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.
Jct Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-1998
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT618TriDel
1. Captioned two appeals, one filed by the Appellant Commissioner and other filed by JCT Limited were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. In the impugned order it was held that "I have gone through the case records and the judgment of CEGAT cited by the appellants. I find that Rule 57C does not specifically provide that no Modvat credit would be admissible on inputs it the final product is cleared without payment of duty under Notification No. 33/90-C.E. (N.T.), dated 5-9-1990 issued under Rule 191BB of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Therefore, what is important to examine is the fact that Rule 191BB has been followed by the appellants in letter and spirit in order to avail Modvat credit on inputs. Rule 57C is not at all relevant for the purpose and is not attracted at all in such cases as has also been held by the cited judgments. I find that the facts of the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E., Bombay [1995 (78) E.L.T. 595 (Tribunal)] are exactly...
Vardhman Spg. and Gen. Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT121TriDel
1. Short question involved in this matter is whether the appellants/manufacturer of yarn - cotton or polyester -can discharge their Central Excise duty liability by paying duty at the stage of manufacturing single yarn on the basis of valuation made under the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975 [Rule 6(b)(ii)] popularly known as 'costing method' and then double-fold/multi-fold (d.f./m.f. - hereafter) that yarn in their own factory and clear the same without payment of duty under Rule 173H of Central Excise Rules, 1944 as duty on yarn at single stage has already been paid by them.2. Department has issued a show cause notice on the value at which d.f./m.f. yarn has been sold by the manufacturer-appellants herein.Contention of the Revenue is that duty is chargeable on the form and on value of those goods in which those are removed from the factory. Since the removal of goods (i.e. yarn) form the factory has been made in the form of d.f./m.f. yarn, the value would be determinable under S...
Packart Press Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-1998
Reported in: (1999)LC492Tri(Delhi)
1. The classification of printed catch covers sample folders manufactured by the appellants herein arises for determination in this appeal - according to the assessees, the item falls for classification under T.I. 68 of the Schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff upto 28-2-1986 as product of printing industry and entitled to exemption in terms of SI. No. 24 of Notification 234/82, dated 1-11-1982 or in the alternative the items were classifiable under T.I.17(1) and eligible to the benefit of exemption under Notification 63/82, dated 28-2-1982 as converted type of paper, and for the period from 1-3-1986 onwards, the item fell under CET sub-heading 4901.90 as product of printing industry or in the alternative, it was covered under Chapter Heading 48.17 as pouches and exempt from duty in terms of Notification 63/82 and Notification 49/87, dated 1-3-1987 as converted type of paper. The adjudicating authority has confirmed classification under CET sub-heading 4818.90 for the period...
Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-1998
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT110TriDel
2. Molasses resulting as a byproduct in manufacture of sugar during the sugar year 1985-86 was stored by the appellants in a steel tank. The said molasses got destroyed by auto combustion. The appellants applied for remission of duty for the said molasses under Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. That remission was not granted by the Departmental authorities but it was ultimately allowed by the Tribunal vide its order No. A/73-75/89-NRB dated 19-4-1984.3. However, at the instance of the Revenue it appears that the appellants had also filed the classification list for the said waste product i.e. destroyed molasses describing the same as "Dark Brownish Black coloured solid mass containing carboneous mass and sugar". Before clearance of the said waste product from the steel tank in which the molasses has been stored, the appellants herein were made to pay duty as if it is molasses falling under Chapter 17 of CETA 1985. They filed an appeal before the lower appellate authority. The...
Adi Hi-tech Textiles (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-1998
Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT330TriDel
1. Dispute in the present appeal is regarding classification of a consignment comprising the following with prices of each shown against individual items: (i) MBJ1/1000 SEC 640 TAFFET high performance label weaving loom with Rapier system type MUEGRIP, including accessories and spares at 131,160 Swiss Frances; (ii) MBJ 1/1000 SEC 960 SATIN high performance label weaving loom with Rapier system type MUEGRIP including accessories and spares at 170647 Swiss Francs; and (iii) Programming Unit, including Camera MUCOMP - 3 at 98,470 Swiss Francs.1.2. Goods have been described collectively in the invoice as "High Performance Label Weaving Looms with Rapier System Type MUGRIP 1 No.640 Taffet and 1 No. 960 Satin and Programming Unit including Camera -MUCOMP 3 including spares and accessories" with a consolidated price.Individual prices as mentioned above in Para 1.1 above have been shown in the purchase order referred to in the invoice.1.3. Authorities below have assessed the programming unit ...
