Delhi Court August 1998 Judgments
Allied Chemicals Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT156TriDel
1. By the impugned order, the Collector of Central Excise, Surat has upheld classification of purified Naphthalene under CET sub-heading 2902.00 in view of the fact that the requirement of crystalising point of 79.4C or more contained in the HSN Explanatory notes is satisfied in the present case wherein the crystalising point range between 79.64C to 79.95C and has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 98,103/- for the period 1986-87 against the appellants herein who are job workers carrying out the process of purification of crude naphthalene received from M/s. Atic Industries and M/s. Ambica Organics. He has also imposed penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the appellants herein for contravention of the relevant Central Excise Rules.2. The appellants who are represented by Shri M.P. Devnath, learned Advocate, confine their submissions to the plea that the demand raised by show cause notice dated 19-2-1991 for the period from 28-2-1986 to 31-5-1987 is barred by limitation and do not press their claim ...
Tag this Judgment!Sardar Iqbal Singh Kohli Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-1998
Reported in: 75(1998)DLT593
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. This is a petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of Probate of the Will dated 27th September, 1988 executed by Smt Sant Kaur Kohli.2. The petitioner is one of the sons of the testator, namely, deceased Smt. Sant Kaur Kohli, who expired on 21st February, 1997. The testator Smt. Sant Kaur Kohli left behind her surviving four sons and three daughters, namely, Shri Tirlochan Singh, S. Swarnjit Singh, S. Surjeet Singh Kohli, S. Jagmohan Singh, Smt. Mohinder Kaur, Smt. Surinder Kaur, Smt. Kuljeet Kaur. The Will is stated to have been executed on 27th September, 1988. By the said Will the testator appointed the petitioner as the sole executor of the Will. At the time of her death, the testator was possessed of the following movable and immovable properties :'MOVABLE PROPERTIES PRESENT ESTIMATED VALUEJewellery and Silver wares.Rs. 9,95,000/-Loan given to M/s Ashoka Glass CompanyRs. 90,750/-Cash in hand.Rs. 5,000/-Credit Balance in saving B...
Tag this Judgment!Perfect Electric Concern Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector/Commissione ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-1998
Reported in: 75(1998)DLT405; 2000(118)ELT578(Del)
R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution has been filed against an order passed by CEGAT confirming an order-in-original passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Patna. It is not disputed that the subject matter of the two impugned orders relates to determination of any question having relation to the rate of duty of excise or of the value of the goods for the purpose of assessment, the expression as used in Clause (b) of Section 35L of the Central Excises and Salt Act,1944. Statutory remedy of appeal to Supreme Court has been provided against such an order. Without pursuing the remedy of appeal this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution has been filed before this Court.2. The maintainability of the petition before the High Court has been objected to on behalf of the respondents submitting that the High Court would not entertain a writ petition brought before it by-passing the statutory remedy of appeal to Supreme Court. The learned Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Lunar Caustic P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT365TriDel
1. The Revenue has come in appeal against the order dated 30-8-1993 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the product Winall Glue is classifiable under Heading 35.06 and not under sub-heading 3905.20 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act and the products, namely, Sensitizer Winall, Sensitizer (G & W) and stensil remover are not dutiable.2. We heard Shri Satnam Singh, ld. SDR and Shri Gopal Prasad, ld.Advocate. We have considered their submissions in respect of each products and the decision is as under : 3.1. In respect of product Winall glue, Commissioner (Appeals) has classified it under Heading 35.06 since the said heading expressly covers prepared glue, it is more specific to heading 3905.20 as a polymers of vinyl. The ld. SDR submitted that the impugned product is a solution of Polyvinyl Alcohol (PVA) and is used as a prepared adhesive in sugar and paper industry; that the product coating solution which is also a solution of Poly Vinyl Alcohol has been ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajindra Polymers (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT103TriDel
2. The appellants herein were manufacturing Hawai Chappals having their factory at Mayapuri. Later on they started another factory in Najaf Garh. Their unit No. I at Mayapuri was duly registered with the Director of Industries as small scale unit. For the second unit at Najaf Garh they had applied to the competent authority i.e. said Director of industries on 11-7-1986. But their second unit was incorporated in the Registration Certificate on 4-2-1987. A show cause notice was, therefore issued in November, 1987 by the Central Excise Department that the appellant's second unit at Najaf Garh was not registered with the SSI Authorities during the period 20th August, 1986 to 3rd February, 1987. Show cause notice was, therefore, issued calling upon them to show cause as to why the benefit of Notification 175/86-C.E. be not denied to the appellants herein in respect to their clearance from the second unit at Najaf Garh road for the aforesaid period. The Assistant Collector on adjudication d...
Tag this Judgment!inter Medico Exem (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-1998
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT566TriDel
1. Question involved in this appeal is regarding extension of benefit of Notification No. 208/81-Cus., dated 22nd September, 1981 (as amended). Two fluids namely, (i) Naturalyte and (ii) Erilyte which are necessary for carrying out the dialysis while the dialysor is working.In the first instance the appellants herein claimed the benefit of the said Notification under Serial No. 8 part B of the list attached to that notification namely under heading "Haemodialysers standard Accessories'. In other words their claim was that the aforesaid two fluids were standard accessories and therefore, they should be given the benefit of said notification. In support of their contention the appellants submitted before the authorities below the certificate from office of DGHS. That certificate categorically stated that the two fluids are standard accessories of dialyser. Ld. Advocate for the appellants has also relied upon some technical literature wherein the fluids according to him has been describe...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Topaze Overseas (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-1998
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT174TriDel
1. These six Appeals deal with the same issue and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The issue in these Appeals is whether Modvat credit was admissible or not on the strength of invoices issued by a person who was registered with the Central Excise Department as a manufacturer of some other item.3. The facts of the case are that M/s. Eicher Tractors Limited, Faridabad, who were registered with the Central Excise Department as manufacturers of tractors, also undertook the activity of trading in some other goods. They issued invoices to various parties. These parties in turn took Modvat credit. The department alleged that since M/s. Eicher Tractors Limited was not registered as a dealer of excisable goods with the Central Excise Officer, therefore, Modvat credit could not be taken on the strength of the invoices issued by M/s. Eicher Tractors Limited, 4. Shri D.K. Nayyar, the ld. JDR arguing the case for the Commissioner of Central Exc...
Tag this Judgment!Cce Vs. Sonic Electronics Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-1998
Reported in: (1999)(83)LC453Tri(Delhi)
1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi upholding the order of the Assistant Collector, who has held that the value of clearances of branded goods is required to be excluded while computing the aggregate value of clearances of Rs. 75 lakhs in terms of Notification 175/86, in respect of the respondents herein who manufacture loud speakers and speaker systems in their own name (un-branded) and in the name of M/s. Onida Saka Ltd. (branded).2. The Collector (Appeals) has relied upon the Tribunal's order in the case of CCE Bhubaneshwar v. Power and Control 3. We have heard Shri R.D. Negi, learned SDR, notice issued to the respondents has been returned undelivered; however, since the issue is settled by the Tribunal's order cited above, which has been followed subsequently in several cases, we proceeded to dispose of the appeal after perusing the records.CCE v. Power and Control cited supra, the Tribunal has clearly held that the bran...
Tag this Judgment!Pradeep Anoop Trust Vs. Shri A.K. Burman
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-1998
Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)734; 75(1998)DLT314; 1998(47)DRJ446
C.M. Nayar, J.1. The present petition is directed against the judgment dated January 4,1996 passed by Shri R.K.Gauba, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Pradeep Anoop Trust filed two petitions simultaneously against the tenants in occupation of different portions of property No.D-41, defense Colony, New Delhi. The allegations in the petition are that the tenancy was created for residential purposes and while the petition against A.K.Burman sought an order of eviction on the ground under Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), similar order was being prayed against the tenant in the other case i.e. Dr.Suresh Gupta and Dr.(Mrs) Madhu Gupta on the grounds as available in Section 14(1)(e),(c), (b) and (h) of the Act. The two petitions were preferred in the name of Pradeep Anoop Trust through O.P.Jhalani Trustee shown as resident of 106, Sunder Nagar,New Delhi. The petitions have been signed and...
Tag this Judgment!Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-1998
Reported in: 1998VIIAD(Delhi)686; 75(1998)DLT195
J.B. Goel, J.1. This is an application for anticipatory bail filed by one Sushil Kumar Sharma in FIR No. 115/98 registered at Police Station Dabri under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B, IPC. 2. Facts giving rise to the case are that Dr. P.N. Srivastava and his wife Dr. Maya Srivastava are NRIs and employed at UAE since March, 1992. Dr. P.N. Srivastava lodged an FIR on 3.2.1998 alleging that he and his wife were owners of House No. RZ-64-65, Vaishali, Dabri, Delhi and while living abroad, he had allowed his brother-in-law Sanjay Srivastava and his wife Kalpana Srivastava to live in a part of the house as care-taker during their absence without paying any rent. During their vacations every year they used to visit India and stayed in the said house. They are also owners of Plot No. A-2/19, Qutab Enclave, Gurgaon which they had purchased from DLF. They had come to India on 20.1.1998 and when he went to DLF to take possession on 3.2.1998 he was told there that the said plot of land had been ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »