Delhi Court March 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 10 of about 205 results (0.014 seconds)Asian Engineering Works Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT275TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by M/s. Asian Engineering Works against the Order-in-Appeal dated 26-4-1991 denying the benefit of Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986.2. Shri J.P. Kaushik, ld. Advocate submitted that the appellants are a Small Scale Unit. They had opted for payment of duty at concessional rate by availing Modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs as per Clause l(a)(i) of Notification No.175/86. They cleared the goods by payment of duty at concessional rate. However, they could not avail Modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs. The Department, therefore, issued a show cause notice demanding duty at full rate alleging that the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 would not be available to them.3. The Assistant Collector confirmed the demand of duty for the period March, 1990. It was also confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) holding that the concessional rate of duty under Clause l(a)(i) of the Notification No. 175/86 is not applicable as the credit under Rule 57...
Tag this Judgment!True Food Corporation Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC832Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in the appeal filed by M/s. True Food Corporation is whether Papain IP/BPC, manufactured by them is classifiable under sub-heading 3003.20 as claimed by them or under sub-heading 3507.00 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as decided by the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order dated 9-1-1992.2. The Appellants have, under their telegram dated 20-6-1997, requested to decide the matter on merits. We thus heard Shri M.P. Singh, ld. DR and perused the records. According to British Pharmaceutical Codex, Papain is prepared from the juice of the unripe fruit of carica papaya it is a proteolytic enzyme which is active in both acid and alkaline media. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants for classifying the product under sub-heading 2939.90 of Central Excise Tariff Act.However, the Assistant Collector, Central Excise classified the product under sub-heading 3003.20 observing that Papain was manufactured according to British Pharmaceutical Code...
Tag this Judgment!Sinter Plast Containers Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC402Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No.30/Collector/1990, dated 29-11-1990 of the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Ahmedabad. In the said order, the Collector held that the "Processing Trolleys" cleared by the appellants were liable to duty under sub-heading 87.16 and confirmed duty demand of over Rs. 6.50 lakhs for the period 1-3-1986 to 28-2-1988 as demanded in the show cause notice dated 12-10-1988. The Collector also imposed a penalty of Rs. 80 lakhs on the appellants.2. The appellants have submitted that they are manufacturers of plastic containers for use in Industries for storage, handling etc. for alkalies, chemicals, food stuffs, fabrics, drugs etc. Such plastic containers are placed on mild steel trolleys and sold to various customers. The advantage in placing on the trolleys is that loaded plastic containers can be moved easily by manually pulling the trolleys from place to place. The MS Trolleys are purchased from outside. The appellants manufactur...
Tag this Judgment!Anupam Products Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(83)LC278Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in the appeal filed by M/s. Anupam Products Ltd., is whether the demand of duty can be made against the manufacturer who had supplied the goods on the basis of CT-2 certificate.2. Shri M.A. Rangaswamy, ld. Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufactured Tin Containers which were supplied by them and availing total exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 181/88 dated 13.5.1988 on production of CT-2 Certificate by the recipients of goods viz., M/s. Himachal Milk Products (P) Ltd. Subsequently, the Department found that M/s. Himachal Milk Products (P) Ltd. was not eligible for L-6 licence as they were filling up the Tin Containers with partly skimmed milk powder, a product which was not mentioned in the Notification. The ld. Counsel further submitted that the Department had demanded the duty from them holding that the condition as specified in the notification was not complied with and accordingly the liability for paying duty demanded was correct...
Tag this Judgment!Xerographers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC288Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal M/s Xerographies Ltd., Ahmedabad have challenged the Order-in-Original passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad dated 28-7-1989 confirming a duty demand of Rs. 10,99,994.12 against them apart from imposing a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs.2. Brief facts are: M/s Xerographies Ltd. engaged in the manufacture of Plain Paper Copier Machines with the Trade Mark "Ricoh Murphy", were selling their products through two other Companies, viz., M/s Murphy (India) Ltd., M/s Mecotronics (P) Ltd. By Show Cause Notice dated 25-2-1987 appellants and the afore-mentioned two companies were asked to show cause against various charges. It was alleged that appellants (M/s Xerographies) were evading duty by under-valuation. It was alleged that M/s Xerographies and the other two Companies were related persons within the meaning of Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and therefore the transactions between the appellants on the one hand and two distributor Companies on the ot...
Tag this Judgment!injecto Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(83)LC170Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Injecto Ltd., the matter relates to the classification of the Fuel Oil Hose Assemblies. The appellants had sought classification of the said goods under sub-heading No. 8485.90 of the Central Excise Tariff as machinery parts. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Faridabad, had classified the goods under sub-heading No. 4009.92 as 'Hoses of Vulcanised Rubber'. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had confirmed the classification as decided by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Faridabad.2. The matter was heard on 27.10.1998 when Shri M.P. Devnath, advocate, assailed the impugned order-in-appeal on the ground that the hose assembly manufactured by the appellants was of hardened rubber and was outside the scope of heading No. 40.09 of the Central Excise Tariff. He referred to the test report of the National Test House, Alipur, Calcutta and submitted that the report had been brushed aside by the learned Collector of Central Excise (Appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Priyadarshini Packaging (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT753TriDel
"I have carefully considered the submissions made by the appellants. The appellants have totally reversed their arguments at the time of hearing against what was contained in the grounds of appeal. This cannot be permitted. Further the show cause notices is on a limited issue i.e. denial of exemption Notification No. 243/79 as their waste was classifiable under Chapter Heading 5401.10. The appellants through their classification list as well as in the grounds of appeal have maintained that the goods were indeed classifiable under Chapter Heading 5401.10. They cannot be permitted to go back on the same now. Further benefit of Notification No. 53/87 was nowhere mentioned in the show cause notice though a reference to the same is found in the order-in-original. But once the classification under Heading 5401.10 has neither been disputed at the time of order-in-original nor in the grounds of appeal, the same cannot be allowed to be changed now. Since the appellants waste was held to be cla...
Tag this Judgment!Mehtachem Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC148Tri(Delhi)
1. In these two appeals, the common issue involved is whether the Petroleum Jelly is being manufactured by the Appellants Company M/s.Mehtachem Industries at the intermediate stage of manufacture of Boroquein Antiseptic Cream. As both the appeals arise out of a common order, the same are being disposed of by one common order.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the Appellant Company manufactured Boroquein Antiseptic Cream. They were purchasing Petroleum Jelly from the Market and using the same in the manufacture of their final product up to 9-10-1986. Thereafter they started using Micro Wax, Paraffin Wax and liquid paraffin oil in place of Petroleum Jelly. The Chemical test of the final product revealed that the cream contained Tankan Amla, Jasat Bhasma, Lanolin and soft Paraffin base; that soft paraffin is synoymus to Petroleum Jelly. The Collector, Central Excise, therefore held in the impugned order that the Appellant Company had manufactured Petroleum Jelly which was an excisable ...
Tag this Judgment!Shyama Devi and ors. Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2001ACJ988; 1999IIAD(Delhi)716; AIR1999Delhi264; 78(1999)DLT827; 1999(49)DRJ86
ORDER1. This is a writ petition whereby the petitioners, wife and two children of Head Constable Om Prakash, Malkhana Incharge, PS Naraina, who was killed in a rocket explosion, claim compensation for his death. 2. The first petitioner is the wife of the deceased Om Prakash and the second and the third petitioners are his children. The first respondent is the Government of NCT of Delhi, while the second and the third respondents are the Commissioner of Police and the Station House Officer, PS Naraina, respectively. 3. Om Prakash, at the time of his death, was Head Constable with the Delhi Police and was serving as Incharge, Malkhana, Police Station Naraina, under the immediate control of the third respondent. On January 31, 1996 an information was received at Police Station Naraina that a standard army rocket was lying near Post No. 6, Commercial Railway Lines. On receipt of the information, case under section 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 was registered vide FIR No. 19/96 ...
Tag this Judgment!Niranjan Builders Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 78(1999)DLT679; 1999(49)DRJ737
M.K. Sharma, J.1. A contract was entered into between the petitioner and the respondents whereunder work of special repairs to staff quarters attached to ESI Hospital, Basai Darapur, New Delhi, was to be executed by the petitioner. Since disputes arose between the parties while executing the aforesaid contract, the disputes were referred to the sole arbitrator Shri V.Nainani for adjudication and decision. The arbitrator appointed entered upon the reference, received evidence adduced by the parties and upon hearing the parties made his award on 9.1.1992.2. The aforesaid award was filed in this court as against which objections have been filed by the petitioner. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the counsel appearing for the respondent and on the basis thereof proceed to decide this matter claimwise.Claim No. 1:3. This claim relates to a claim of Rs. 90,000/- on account of under-payment in respect of agreement item No. l. According to the petitioner th...
Tag this Judgment!