Delhi Court September 1998 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1998 Page 20 of about 234 results (0.010 seconds)Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Ranchhoddar Zinabhai and Sons
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT509TriDel
1. The short question involved in this appeal is whether labelling or relabelling of unmanufactured chewing tobacco falling under Tariff Heading 25.01, as it existed in October, 1986 would be liable to duty or not. Duty on unmanufactured tobacco had been done away with in 1979.However, w.e.f. 16-3-1995 duty on branded unmanufactured tobacco by slight amendment of Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 24 was brought into force. This case is well before 16-3-1995. Reliance placed by the Board or rather the Revenue in this appeal is based only on Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 24. This Chapter does not have any application to unmanufactured tobacco as it existed in October, 1986. Therefore, we do not find any substance in Revenue's appeal. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order and reject the Revenue's appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Modasa Packaging (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT713TriDel
1. M/s. Modasa Packaging P. Ltd. and M/s. Monita Containers P. Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of paper cups used for packaging/serving ice creams, srikhand, gulab jamuns, tea, coffee, water, etc. falling under Chapter 48 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, since 1984. They had been claiming classification of the above mentioned product under the erstwhile Tariff Heading 48.18 and later under sub-heading 4819.19, chargeable to nil rate of duty. They were advised by the Assistant Collector to file classification lists under CET sub-heading 4823.90 and accordingly they filed classification lists as above, under protest in May 1989. They were also granted a L4 Licence for manufacture of paper cups in May 1989. Show cause notices were issued to the assessees for modifying the classification lists earlier approved, by changing the classification of the product from CET sub-heading 4823.90 to 4819.12 chargeable to duty @ 35%, as well as for vacating the protest. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Collr. of C. Ex. Vs. Punjab Chemicals and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT57TriDel
1. The respondent filed a price list declaring different normal prices for dealers situated in different regions and also claiming deduction of trade discount based on quantity lifted during a particular period.Proper Officer approved the price list. The order was challenged before the Collector (Appeals) by the department, though unsuccessfully. Hence the present appeal by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh.2. Different prices for factory gate sales to dealers in different regions is consistent with proviso (i) to Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Trade discount based on quantity lifted by each dealer over a period is also recognised by law. The same cannot be rejected on the ground that the exact amount of discount allowable may not be known at the time of clearance of each consignment. Necessarily it will be known only at the time of the last consignment effected during the particular period. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the lower authorities...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Almet Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(111)ELT646TriDel
1. The short point involved in the appeal preferred by the Revenue is whether the Order-in-Original was passed by the Assistant Collector on a ground not raised in the show cause notice.2. Shri H.K. Jain, learned DR submitted that the respondents were manufacturing Miproten liquid and Miproten drops and in their classification list, has classified them under Chapter 30 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.3. The show cause notice dated 30-8-1989 was issued to them on the ground that the products were classifiable under sub-heading 2107.91 or 3504.00 and that the benefit of Notification 48 of 1977 was not available as the products were falling under Chapter 30. The Assistant Collector in order dated 15-9-1993 has classified the product under sub-heading 3003.10 as P and P medicines but denied the benefit of Notification 48/77 on the ground that the trade packs and sample packs were identical without any difference whatsoever. On appeal, the Collector (Appeals) set aside the...
Tag this Judgment!i.T.C. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(62)ECC591
1. These appeals have been filed against Order-in-Original No. 3/95, dated 29-12-1995 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi.Following are the particulars of the appellants :______________________________________________________________Appeal No. Name of the appellant Referred to asE/ 209/ 96- A M/s. I.T.C. Ltd. ITCE/210/96-A J.N. Sapru -E/211/96-A J. Narayan -E/288/96-A M/s. Asia Tobacco Ltd. ATCE/289/96-A M/s. Hyderabad Deccan Cigarette HDCF Factory Ltd.E/290/96-A M/s. Lakshmi Tobacco Co. LTCE/291/96-A M/s. Reliable Cigarettes RCTI and Tobacco IndustriesE/292/96-A M/s. Master Tobacco Co. MTCE/293/96 M/s. Crown Tobacco Co. CTCE/294/96-A R. Bhoothalingam 2. The particulars of demand of duty proposed in the show cause notice for the period 1-3-1983 to 28-2-1987 and demand confirmed and penalty imposed on the assessees are as follows :-_____________________________________________________________Concern Duty proposed Duty confirmed Penalty Penalty (in rupees) (in rupees) in...
Tag this Judgment!Narendra Lal Saraswat Vs. the Central Bank of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998VIAD(Delhi)330; 1998(47)DRJ635
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The petitioner joined the services of the Central Bank of India, the third respondent in 1946 and he was promoted as Branch Manager on the 28th of April, 1975. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and was found guilty. A major penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed on him. That was challenged by him before the High Court of Allahabad. Eventually, the appellate authority considered the matter as per the directions of the High Court of Allahabad and the order of compulsory retirement was confirmed by order dated the 28th of July, 1980.2. The petitioner has claimed interest on the amount of provident fund paid to him on the 22nd of July, 1986. The petitioner has also claimed gratuity.3. As per the Central Bank of India (Officers Services Regulations), 1979, the petitioner is not entitled to gratuity. Regulation 46 of the Central Bank of India (Officers Services Regulations), 1979 is relevant and the same reads as under:-'46 Gratuity (1) Eve...
Tag this Judgment!Sushmita Ghosh Vs. G.C. Ghosh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998VIAD(Delhi)91; 4(1998)CLT313; 75(1998)DLT420; 1999(48)DRJ161
ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J.1. The plaintiff filed a suit under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 for maintenance and separate residence. Along with the suit, the plaintiff had also filed an application under Order 33 Rules 2 and 3 by which a leave of the Court was sought to sue the defendant as an indigent person. This Court by an order dated 30.1.1995, on consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances, permitted the plaintiff to sue the defendant as an indigent person because the Court was convinced that she is not in a position to pay the requisite court fees.2. In the plaint, it is mentioned that the plaintiff was married to the defendant according to Hindu Rights and Ceremonies on 10th May, 1984 at Calcutta. The marriage between the parties was an arranged marriage. No child was born out of the wedlock.3. It is stated that though the plaintiff is an educated person yet she has remained a house wife and never worked. The defendant is a highly qualif...
Tag this Judgment!Rajbir Singh Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1998)120PLR50
ORDERS.K. Mahajan, J.1. This petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act,1996 for reference of certain disputes to the Arbitrator. The case as set up in the petition is that the petitioner was awarded the work of providing 'counter berm on the city sides of the left forward Bund from RD 220M to RD 250M' and the work under the contract was completed on 24.10.1989. It is further stated in the petition that the accounts were finalised by the respondents on 28.5.1990. However, by a letter dated 24.6.1996 the respondents raised a demand for a sum of Rs.40,586.75 paise calling upon the petitioner to deposit the said amount since the same was allegedly not payable to the petitioner. This amount has since been recovered by the respondents from the amount due to the petitioner under some other contract. After this amount had been recovered, the petitioner by letter dated 22.8.1996 invoked the provisions of the arbitration agreement for referring certain dis...
Tag this Judgment!Padam Chand JaIn Vs. Hukam Chand Jain
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1999Delhi61; 1998(47)DRJ802
Usha Mehra, J. 1. Appellant has felt aggrieved by the impugned order whereby the award of the arbitrator has been set aside and Court order remanding the dispute to the same arbitrator.2. According to appellant trial Court was not sitting in appeal over the decision of the arbitrator whom the parties choose being a relation. Arbitrator was a layman. He decided what was best and acceptable to the parties.3. On the other hand respondent/objector before the trial Court averred that arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction. He misconducted himself and the proceedings.4. In order to resolve the controversy the moot questions which arise for consideration are, (i) whether the arbitrator could give a declaratory award; and (ii) could the arbitrator effect the rights of parties qua the properties and persons who were not parties to reference nor subject matter of arbitration dispute.5. In order to determine these questions lets' have a quick glance to the facts of this case. Briefly stated the fac...
Tag this Judgment!Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Sahibabad Dyeing and Printing
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT441TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the demand of duty of Rs. 14,249/- which was made under show cause notice dated 2-11-1995. The Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad, had dropped the demand but had imposed a penalty of Rs. 500/-. The Department filed an appeal with the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) who did not find any fault in the order passed by the Asstt.Commissioner of Central Excise and he confirmed the said order and rejected the appeal filed by the Department. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) observed as under : "I have examined the case and considered the matter. It is an admitted fact that Excise duty at the relevant time was @5% Adv. but due to mistake in printing of the Notification it was paid @10% Adv. as shown in the notification. It is also not in dispute that the respondent later on issued the credit notes of the excess amount of duty charged by them. They have also observed the procedure for claiming exces...
Tag this Judgment!