S.P. Sharma Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-1998
Reported in: 1999IAD(Delhi)121; 76(1998)DLT422; 1998(47)DRJ408
Devinder Gupta, J.1. The petitioner claims to be the owner of first floor of Flat No. 110, S.F.S., Munirka Encalve, New Delhi. Respondents Nos.4 and 5 are stated to be the occupants the second and third floors of the said flat. It is the petitioner's case that in March/April, 1996, he constructed a room on his terrace. Lot of problems were created by respondent No. 4 by threatening the petitioner's labours, damaging raw cement flooring on the roof, throwing water etc. and repeatedly threatening and intimidating the petitioner and his family members. A notice was sent in July, 1996 to respondent No. 4. On 14th July, 1996 respondent No. 4 came down in drunken and half naked state to the petitioner's flat and hurled abusive language. A complaint to that effect was lodged.2. The real problem is alleged to have been created on 29.11.1997 when it is alleged that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 committed criminal trespass and forcibly removed the overhead tanks belonging to the petitioner, disconnect...
Tarun Goel and ors. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-1998
Reported in: 1998VIAD(Delhi)208; 1998(47)DRJ761
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.2. The petitioners are citizens of India, who had got admission to the M.D. Degree General Physician's Course in General Medicine in the Medical Institutions in the erstwhile USSR. The petitioners by this writ petition are assailing the decision dated 17.10.96 & 23.10.96 of the Executive Committee of respondent No. 2, Medical Council of India (hereinafter referred to as 'MCI'), whereby only those students who had been admitted up to 1.1.1991, were permitted to do their internship in India. Further, the decision of MCI to permit provisional Registration for internship in India, only after completion of the full medical degree course of 6 years and permanent registration only after completion of a further training/internship in India after obtaining the degree is challenged. Direction is sought for a declaration that the earlier decision dated 26.7.1994, which permitted students to do the internship in India in the 6th year of their course for 9 months, upo...
Aarti Hejmadi Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-1998
Reported in: 1998VIAD(Delhi)196; 1998(4)Crimes483; 75(1998)DLT584; 1998(47)DRJ812
ORDERJ.B. Goel, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the 'Code') and Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks for setting aside of summoning order dated 17.2.1996 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma and for quashing of FIR No. 72/95 registered at P.S. Preet Vihar, Delhi under Sections 307/323/34 IPC.2. Briefly the facts are that the complainant one Suresh Chand had lodged a report at P.S. Preet Vihar, Delhi at about 1100 p.m. on 17/11/94 where this report was registered as DD No. 20A. He has alleged that he along with his two co-villagers Satbir and Rakesh travelled in a bus after visiting the then Agriculture Minister, and alighted from the bus at Shakarpur Chowk and while going to ALT Ghaziabad Bus stop near Coffee Home to catch a bus to Ghaziabad for going to river Ganges, a girl named Aarti Hejmadi hit him from behind with an iron rod, two other persons accompanying her also gave beating to him with iron rods. Wh...
B.S. Vishwanathan Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-1998
Reported in: 76(1998)DLT621
ORDERArun Kumar, J.1. This order will dispose of two applications, one moved by the petitioner for interim relief during the pendency of the writ petition and the other moved by the Indian Labour Coop. Society Limited for vacation of the ex parte interim order passed in favor of the petitioner.2. The petitioner has challenged the provisions of section 29(3) of the Multi-State Coop. Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as being ultra virus the Act and the Constitution of India. The petitioner claims to be a person having vast experience of more than thirty years in the cooperative sector, particularly in the field of rural agricultural credit. He has been a Director of the Karnataka State Agricultural & Rural Development Bank (hereinafter referred to as the 'Karnataka Bank') for the last more than thirty years. The Karnataka State Agricultural and Rural Development Bank is a member of respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5. These respondents are Multi-State Cooperative Societies under...
Indian Labour Co-op. Society Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-1998
Reported in: 1998VIAD(Delhi)913; 76(1998)DLT625
ORDERArun Kumar, J.1. By this petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the exemption granted by the government in exercise of powers under section 99 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), to respondent No.3 from the provisions of sections 36 and 37 of the said Act. Annexure 'E' to the writ petition is the order dated 13th January 1998 which grants exemption as aforesaid from the provisions of section 37 of the Act while Annexure 'F' is the order dated 13th January 1998 which grants exemption to respondent No.3 and the Cooperative Bank of India from the provisions of section 36 of the Act for a period of two years with effect from February/March 1998.2. The challenge is mainly based on the ground that the exemption is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and is intended to promote the interest of an individual, i.e. respondent No.4. According to the petitioner the impugned exemptions are a colourable e...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »