Delhi Court September 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.
Sunrise Cold Storage Co. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT191TriDel
1. Question involved in this matter is whether the Sugar Syrup manufactured by the appellant herein and captively consumed in manufacture of their final products 'Mango Pulp', 'Orange Pulp', 'Pineapple Pulp' is liable to pay duty or not. The period involved in the present case is 1-3-1986 to 28-2-1987 and the demand of duty is Rs. 5,571/- for the aforesaid period. The lower authorities have held that the appellants were required to pay duty on the aforesaid product 'Sugar Syrup' manufactured by them and utilised caprively for their aforesaid products clearance of which was being made by them under small scale exemption Notification 175/86-C.E.2. We have gone through the appeal memo. We have also heard learned JDR. We observe that the sugar syrup is marketable product and is admitted by one of the partner of the firm Shri P.B. Parekh, benefit of Notification 217/86-C.E. would not be available because their final product is exempted from payment of duty under the said notification.There...
Weikfield Products Co. (i) Pvt. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1998
Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT69TriDel
1. The appeal is directed against order, dated 5-9-1989 passed by Collector of Central Excise, Pune demanding duty on (i) Corn Flour under Tariff Heading 1901.19 for the period 1-3-1986 to 31-3-1988 at 15% with the benefit of adjustment of duty paid on Maize Starch under Heading 1103.10 and (ii) Glucose-D under Heading 1702.19 for the same period 1-3-1986 to 31-3-1988 with the benefit of adjustment of duty paid on Dextrose Monohydrate. He directed the Assistant Collector to work out the duty liability on the above basis. A sum of Rs. 10,602.30 was demanded as duty on waste of Maize Starch.2. By a corrigendum to the order, Chapter Heading 1702.19 given in respect of Glucose-D was ordered to read as Chapter Heading 1702.29 in the findings at Page 8 and in the order at Page 9 wherever it occurred.3. Shri L.P. Asthana, learned Counsel for the appellant stated that they bought duty paid starch and after sieving repacked and sold the same as cornflour. There was no manufacture involved and ...
Maghalaya Electronic Dev. Corpn. Vs. Collr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1998
Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT246TriDel
Facts of the case as given in the assessee's appeal, and not disputed, are as follows :- 1. The assessee, a Government of Meghalaya - MIDC undertaking and an appellant herein, had purchased two High Vacuum High Temperature Sintering Furnaces which were supplied by M/s. Thermal Technology Inc., USA Model No. 428-B, SI. No. 31-867. These Sintering Furnaces are used by the assessee in the manufacturing process of Tantalum Capacitors for Sintering of Tantalum Power into anodes.1.2 The Sintering Furnace consists of two main parts (a) the Furnace Heating Control Assembly and (b) the Vacuum Valve Control Assembly.After installation and commissioning of the said Sintering Furnaces, it was found that the Vacuum Valve Control Assembly was functioning well but, the Furance Heating Control Assembly was not functioning at all.1.3 The main part in the Heating Control Assembly is the digital control Programmer (DCP) - Model - 770311 which has been manufactured by M/s. Honeywell Inc., USA. The main f...
D.E.S.U. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1998
Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT239TriDel
1. There are two appeals. Notice for hearing was sent to the appellants on 5-8-1998 by registered post. But there is no response from the appellants. It is presumed that the notice for hearing must have been received by them in normal course. Accordingly we have heard the learned JDR from the side of the Revenue. We have also gone through the two appeals before us filed by the appellants herein.2. In this appeal question of classification of Pulse Echo Fault Locator is involved. The appellants contended its classification under Tariff Heading 9030.39 whereas the Revenue authorities have classified under Tariff Heading 85.08. It has been found by the lower appellate authority that the catalogue does not indicate that the aforesaid instrument is measuring or checking instrument. Its only function is to find out faults in all types of cables and cable systems.3. The appellants have stated in their memo of appeal that the Asstt.Collector and the lower appellate authority have ignored the ...
A.K. SarIn (Prop.) Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1998
Reported in: (1999)(81)LC286Tri(Delhi)
1. Learned advocate Shri Narender Sharma submits that a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh has been imposed on the applicants herein. Apart from that goods have been confiscated under Section 111(d) & 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, an option has been given to the applicants to redeem them on payment of fine of Rs. 10 lakhs. Learned Advocate submits that the applicant is very keen to get the goods released on payment of differential duty but they are unable to exercise their option because the fine imposed is too heavy and it is contrary to the law and facts of this case. He submits that the applicant has imported various ceramic articles and declared the classification of the same under Tariff Heading 97.03 as 'original sculptures'. However the authorities below have classified the same under Tariff Sub-Heading 6913.90 relating to statuettes and other ornamental articles'. Learned advocate has submitted that an examination of goods was done on 5.6.1998 in the presence of the represe...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Gujarat Lyka Organics Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT188TriDel
1. The classification of the product 7 Amino Desacetoxy Cephalosporanic Acid (7 ADCA) arises for determination in this appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad. The lower Appellate authority has upheld the classification of the product under CET sub-heading 2941.00 as "antibiotics" while the Revenue seeks classification under CET sub-heading 2921.00 as "Amine Function Compound." 2. The respondents have asked for a decision on merits; hence we have heard Shri H.K. Jain, learned DR and perused the records. We find that in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara v. Lupin Laboratories Final Order Nos. 617-618/98-C, dated 21-8-1998, the Tribunal has confirmed classification of 7 ADCA under sub-heading 2941.90 as Antibiotics. Following the ratio of the above mentioned order, which is on all fours with the present case, we hold that the product in dispute falls for classification under sub-heading 2941.90.The appeal is di...
Fibre Foils Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT368TriDel
1. The issue in this case relates to classification of composite containers and fibre drums; according to the assessee the goods falls for classification under Tariff Item 17(4) while the Revenue has uphold their classification under Tariff Item 68 of the Schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff.1.2. The period in dispute is July, 1982 to September, 1989 (up to 24-9-1989), during which period the assessee had cleared the goods without payment of duty claiming exemption under Notification No.66/82, dated 28-2-1982. Notice for today's hearing was served on upon the appellants who have not appeared; hence we heard the ld. S.D.R. and perused the records.2. We find that by Final Order No. 291/292/88-C [1988 (36) E.L.T. 174 (Tribunal)] the Tribunal has confirmed the classification under Tariff Item 68 of the goods in dispute for different period. The order of the Tribunal remains in force although an appeal has been preferred against it before the Apex Court. Following the ratio of t...
Motika Sinha and ors. Vs. Delhi University and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1998
Reported in: 1998VIAD(Delhi)276; 75(1998)DLT665
Cyriac Joseph, J. 1. The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the respondents to admit the petitioners to the LL.B. Course. The respondents are (i) the University of Delhi (ii) the Dean, Faculty of Law, Delhi University (iii) the Convener, Admission Committee, Faculty of Law, Delhi University (iv) the Professor-In-Charge, Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, Delhi University (v) the Professor-In-charge, Law Centre-I, Faculty of Law, Delhi University and (vi) the Professor-In-Charge, Law Centre-II, Faculty of Law, Delhi University. 2. According to the petitioners, they applied for admission to LL.B. Course of the Delhi University for the session commencing from August, 1998 and they appeared in the Entrance Test held on 5th July, 1998. The respondents released the first merit-cum-cut off list on 20th July, 1998. As per the said list, they were eligible for admission in the Law Centres of their choice. How...
Bobby Bakshi Vs. University of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1998
Reported in: 1998VIAD(Delhi)260; 76(1998)DLT912
Cyriac Joseph, J.1. The petitioner applied for admission to the LL.B Course of Delhi University for the academic year 1998-99. She appeared in the Entrance Test and her name was included in the first admission list issued on 20th July, 1998. As per the admission procedure the petitioner was required to submit the admission form and to deposit the requisite fees on or before 25th July, 1998. The petitioner failed to satisfy the said requirement. According to the petitioner, she had suddenly gone to Bangalore on 18th July, 1998 to return on 23rd July, 1998. However during her stay in Bangalore she fell ill and she was advised bed rest for three days by the doctors. She came back to Delhi on 26th July, 1998. Later when she visited the Faculty of Law of the Delhi University she found that the last date for submission of admission form and deposit of fees was already over. Hence, she sent Annexure D representation dated 31st July, 1998 to the Registrar/In-charge - Admissions, Faculty of Law...
Nathi Devi Vs. Smt. Radha Devi Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1998
Reported in: 75(1998)DLT832; 1998(47)DRJ229
ORDERC.M. Nayar, J.1. The present petition is directed against the judgment dated 12th November, 1997 passed by Shri J.R. Aryan, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi by which the eviction petition of the respondent landlady was allowed under the provisions of Sections 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The learned Controller held that the respondent became the landlady of the property by virtue of Sale Deed dated 8th March, 1982 and as such entitled to maintain the petition for eviction. The findings recorded with regard to the objection of the petitioner that the respondent was not the landlady were based on the judgments as cited in paragraphs 6 and 7 and it was held that the respondent was the owner of the suit property for the last 15 years and she was competent to file a bona fide petition and even petition as a classified landlady and widow. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the judgment reads as follows : '6. The next plea raised is that petitione...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »