Delhi Court February 1999 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.
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Rawat Sons and Engineers Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-1999
Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT346TriDel
1. The matter is called. None for the respondents despite the notice of hearing having been issued by the Registry on 16-12-1998.2. We have heard Shri R.K. Sharma, learned DR for the respondents. The learned DR points out that in the impugned order, the lower Appellate authority has relied on an earlier order in appeal namely No.94/Cal/ll/91, dated 16-5-1991 and thus held that Fish nuts are classifiable under Tariff Heading 7302.90. He points out that the said order dated 16-5-1991 relied upon by the lower Appellate authority in the present impugned order, has since been disposed of by the Tribunal's East Zonal Bench vide its Order No. A-1252/Cal/97, dated 11-9-1997. The Tribunal in the said order, has held that the classification of the goods should be under Heading 7318.10 and the Revenue's appeal was therefore allowed.Following the same, we allow this appeal also after setting aside the impugned order....
Anand Engineering Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC218Tri(Delhi)
1. In these cases, a duty demand of Rs. 91,574.59 has been confirmed and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- has been imposed on the appellants herein on the gound that the clearance of both units are required to be clubbed and on doing so, the value of clearance is Rs. 20,77,163.95 and, therefore, the clearances exceeding Rs. 15 lakhs would be chargeable to duty @ 15% advance which has been worked out to be the duty amount mentioned above.2. None appears for the appellants in spite of notice; hence we heard the learned DR.3. We find that the appellants had raised several points in the reply to the show cause notice and also in the written submissions filed before the adjudicating authority. One among their defences is that Anand Engineering Works got the electric motors machined by job workers and in support of their contention they had filed certain invoices for labour charges. This was to rebut the charge in the show cause notice that they did not have sufficient machinery for carrying out t...
Jct Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1999
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT516TriDel
1. In this case a duty demand of Rs. 11,92,213/- has been confirmed as cess on grey fabrics cleared for captive consumption for processing by the appellants herein during the period 1-4-1986 to 19-3-1990. In addition a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- has been imposed on the goods leviable to cess under the provisions of Khadi and other Handloom Industries Development (Additional Duties of Excise on cloth) Act, 1953.2. On hearing Shri J.P. Kaushik, learned Advocate and Shri R.S. Sangia, learned DR we agree with the learned Counsel that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., New Delhi v. Kumar Textiles reported in 1996 (17) RLT 157 holding that cess on processed cloth is not leviable if already paid on the grey cloth, is applicable to the facts of this case, where cess has been paid on processed cloth and the demand relates to cess on grey fabrics cleared for processing. Following the ratio of the above decision, we hold that the, appellants are not liable to cess on the grey fabri...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Dinshaw Frozen Foods
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC387Tri(Delhi)
2. The respondents herein filed classification lists for the 3 products as below :- 2. Softy (Choco) Mix. Claiming classification under Tariff Heading 1901.90. 3. Softy (Shake) Mix. Claiming classification under Tariff Heading 1901.90.The Assistant Collector, however, classified the aforesaid product under Tariff Heading 1901.90 for Softy (Plain) Mix and Softy (Choco) Mix. He classified the product Softy (Shake) Mix under Tariff Heading 2202.90.3. Against the aforesaid order of the Assistant Collector the lower appellate authority has remanded the matter in so far as the product Softy (Plain) Mix is concerned on the ground of that it was not a subject matter of the show cause notice issued to the respondents herein. He, however, classified the product Softy (Choco) Mix, Softy (Shake) Mix under Tariff Heading 1901.90. He also extended the benefit of Notification No. 9/90-C.E.4. It is against the aforesaid order that the Revenue has come in appeal before the Tribunal.5. Matter was calle...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Suresh Kumar Parihar
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC171Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the impugned order dated 23-7-1996 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi.2. Respondents remained absent inspite of notice. Accordingly, we proceed to pass an order after hearing Shri K. Panchatcharam, learned JDR for the Revenue.3. The Officers of the Customs Range, Bhinmal seized two video Cameras, two Battery Chargers, three Batteries, three Video cassettes and one Head Cleaner, all made in Japan on 21-11-1992 from the appellant under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The show cause notice was issued to the respondent asking him to show cause as to why the seized goods of foreign origin should not be confiscated under Sections 111(d) and 111(p) of the Customs Act. As can be seen from the records that show cause notice was sent by post under Registered cover which reached the respondents. But since he was not found available at the given address, the said registered cover was returned by postal authorities on 10-5-199...
National Co-operative Development Corporation Vs. Manbar Singh Rawat a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1999
Reported in: 1999IAD(Delhi)865; 78(1999)DLT252; [1999(82)FLR111]; 1999RLR246
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. This petition by the Employer i.e. National Co-operative Development Corporation challenges the order dated 9th December, 1993 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Delhi the Tribunal granted rein-statement to the respondent No. 1. The impugned order observed as follows : '........ On 7th August 1992, the representative of the manage ment submitted that she was unable to persuade the management to give her file and documents etc. pertaining to this case and that no instructions had been given to her. She showed a desire to withdraw the case. She requested that a notice be given to the management. The prayer was to be uncalled for as she was representing the management and could intimate to the management to make arrangement for putting an appearance or to take further action in the matter and to take necessary proceedings. No fur ther notice was required to be given by this Tribunal to the management. The proceedings would be ordered to be taken ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1999
Reported in: 77(1999)DLT615
D.K. Jain, J.1. In these two references under s. 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act'), at the instance of the Revenue, pertaining to the asst. yrs. 1969-70 and 1970-71, the Tribunal has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court: '(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal right in holding that there was a subsisting and valid agreement for payment by the assessee, of freight advantage in Cement Corporation of India and whether the amounts of Rs. 27,69,819 and Rs. 22,27,469 respectively for the asst. yrs. 1969-70 and 1970-71 represented accrued and ascertained liabilities relevant to those assessment years (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessed is entitled to the deduction claimed by way of provision made in respect of its liability for the payment of gratuity to its employees and, if so, the basis on which such a deduction could be permitted ?' 2. In so far as quest...
Corporation Bank Vs. United India Periodicals (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1999
Reported in: [2001]103CompCas97(Delhi); 80(1999)DLT431
Usha Mehra, J.1. Respondent Company obtained a contract on 14th March, 1987 from Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (in short the MTNL) for the purpose of publishing and printing telephone directories for the Metropolitan cities of Delhi and Bombay for the years 1987-1991 (both years inclusive). For the purpose of executing the said contract respondents approached the petitioner Bank for credit facilities. The petitioner Bank granted inland letter of credit limit (hypothecation limit of Rs. One crore). Respondent Company assigned that contract to United Database India Ltd. (in short the UDI). The respondent Company and UDI executed separate guarantee agreements on 9th March, 1988 and 4th July, 1988 respectively in favor of the petitioner Bank. By virtue of those agreements respondent Company undertook to indemnify the Bank all losses and to repay the loan amount with interest at the rate of 8.5% p.a. above the RBI rates subject to minimum of 18.5% p.a. compounded quarterly. UDI in order...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Super Soft Productions (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC211Tri(Delhi)
1. In the present case the respondents herein are purchasing softy shake mix from M/s. Dinshaw's Frozen Foods, whose case is already dealt with today in Appeal Numbers E/2603-2604/93-D. Thereafter the respondents are mixing various flavours in the said shake mix repacking them in 200 M.L. containers and selling them. The respondents claimed that their activities as aforesaid does not amounts to manufacture at all and therefore, the goods as sold by them (as described above) did not involve any duty liability.2. This plea of the respondents, however, is rebutted by the ld. SDR on the ground that the shake mix as they purchased from M/s. Dinshaw's Frozen Foods was not marketable and it becomes marketable only after the flavours are mixed in softy shake mix and they are repacked in ready to serve units of 200 M.L. containers. We are unable to accept this contention of the Revenue inasmuch as in the appeal of M/s.Dinshaw's Frozen Foods, it was contented by the Revenue that softy shake mix...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Laxmi Starch (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT809TriDel
1. The appellants prayer for early hearing of the appeal is allowed in view of the heavy stakes of revenue i.e. Rs. 58 lakhs approximately involved. The Misc. Application is allowed. Case fixed for hearing on 6-4-1999. Issue notice....
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »