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.
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC606Tri(Delhi)
1. In these two appeals, common issue has been raised for consideration. They were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. We have heard Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri Prabhat Kumar, learned Senior Departmental Representative appearing for the respondent Collector.3. Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of heavy and sophisticated Electrical & Electronics equipments and machinery which are designed as per the specific requirements of the customers. The terms and conditions of sale also contain a condition relating to warranty which provides for replacement of the items if they developed defects within a period of 12 months from the date of commissioning or 18 months from the date of despatch, whichever is earlier. An amount of 2.5% of the factory cost is set apart by the appellants as 'complaint reserve' in the contractual price entered into by them. The Central Excise duty is paid by the appellants on...
National Pen and Plastic Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-1999
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT612TriDel
1. M/s. National Pen & Plastic Industries nave filed the present appeal in which the matter relates to the classification of the imported machine described in the Bill of Entry as Linamatic Point making machines for making ball point tips. The importers claimed classification under sub-heading No. 8479.89 of the Customs Tariff which covered machines and mechanical appliances having individual functions not specified or included elsewhere in Chapter 84 of the Customs Tariff. The Revenue did not agree with the classification as declared by the importers and classified the same under sub-heading No.8457.30 as multi-station transfer machines for making metal. The Assistant Collector of Customs who adjudicated the matter observed that what had been imported were the two multi-station transfer machines manufactured, according to the requirement of the importer for the purpose of manufacturing ball point tips by performing various machining operations. He also observed that Heading No. 8...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT672TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi dated 14-2-1997 dropping the proceedings initiated against the present respondent.2. Brief facts are that the respondents, M/s. Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd., who are engaged in the manufacture of Safety Glass, were also availing Modvat credit under Rule 57A for duty paid on Float Glass sheets imported by them and used in the manufacture of Safety Glass.The sheets after import were warehoused without payment of duty on filing of yellow Bill of Entry. After re-warehousing, the goods were stored in the bonded warehouse of the respondent's factory from where the Float Glasses were issued as inputs for the manufacture of safety glass under bond and after obtaining permission of the proper officer.Respondents filed ex-bond Bill of Entry (green) and paid customs duty/CVD in respect of inputs i.e., imported float glass, after completion of the manufacturing activity. They also simultaneou...
Khatao Makanji Spg. and Wvg. Co. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-1999
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT378TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Khatao Makanji Spg. and Wvg. Co., the matter relates to the duty liability in respect of Punched paper dobby cards. The appellants were purchasing from the market unpunched dobby cards which were then cut to size, punched, pasted into a cylinderical form and then were used captively on the looms. It was alleged in the show cause notice dated 13-12-1990 issued by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bombay that the appellants had not filed at the proper time the classification list, price list and had cleared the excisable goods without proper gate passes and had also not filed RT 12 returns with the proper officer. It was alleged in the show cause notice that it amounted to the suppression of facts. The Additional Collector, Central Excise, Bombay who adjudicated the matter confirmed a demand of Rs. 629.64 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 200/-.2. When the matter was called, no one appeared for the appellants. The notice for today's hearing had been ...
Weston Components Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-1999
Reported in: (1999)(84)LC259Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal arises out of arid is directed against the order No.42/MMS/94 dated 9.11.1994 passed by the Collector of Customs (Judicial), Custom House, New Delhi.2. The appellants imported 1000 pieces of LNB converters declaring FOB prices of US $ 22.50 per piece. Show cause notice was issued proposing to increase the value to US $ 42.50 per piece, being the transaction value of similar goods imported into India vide Bill of Entry No.235573 dated 2.7.1993.2.1. Show cause notice was duly replied stating that the contemporaneous import referred to in the show cause notice was for a small quantity and the import has also taken place even earlier. The contention of the party was negatived by the adjudicating authority.The Commissioner who had adjudicated the proceedings has confirmed the demand of duty. He ordered that since the imported goods have already been provisionally released to the importer that a sum of Rs. 50,000 /- be appropriated towards redemption fine in lieu of confiscat...
Uttam International Vs. Jogender Pal Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-1999
Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)287; 78(1999)DLT254; 1999(49)DRJ58
ORDERDR. M.K. Sharma, J.1. In the present suit instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant the plaintiff has sought for a decree for specific performance of the contract in the following terms: 'Pass a decree for specific performance of the contract directing the defendant to sell/transfer the industrial plot bearing No.20/6, Road No.18, site No.4, Sahibabad in favor of the plaintiff and directing the defendant to take all necessary steps for the transfer/sale of the industrial plot of land in favor of the plaintiff'.2. In order to show that this court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit the plaintiff has stated in paragraph 13 of the plaint that this court has territorial jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit as the agreement was entered into between the parties in New Delhi and that the receipt was signed and accepted by the defendant at New Delhi and also as the defendant resides and works for gain within the jurisdiction of this court. Thus, the p...
Anil Verman Vs. M/S. Raheja Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-1999
Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)301; 78(1999)DLT295; 1999(49)DRJ63
ORDERDR. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant seeking for a decree for specific performance of contract in respect of an apartment in NEELANCHAL APARTMENTS, Economy Type III, Pine Gardens, Nainital, developed by the defendants, together with the rights to the use of all common passages, entrances, terrace and any other common facilities and easements. 2. In order to show and establish that this court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present suit it is stated in paragraph 13 of the plaint that this court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit since the cause of action has arisen in Delhi and also because the defendant resides and carries on business in Delhi. Thus ccording to the plaintiff this court has territorial jurisdiction in view of the provisions of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the cause of action for the suit has arisen in Delhi and also because the defendant resides and...
Herb Shop Vs. Nectar (U.K.) Ltd. and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-1999
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)581; 78(1999)DLT369
ORDERA.K. Srivastava, J.1. The interim applications being I.As. No. 5042/98 and 5373/98 have been moved by plaintiff Herb Shop India Private Limited under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC in S.No. 1123/98. In the first application the relief sought is that the defendant, its proprietor etc. be restrained from using the trade-mark NECTAR/and or any other trade-mark deceptively or confusing similar to the trade-mark NECTAR and from passing off its goods as and for the goods of the plaintiff's, by use of the trade-mark NECTAR. In the second application the relief claimed is to restrain the defendant, its proprietor etc. by a permanent injunction restraining it from using NECTAR/and or any other trade-mark or trade-name deceptively or confusing similar to the trade-mark NECTAR in respect of lipstick or other cosmetics products. 2. Thus in the reliefs claimed in these applications there are few distinctions. Firstly, in the first application, the relief sought is by way of interlocutory injunctio...
Karuna Gulab Chand Agarwal Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC184Tri(Delhi)
2. On 7-1-1982 certain goods namely corrugated boxes were seized from a Truck owned by the appellant herein. The goods were seized in transit.The driver of the truck produced a Challan issued by ITC located in Boxwell House. It is admitted by both sides that Boxwell House has two factories. 1. Boxwell India; and (2) ITC.2. A show cause notice was issued alleging that Boxwell India and ITC are one and the same Unit and Boxwell India is managing the show. On this basis a duty liability was imposed on Boxwell India. A penalty was also imposed on them. The Truck was also confiscated and redemption fine was also imposed in lieu of confiscation of Truck to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-.3. Both the appellants namely Boxwell India as well as the present appellant came up with an appeal. However, the appeal of Boxwell India has been dismissed for non-compliance with the order on the Stay application of that appellant. It therefore, follows automatically that the finding that Boxwell India and ITC a...
Punjab Bone Mills Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC240Tri(Delhi)
1. These are two appeals - one filed by the M/s. Punjab Bone Mills and the other filed by the Revenue - arising out of the same other.2. The issue involved in the appeal is regarding classification of di-calcium phosphate (animal feed grade) and availability of Notification No. 442/86, dated 6-11-1986.3. Shri Vinod Agarwal, ld. Counsel, submitted that they are making di-calcium phosphate (animal feed grade) which was classified by them under Heading 2302 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.However, the department classified the product under Heading 3103 of CETA against which they had gone in appeal to the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal vide Order Nos. 105 & 106/92-C, dated 23-3-1992 had held in their favour, holding the -classification of the product under Heading 2302.00. In the meantime, they had filed the classification list under protest under Heading 3103 and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 442/86. The Assistant Collector in the Order-in-Original No...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »