Delhi Court September 1998 Judgments
Hospita India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1998
Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT234TriDel
1. Appellants herein imported CT Max Whole Scanner System. Officers assessed the goods to duty under Tariff Heading 9018.19 after extending the benefit of Notification 64/88-Cus. on the strength of a certificate issued by Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS). The goods were cleared on 5-12-1989 after payment of duty, since the notification did not give complete exemption. Later on, two show cause notices were issued after a visit to the appellant's premises where the machine having been seized and the other show cause notice dated 26-8-1994 is for demanding duty on the aforesaid machine inasmuch as the appellants were not found to comply with the conditions a, b and c of para 2 of table to Notification 64/88-Cus. It is appropriate at this stage to refer to para 8(b) of the show cause notice therein such an allegation has been made and has been referred to in the impugned order :- "8.B Paragraph 2 of the said table to the notification covers such hospitals which have been cert...
Tag this Judgment!indrox Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1998
Reported in: (1998)(60)ECC646
1. The classification of the product described as "Indrox-985-P-12" which is a dye penetrant to detect cracks or other flaws in metal surfaces, arises for determination in the present appeal against the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay - the Revenue has classified the product under sub-heading 3204.30 as a 'Synthetic organic product of a kind used as fluorescent brightening agent' while the assessee seeks classification under sub-heading 3823.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as a 'residuary product of the chemical industry not elsewhere specified or included'.2. We have heard Shri B.N. Rangwani, learned Consultant and Shri A.K.Madan, learned DR. The product in dispute is obtained by mixing of aromatic solvents, fluorescent Dye and Corrosion inhibitor.Undisputedly, it is a synthetic organic product. It is used to detect cracks or flaws on metal surfaces by the following process : (i) The metal surface is cleaned with solvent so ...
Tag this Judgment!Collr. of C. Ex. Vs. Naptha Resins and Chemicals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1998
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT737TriDel
1. The Collector has filed the captioned appeal being aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order had held that there is considerable substance in the respondent's argument that the quantum of percentage of synthetic solvent has been arrived at arbitrarily without any basis. There is no technical opinion of Chemical Examiner's report for arriving at such quantum. In the circumstances, the appeal cannot be sustained and is accordingly rejected.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of polyurethene paints. Classification list of this product was approved under sub-heading 3210.90 and the benefit of Notification No. 52/88, dated 1-3-1988 was allowed by the Asstt.Collector. On review of the approval an appeal was filed before the Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) upheld the decision of the Asstt. Collector as indicated above.3. Shri H.K. Jain, ld. SDR appears for...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Targof Pure Drugs (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT880TriDel
1. This is a Departmental Appeal filed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Hyderabad dated 17-1-1994 by which the Collector (Appeals) had set aside the order of the Assistant Collector demanding a duty of Rs. 2,14,474/- and imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- on the respondent.2. When the matter was called none appeared for the respondent. Since the matter appears to be covered by earlier decisions of the Tribunal, we took up the matter for disposal on hearing the Departmental Representative.3. The respondents who are manufacturers of P & P Medicaments falling under Chapter 3003.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 85 were manufactured the goods on behalf of loan licensee namely M/s.Pharmasia Ltd. They filed a Classification List dated 4-5-1992 for clearing the medicaments manufactured on behalf of M/s. Pharmasia Ltd. claiming concessional rate of duty of 5% under Notification No. 175/86 on the ground that the clearances of the medicaments...
Tag this Judgment!Yash Papers Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1998
Reported in: (1999)(63)ECC231
1. The above appeal arises out of the order of Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad confirming a duty demand of Rs. 16,97,020.88 on 3063068 Kgs. of paper cleared at Nil rate of duty, confirming duty demand of Rs. 1,52,421.62 on 263513.40 Kgs. of kraft paper seized with option to redeem on payment of a fine of Rs. 3 lakhs, and imposing a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the appellants herein. The demand has been confirmed on the ground that the kraft paper and printing and writing paper manufactured and cleared during the period 1-5-1983 to 1-12-1985 and the kraft paper seized and provisionally released on 11-12-1985 on execution of bond and furnishing of bank guarantee, did not contain 75% or more by weight of pulp made from bagasse in terms of Notification 191/80 dated 9-12-1980 as amended (in respect of printing and writing paper) and Notification 142/81 dated 8-7-1981 as amended (in respect of kraft paper) and, therefore, were not entitled to be cleared at nil rate of duty.2. The brief f...
Tag this Judgment!Ess Ess Engineers Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT596TriDel
1. These are five appeals filed by the ESS ESS Engineers and others against the common impugned order involving a common issue and accordingly they are taken together and are being disposed-of by this common order.2. Arguing for the appellants Shri J.S. Agarwal, learned Counsel submitted that two issues are involved in these cases. Whether party can avail Modvat credit and SSI exemption simultaneously for different products and whether party can avail duty exemption even after crossing the limit of Rs. 15 lakhs on one item and Rs. 30 lakhs on more than one item.3. He submitted that with reference to the first issue, the Tribunal has been taking the view that any SSI unit can avail Modvat credit and SSI exemption simultaneously in respect of different products and the view taken by the Tribunal in the case of Faridabad Tools Pvt. Ltd. v.Collector of Central Excise reported in 1993 (63) E.L.T. 759 has been upheld by the Supreme Court as reported in Vol. 82 part 3, 15th March, 1996 E.L.T...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Chetna Offset
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1998
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT107TriDel
1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay classifying printed catch covers for medicines manufactured by the respondents herein, under CET sub-heading 4819.19 - according to the Revenue, the product falls for classification under CET sub-heading 4819.12.2. Respondents at Sl. No. 1 to 6 have asked for a decision on merits.However, notice issued to the respondent at Sl. No. 7 has been returned undelivered with the postal remarks "left - returned to the sender", however, since this issue has already been decided by the Tribunal, we heard the learned SDR and perused the recordes.C.C.E., Bangalore v. India Coated Cartons Ltd. reported in 1996 (81) E.LT. 373 which has been followed in the case of C.C.E., Bangalore v. Fine Prints P. Ltd. reported in 1996 (87) E.L.T. 296, the Tribunal has upheld classification of such products under CET sub-heading 4819.13 (sic) for the period from 28-2-1986 to 28-2-1988. The corresponding entry for the peri...
Tag this Judgment!Nasir Ali Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1998
Reported in: 1999IAD(Delhi)125; 76(1998)DLT797
ORDERArun Kumar, J.1. In a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi had fixed the market value of the acquired land of the appellant at the rate of Rs. 1,200/- per sq. yd. vide impugned judgment dated 12th October, 1993. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the said judgment claiming that the compensation be awarded to him on the basis of market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 4,200/- per sq. yd. Originally the appellant had claimed compensation at a lesser rate in the appeal. However, during the pendency of the appeal the claim was by way of amendment enhanced to Rs. 4,200/- per sq. yd. and the requisite Court fee on the enhanced claim stands paid. 2. The appellant's acquired land falls in Khasra Nos. 616/376/2 min, 616/376/3 min and 616/376/4 min in Village Chowkri Mubarikabad in Delhi. The appellant has claimed compensation with respect to an area of 900 sq. yds. in the...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Kumar Mohatta Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1998
Reported in: 1999IAD(Delhi)170; 75(1998)DLT836
K. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner has challenged in this writ petition the order of the NDMC dated 16.6.1993, in which the petitioner was asked to stop further construction of the complex which was earlier permitted by the NDMC. The petitioner also seeks to quash the communication dated 18.6.1993 which is also to the same effect. In the context of the view taken by the NDMC, which is quite contrary to its earlier stand of sanctioning the plans, it has become necessary to set out the facts in some detail.'2. In July, 1984, the petitioner applied to the Land & Development Office for conversion so that the property could be developed in a multi-storeyed group housing complex. The petitioner also applied for the grant of exemption under Section 20 & 22 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulations) Act, 1976. On the 1st of June, 1989, Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development, issued the following communication: 'With reference to your letter No. Nil dated the 26th July, 1984 on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Priyanka Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1998
Reported in: 1999IAD(Delhi)52; 76(1998)DLT204; I(1999)DMC238
J.B. Goel, J.1. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail under-Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the 'Code'). The deceased Manju dies an unnatural death on 12.4.1998. The petitioner is the sister-in-law (Nanda) of the deceased. The stand of the in-laws of the deceased appears to be that the deceased had committed suicide, as she was in a distrubed state of mind because she could not conceive a child. Whereas the case from her parental side is that she was being subjected to cruelty and harassed and tortured in connection with demand of dowry article and they suspect having been killed by her in-laws.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued the matter at great length and has cited a number of authorities. This bail is strongly contested on behalf of the State, who relied on the facts, circumstances and the material available during investigation.3. Briefly the facts are that the deceased Manju was married with Pradeep Khanna on 15.2.1997. She died an un-natural ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »