Delhi Court March 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 17 of about 205 results (0.010 seconds)Blue Star Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC58Tri(Delhi)
1. Matter called. None for the appellants. They have desired that the matter be decided on merits on the basis of available records. Hence we have heard Shri R.K. Sharma, ld. SDR for the Revenue. He stated that the brief facts of this case are as follows : (a) Question involved in the present matter is whether the (1) Ducts for air conditioning system and (2) Flanges, manufactured by the appellants herein on a job contract basis at the site and premises of third person viz., India Cements Ltd., is liable to duty or not and whether the appellants can be called upon to pay the duty. Lower authority has found on the basis of the submissions of the appellants herein that duct and flanges as mentioned above are new commodities manufactured from Plates and Angles. They are not immovable goods and therefore they are liable to duty. It has also been observed by the lower authority that the appellant being independent contractors and performing their work under a contract entered into with Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Accurate Engg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC677Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Accurate Engineering Company, Pune have filed this appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Pune dated 12th December, 1986 by which a duty amount of Rs. 6,23,943.88 was confirmed against the appellants and a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs was imposed on them.2. In the impugned order the Collector (Appeals) found that the appellants M/s. Accurate Engineering and two other firms, by name, M/s.Ahilya Udyog and M/s. Aditya Engineering Co. were one and the same and that they were not eligible for exemption under Notifications No.105/80, 77/83 as amended from time to time, and Notification No. 77/85 as the aggregate value of the plant and machinery installed by them exceeded the permissible limit of Rs. 20 lakhs and the aggregate value of the clearances of the three firms in the previous year had exceeded the prescribed exemption limit. The appellants have claimed that they (M/s. Accurate Engineering Company Private Limited) and M/s. Ahilya Udyog and M/s. Adi...
Tag this Judgment!British Health Products (i) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC60Tri(Delhi)
1. We are concerned in this appeal with classification of the products Maxim, Maxim HP and Ultra Trimfast. Composition of these products is as follows :---------------------------------------------------------------------- Quantity (gm.) %---------------------------------------------------------------------Whole Milk Powder 547 32.56Sugar 527 31.37Defatted Soya flour (Ch. heading 2301) 283 16.84(Crushed Soya Extractions)Malto dextrin (modified starch) 215 12.80Cocoa Powder 70 4.17Calcium Glycerophosphate (Minerals) 20 1.19Flavour & Vitamins 10 0.59--------------------------------------------------------------------- 1680 100%--------------------------------------------------------------------- Qty. (gm) %---------------------------------------------------------------------Whole milk powder 76 38.00Skimed milk powder 60 30.00Sugar 29 14.50Calcium Caseinate (Milk protein) 13 6.50Cocoa Powder 12 6.00Chocolate flavour 2 1.00Dicalcium Phosphate (Minerals). 8 4.00Guar Glum. Vitamins----...
Tag this Judgment!Amar Wire and Rolling Mill Vs. Commr. of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT41TriDel
1. The short point for determination in this appeal is whether scaling, ash and cuprous residues are covered under waste and scrap so as to attract Central Excise duty. The lower authority held that scaling, ash and other residues are covered under waste and scrap and attracted duty being Central Excise goods.2. None appeared for the appellants. However, they have made a request for considering the appeal on merits. Shri S. Nunthuk, learned DR appears for the respondent Commissioner and submits that during the material period, there was a specific heading to cover waste and scrap of copper. He submitted that before the introduction of new tariff under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, there is a specific provision in the language of Explanation II that scalings, ash etc. will not be covered by waste and scrap. He submitted that since before the introduction of the new Tariff with effect from 28-2-1986, there was no explanation excluding scalings and ash from waste and scrap, the lower ...
Tag this Judgment!Wockherdt Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC233Tri(Delhi)
1. As the common issue involved in both the appeals filed by M/s.Wockhardt Ltd. is whether their product Mannitol Injection B.P. 20% W/V is a patent or proprietary medicine classifiable under sub-heading 3003.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, both the appeals are being disposed of by one common order.2. Shri C.S. Lodha, learned Advocate, submitted that their product has been held to be patent or proprietary medicament by the Collector (Appeals) as the lable carried a distinct design in the form of four bars, two of which were black and the other two were plain. The Collector (Appeals) had further found that as these patterns were on their other medicines also, this established a relationship between the manufacturer and the medicament and, therefore, the medicine was a patent or proprietary medicine. The learned Advocate submitted that show cause notice dated 25-11-1992 was issued to classify the medicine under sub-heading 3003.10 as the labels were found to be not ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Noble Match Factory
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT368TriDel
1. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. The notice issued to the respondents was received back with the postal remarks "factory closed". Therefore, the appeal is being taken up for final disposal in the absence of respondents.2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of matches and were availing the benefit of Notification 22/82-C.E. In the month of December, 1989, the respondents manufactured more than 15 million sticks. The jurisdictional Assistant Collector issued a show cause notice to the respondents stating therein that they have violated the conditions of Notification No. 22/82-C.E. Hence, they are not entitled for the benefit of this notification. The demand was confirmed denying the benefit of notification. The respondents filed appeal against the adjudication order and the Collector (Appeals) up-held the Assistant Collector's order and dismissed the appeal filed by the respondents.3. Against the order ...
Tag this Judgment!H.M. Sethi Wg. Cdr.(Retd.) Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)1
ORDERDevinder Gupta, A.C.J.1. The petitioner claims that having served in the defense of the country actively for a period of 28 years he retired prematurely from the Indian Air Force as Wg.Commander and ever since has been engaged in espousing the public cause in general and national cause in particular and is the president of 'Public Redressal Forum', a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. By profession he is enrolled as an Advocate and claims that being an ex-defense officer is seriously concerned in the events leading to the abrupt dismissal of Ex Navy Chief Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat. It is alleged that unpleasant and unhealthy developments leading to and connected with the dismissal of Ex Naval Chief are likely to adversely affect the morale and discipline of the serving soldiers in the Army, Navy and Air force. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for issuance of or writ, order of direction commanding the respondent to divulge the reasons, grounds and charge...
Tag this Judgment!Karni Singh Ji of Bikaner (Dr.) Vs. the Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)333; 78(1999)DLT714; 1999(49)DRJ116; [1999]237ITR505(Delhi)
ORDERArun Kumar, J.1. This batch of writ petitions challenges the action of the respondents in issuing notices for re-assessment under section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The notices for re-assessment were issued with respect to assessment years - 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89. The case of the petitioner is that the notices for re-assessment are without jurisdiction and as such are liable to be quashed. 2. The assessed filed returns with respect to his wealth for the relevant assessment years as under :- Assessment Return filed Assessment u/s Year on 16 of the Act completed on. 1985-86 02.08.1985 26.03.1990. 1986-87 12.08.1986 12.08.1990. 1987-88 17.08.1987 12.08.1990. 1988-89 03.08.1988 12.08.1990.3. The controversy in the present batch of writ petitions centres aroundthree properties belonging to the assessee. They are: 1. Karni Bhawan. 2. Junagarh Fort. 3. Gajner Palace. 4. In the original assessment completed under section 1...
Tag this Judgment!India Trade Promotion Organisation Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)405; ILR1999Delhi215; [1999]238ITR901(Delhi)
ORDERArun Kumar, J.1. By way of the present petition under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the petitioner has prayed that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal be directed to draw up a statement of case and refer the following questions for the opinion of this Court : '(1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenses incurred on freight, packing and handling, insurance and custom bonded warehouse are not eligible for weighted deduction under section 35B(1)(b) of the I.T.Act, inspire of the fact that these expenses were incurred for organising and conducting trade fairs? (2) Whether it was permissible for the Tribunal to adjudicate or give a finding on a question which was not agitated or in respect of which no relief was claimed or which was not in dispute and which did not form the subject matter of the appeal? (3) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal w...
Tag this Judgment!Band Box Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Som Dev Gupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)627; 78(1999)DLT381
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This revision petition arises from an impugned order dated 9.10.1998, disallowing the application moved by the original defendant/petitioner in the present revision petition for amendment in the written statement. The revision petition arises from a suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents in the present revision petition in respect of industrial plot measuring 1866.66 sq. yds. Along with the super-structure which was let out to the defendant/petitioner at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month. On the basis that the premises were outside the purview of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, ejectment of the defendant/petitioner was sought from the premises and future mesne profits @ Rs. 3,75,000/- were also claimed. The suit was filed on 30.5.1996, and was resisted by the defendant/petitioner by filing a written statement controverting the allegations in the plaint. 2. This revision petition arises out of an application under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure m...
Tag this Judgment!