Delhi Court September 1998 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1998 Page 17 of about 234 results (0.031 seconds)Shri Sita Ram Khanna Vs. Surinder Kumar
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999(50)DRJ130
Devinder Gupta, J.1. This petition is for initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act against the respondent for the alleged disobedience of undertaking alleged to have been given by him to the Court on 1.5.1997 and for the alleged attempt to interfere with the administration of justice by filing objections to the execution petition preferred by the petitioner 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner sought eviction of the respondent on the grounds mentioned in Section 14(1)(A) and 14(1)(K) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Later on only the ground under Section 14(1)(K) of the Act was pressed. The petition was allowed subject to proceedings to be taken under Section-14(11) of the Act, which says that no order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made on the ground specified in Clause (K) of proviso to subsection (1) of Section 14, if the tenant, within such time, as may be specified in this behalf by the Controller, complies with the condition impose...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Motors Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999(66)ECC542; 1999LC1(Delhi); 2000(117)ELT32(Del)
ORDER1. Though a written counter and reply have not been filed in view of a purely legal issue arising for decision in this petition the learned counsel for the parties are heard finally with their consent. The petition is disposed of in terms of the following order :-Rule D.B.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Circular No. 355/71/97-CX, issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs whereby the adjudicating authorities have been directed to see that the value of the provision for rendering PDI and three after-sales services by dealers being on behalf of manufacturer, was includable in assessable value of goods. This circular refers to decided cases of Bombay Tyre International, Philips India Ltd. and M.R.F. cases.3. The CEGAT has delivered a judgment in M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (Annexure-H) on 13-2-1998 wherein the CEGAT has taken into consideration the entire case law available on the point and also referred to the three decisions set out in the impugned circular. The CEGAT has op...
Tag this Judgment!Elisua Antony Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC500Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 28-9-1993 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Cochin.2. Briefly stated the facts are that Mrs. Elisua Antony, a passenger returning from Abu Dhabi and availing of transfer of residence, imported one Mercedes Benz Saloon car. In the Bill of Entry dated 11-1-1993, it was declared that the car was of 1980 make and model was 200 D. In the Car Export Certificate dated 25-1-1992 issued by the Traffic and Licence Department of Abu Dhabi, it was mentioned that the car was registered in the name of the Appellants since 28-6-1983. The enquires, however, revealed that the car was manufactured in 1983 and engine capacity was 2400 cc. and that car was not registered in the name of the Appellant in UAE. The Additional Commissioner of Customs in the adjudication proceedings, confiscated the car and gave an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 2,10,000/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 55,000/- observing that the appellant imported...
Tag this Judgment!Saluja Udyog Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT418TriDel
1. The issue of classification of air bubble sheets manufactured by the appellants herein arises for decision in this case.2. We agree with the appellants that the issue has been decided by the Tribunal in the case of Aeropack Corporation v. C.C.E. - Final Order No. 1086/96 dated 25-6-1996 in which it has been held that the item, which is admittedly used as packing material, will fall for classification under CET sub-heading 3923.90. The above cited order of the Tribunal has been followed by us in the case of C.C.E., Bombay v.Tender Care International (E/5885/93-C) 1998 (104) E.L.T. 424 (Tribunal) which was heard and disposed of in Court on 1-9-1998.Following the ratio of the above order which directly applies to the facts of the present case, we hold that the product in dispute is classifiable under GET sub-heading 3923.90, set aside the impugned order wherein Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld classification under CET sub-heading 3920.38 as plastic laminated films, and allow the appe...
Tag this Judgment!industrial Adhesive Tapes Indus. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT940TriDel
1. Appellants herein are manufacturing adhesive tape having a cloth base. The cloth is either cotton cloth or nylon cloth. For the purpose of binding, the appellant prepares an adhesive by mixing rubber solvent with the resin and other ingredients. When once the adhesive is ready, the rubber loses it's identity in the said adhesive. This adhesive is then applied on the cotton cloth or nylon cloth as the case may be on coating machine in the form of batch rolls. Thereafter, the rolls are cut into tape size and packed, with gelletin. It is then known in the market as adhesive tapes in trade parlance. The aforesaid goods manufactured by the appellant have been classified in the lower appellate authority in Tariff Heading 59.05 as rubberised fabric.2. Ld. Advocate, Shri J.M. Patel for the appellants has urged that before both the lower authorities, opinion of an expert Shri D.R.Sharma was produced, but none of the two authorities below have considered the said opinion, in coming to his co...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Shiv Dye Stuff and Intermediate
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT265TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by Revenue is whether the product "Copper Phthalocyanine Crude (CPC), manufactured by M/s. Shiv Dye Stuff & Intermediate Industries is classifiable under sub-heading 3204.19 as claimed by the Respondents and confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) or sub-heading 3204.11 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, as suggested by the Revenue.2. The Respondents manufacture CPC which was classified by them in their Classification List No. 61/91-92 effective from 1-4-1991 under sub-heading 3204.19 of the Tariff. As it appeared that the impugned product was not ready for use, the Assistant Commissioner classified the product under subheading 3204.11 under Order-in-Original No.243/91, dated 26-11-1991. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order No. KVV-408/92/BRD, dated 14-8-1992 remanded the matter with the direction to get the disputed product tested by the Chemical Examiner and also to find out whether the disputed product could be said ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Eastern Aeromatics (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT208TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal preferred by the Revenue is whether the product "Vetiverol Residue" is classifiable under sub-heading 2942.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as approved by both the lower Authorities or under sub-heading 3301.00 of the CETA as claimed by the Department.2. When the matter was called, none appeared on behalf of the Respondents, M/s. Eastern Aeromatics (P) Ltd. The notice issued to them has been returned by the Postal authorities. We heard the Ld. S.D.R.The Respondents were obtaining the impugned product "Vetiverol Residue" by distilling vetiverol oil. It is a residue which remains in the distillation vessel after vetiverol is distilled out. The Chemical Examiner, in his report dated 9-1-1991, stated that the sample is in the form of a black coloured thick pastry mess with characteristic odour; that it is a resinoid covered under sub-heading No. 3301.00. In adjudication proceeding, the Assistant Collector observed that the sample was...
Tag this Judgment!Atul Products Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT705TriDel
1. The appellants herein filed classification list No. 2/91-92 for the products (1) Atul Swetak HI and (2) Atul Swetak PE-R (products of a kind used as fluorescent brightening agents) under CET sub-heading 3204.30 and claimed exemption in terms of SL No. 3 of Notification 432/86. The Notification exempts certain final products specified in Col. 5 of the table annexed thereto and falling under sub-heading specified in Col. No. 4, provided that inputs specified in Col. No. 3 and falling under the sub-heading specified in Col. No. 2 are used in the manufacture of the final products specified in Col. No. 5. The notification grants exemption to different final products manufactured out of naphthalene and the final products at Sl. No. 3 are specified as "pigments, synthetic organic dyestuff." 2. The lower authorities denied the benefit of the notification on the ground that the two products in dispute are not synthetic organic dyestuff, since they do not have the properties of colouring mat...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Nuchemind. (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT711TriDel
1. This appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh challenges the order-in-appeal dated 19-9-1991 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh. The issue involved relates to classification of lime/quick lime and hydrated lime.2. The respondents filed classification list claiming that their product, namely, lime/quick lime/hydrated lime does not come within the purview of Central Excise duty under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by virtue of Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 25 to the Schedule to the CETA, 1985.3. The Assistant Collector by the order-in-original dated 6-7-1990 held that since the process involved heating of limestone (calcium carbonate) to convert it into quick lime (calcium oxide) there was manufacture and therefore quick lime is classifiable under Chapter 25 and held that the item manufactured by the appellants was correctly classifiable under Chapter Heading 25.05. However, by the impugned order Collector (Appeals), Chandigarh, ...
Tag this Judgment!Frezco Corporation Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT419TriDel
1. This appeal is against the order-in-appeal dated 18-7-1992 confirming the demand of duty based upon the approval of classification list.2. M/s. Frezco Corporation, the appellants, have requested for decision on merits vide their letter dated 13-8-1998. They have submitted that they were engaged in the manufacture of products Calamine IP and Calamine BP which were classified by the Department under sub-heading 3304.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as cosmetics.They submitted that the Appellate Tribunal vide Final Order No.273/93-C, dated 17-8-1993 1993 (68) E.L.T. 219 (Tribunal) has held that Calamine IP and Calamine BP in bulk packings of 50 kgs. would be classifiable under sub-heading 3003.30 of the CETA. The appeal filed by the Department in the Supreme Court has been dismissed in Civil Appeal No. 10433 of 1995 on 19-7-1996 1997 (91) E.L.T. A88 (S.C.). They have submitted that as the classification has been changed to 3003.30, the demand of duty does not surviv...
Tag this Judgment!