed out that the goods under import did not fall under Tariff Heading 85.15.4. It appears that the Revenue shifted its stand and issued another show cause notice dated 19-5-1993 with reference to their earlier show cause notice dated 7-7-1982 suggesting classification under various heading such as :- It is the said show cause notice which was adjudicated by the Asstt.Collector of Customs...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »