Delhi Court February 1999 Judgments

Amar Chemicals Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)LC261Tri(Delhi)

1. The appeal is directed against classification of Naphthols under erstwhile Tariff Item 14D of the Central Excise Tariff; the appellants wanted them classified under Tariff Item 68. The approved classification treated the goods as "Synthetic Organic Dyestuffs and Synthetic Organic Derivatives used in any dyeing process," while the appellants' claim was for "all other goods not elsewhere specified." 2. The appellants vide their letter dated 30th November, 1998 have intimated that it is not possible for them to attend personal hearing and the appeal may be decided on merit. Shri S. Das, JDR represented the Revenue.3. We have perused the records of the case and have considered the submissions made by the learned JDR during the hearing. The appellants' objections against classification under Tariff Item 14D during the adjudication and appellate proceedings, including in their appeal to the Tribunal, have been that Naphthols are not dye intermediates as they are not directly usable in dy...

Hawkins Cookers Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(82)LC665Tri(Delhi)

1. This is an appeal filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Allahabad.2. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of pressure cookers and parts thereof, falling under Chapter sub-heading 7615.00 and 7418.00 in the factory at Satharia, Jaunpur (U.P.) w.e.f. February, 1990 and the same were exempted from payment of excise duty vide Notification No. 180/88 dated 13.5.1988 as amended. In the Union Budget presented to the Parliament on 28.2.1994, excise duty was imposed on pressure cookers w.e.f.1.3.1994 vide Notification No. 41/94 dated 1.3.1994. Accordingly they filed necessary declaration under Rule 57(G) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 to avail the modvat credit of excise duty paid on inputs with the Assistant Collector of Central Excise on 11.3.1994.3. He also submitted that some of the inputs received from the appellants' other factories situated at Thana (Maharashtra) and Hoshiarpur, Punjab were shown in the declar...

Modern Steel Industries Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. By means of present application assessee-appellant seeks to grant stay of outstanding demand for the asst. yr. 1993-94 and submitted that for the asst. yr. 1993-94 the appellant filed a return of income showing a total income of Rs. 9,71,010. Against the income returned an order of assessment was passed under s. 143(3) of the IT Act by the AO enhancing the total income to Rs. 11,89,140 vide order of regular assessment dt. 22nd March, 1996. While making the assessment, the AO made an addition of Rs. 3,43,117 in respect of the alleged difference in inflated purchases made from M/s. Jay Shree Steels and M/s. Jay Shree Industries and he also made an addition of Rs. 51,995 on the same alleged ground in respect of purchases from M/s. Shree Ram Steel Centre. There were a few minor additions and disallowances made in the assessment by the AO against which the applicant filed an appeal before the CIT(A).The appeal came to be heard by the CIT(A), II, Meerut, camp Ghaziabad, who not only conf...

Collector of C. Cx. Vs. Madhusudan Ceramics

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)LC612Tri(Delhi)

1. The Revenue has filed this appeal against the adjudication order dated 16th October, 1989.3. In the impugned order the Additional Collector of Central Excise held that the Glazing material is classifiable under Heading 32.07 of the Central Excise Tariff. He further held that the Glazing material is ready to use and its shelf life is limited and it cannot be marketable.4. Heard Shri Sumit K. Das, learned JDR. The contention of the Revenue is that Chapter Heading 32.07 of the Central Excise Tariff covers the Glazing material as Glazing material/Ceramic Glaze having been specifically mentioned in the Central Excise Tariff under sub-heading 3207.19.5. We find that the issue regarding classification of the Glazing material is settled by the Tribunal in the case of Khodiyar Pottery Works v. CCE, Rajkot vide Final Order No. 374/98-C, dated 12-6-1998 in Appeal No. E/2580/89-C. In this case the Tribunal held that since no specific definition or deeming fiction has been included in Chapter 3...

Pharmachine Mfg. Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT624TriDel

1. The appellants herein are manufacturers of punches and dies which are tablet forming tools manufactured according to the specifications of tablet manufacturers, who used the same with tablet manufacturing machines. They claimed classification under CET sub-heading 8485.90 as parts of tablet making machines. The Department issued a show cause notice on 23-10-1990 proposing reclassification under CET sub-heading 8207.00 as punches and dies. The classification as proposed in the notice was confirmed by the Assistant Collector; the lower appellate authority upheld the Assistant Collector's order and hence this appeal.2. The appellants have asked for a decision on merits and, therefore; we heard Shri Negi, learned SDR and perused the records.3. We find that the Department seeks to rely upon Note 2(a) to Section XVI of the Central Excise Tariff which reads as under :- "Parts which are goods included in any of the Headings of Chapter 84 or Chapter 85 (other than Heading Nos. 84.85 and 85....

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Shemaroo Video Recording P. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT457TriDel

1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay holding that the process of assembly of video cassettes out of duty paid bought out video magnetic tapes, and plastic casings, carried out by the respondents herein, does not amount to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act so as to give rise to any duty liability on assembled video cassettes, following the Tribunal's decision in the case of British Physical Laboratories (India) Ltd. v. CCE, reported in 1990 (16) ETR 2. We have heard Shri Nunthuk, learned DR who seeks to distinguish the Tribunal's decision in the BPL case, cited-supra on the ground that in the BPL case, the video cassette tape itself was imported in GKD condition and cleared on payment of duty i.e. to say that what was imported was already a video cassette tape, while in the present case, the video cassette came into existence only after assembly of the duty paid components in the factory of ...

Bhavesh Gandhi Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT975TriDel

1. In this bunch of 15 appeals, learned Advocate, Shri A.K. Jain for all the applicants submits that two persons, namely, Shri Bhavesh Gandhi and Shri Chetan Kothari connected with the three firms involved herein have applied under KVS Scheme. Therefore, the matters may be kept pending in so far as the waiver of penalties imposed on those two individuals are concerned. In other words, according to him, six appeals filed by those two persons do not require any consideration by us.1.2 He, however, prays for waiver of penalties on the three firms, namely, (1) MVC, (2) PEL and (3) SMS as mentioned in sub-para (b) of para 8 of the adjudication order passed by Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai. He also prays for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the penalties of the CHA firm and the director of the CHA. In other words, his prayer in short is for waiver of and stay of the recovery of the following amounts :- (1) MVC - Rs. 56,38,734/- (Rupees Fifty six lakhs, thirty eig...

Yahoo!, Inc. Vs. Akash Arora and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)229; 78(1999)DLT285

ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their partners, servants and agents from operating any business and/or selling, offering for sale, advertising and in any manner dealing in any services or goods on the Internet or otherwise under the trademark/domain name 'Yahooindia.Com' or any other mark/domain name which is identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark 'Yahoo!' and also for rendition of accounts and damages. The plaintiff has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC praying for an ad interim temporary injunction restraining the defendants from operating any business and/or selling, offering for sale, advertising and in any manner dealing in any services or goods on the Internet or otherwise under the trademark/domain name 'Yahooindia.Com' or any other mark/domain name which is identical with or deceptivel...

Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. Vs. M/S. Jindal Exports Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)265

ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. This order, which I propose to pass, shall dispose of the application registered as E.A. 347/1998 filed by the respondent herein raising a preliminary objection about the aintainability of the execution petition filed by the petitioner herein and seeking for ismissal of the execution petition on the ground that the said petition is not aintainable.2. An agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent on 1.8.1994 whereunder the respondent was to supply certain goods to the petitioner during the period from January 1995 to June 1996. In course of execution of the aforesaid agreement certain disputes and differences arose between the parties and accordingly the petitioner filed a claim petition before the International General Produce Association, the body nominated by the petitioner as the arbitrators. It appears that the respondent objected to the aforesaid appointment. The arbitrators appointed entered into reference, received evidence an...

Coronation Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)342; AIR1999Delhi268; [1999]96CompCas298(Delhi); 78(1999)DLT328; 1999(49)DRJ264

ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1.The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking to restrain respondent No.1 from encashing the Bank Guarantee No. 96/200 dated 12.12.1996 in the sum of Rs.18,20,455/- issued on behalf of petitioner by respondent No. 3 in favor of respondent No.1. 2. The facts which are relevant for disposal of the present petition are these : In response to the tenders invited by respondent No.1, petitioner was awarded the contract for 'Enabling works for DHDS and MSPF Project at Mathura Refinery, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh'. The total estimated value of the contract was Rs.1,67,39,828/-. The contract was to be completed on 11.3.1997 but the same was completed on 17.1.1998. The bank respondent No.3) gave an unconditional performance guarantee No. 96/200 dated 12.12.1996 for Rs. 18,20,455/-. The bank has also undertaken to make unconditional payment on demand without protest or demur or proof or condition any or all amoun...