Delhi Court March 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 19 of about 205 results (0.020 seconds)Parishudh Sadhan Yantra Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT917TriDel
1. The short point to be considered in this five appeals is whether the interest on security deposit is to be included in the assessable value.V S.T. Industries v. C.C.E.reported in 1998 (97) E.L.T. 395 held that "there is nothing on record to show that the receipt of the deposit from some of the dealers could possibly influence the fixation of the sale price even with regard to those sales which were made at the factory gate against cash and not on credit. Had there been a difference in the selling price where, for example, special discount was given to the dealers who had given a deposit then it may have been possible to say that there were two different markets and two different prices and that lesser price was being charged for an extraneous consideration-and, in such a case the notional or actual interest could be added. There is nothing to show that there was any special consideration which was shown to the dealers who had given the security deposit. Nor has it been shown by ref...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Appliances Company Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT79TriDel
1. Shri Sandeep Agarwal, ld. Advocate arguing the ROA application submits that the Bench had by its order dated 25-5-1998 rejected a misc. application filed by the applicants for modification of the stay order dated 16-1-1997 on the ground that the appeal itself had been dismissed on 13-5-1997 for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35F. He submits that in view of the said observation of the Bench, the appellants have now filed a ROA application for restoring their appeals. He further submits that the appellants have a very strong case on merits and for inadvertant reasons they could not take up the plea of financial hardship at the time of filing the original stay petition.He also draws attention to the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 4th November, 1997 in which the Hon'ble High Court had observed that if the petitioner (present appellant) is raising any contention which the petitioner did not have the opportunity to raise before the Tribunal then they are ...
Tag this Judgment!Sai Enterprises Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(83)LC319Tri(Delhi)
1. The above appeal arises out of the order of Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi by which he has confiscated 94,130 pieces of nail polish bottles collectively valued at Rs. 3,78,080/- under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 with an option to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs only on the appellants. The goods have been held to be liable to confiscation on the ground of mis-declaration of particulars of quantity and value of export goods, resulting in contravention of Section 18(1)(a) read with Section 67 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, read with Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants had sought to export l,20,000/-bottles of nail polish (15 ml) packed in 70 card board boxes vide Shipping bill No. 17211 dated 5.10.1995 to Hongkong declaring the FOB value as Rs. 40,40,400/-. The export was under the DEEC Scheme on value based advance licence. On the shipping ...
Tag this Judgment!Mayo India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC673Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the value of clearance of medicine cleared by the job workers has to be clubbed with the value of clearance of medicine manufactured and cleared by M/s. Mayo (India) Ltd. for the purpose of computing the aggregate value of clearance under Notification No. 175/86.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellants manufactured medicine and availed benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No.175/86, dated 1-3-1986. They had also entered into agreement with certain other manufactures in Bombay and Hyderabad Collectorate jurisdiction for manufacture of medicines as loan licensee out of raw materials supplied by them as per appellant's specifications, requirements and bearing their trade mark and brand name. The Collector, Central Excise, in the impugned order, confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 23,15,432.26 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- holding that the appellants were the manufacturers of the goods manuf...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Kaushal Advocate and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)107
ORDERDevinder Gupta, A.C.J.1. The All India Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as the 'AIIMS') is a premier medical institution of the country and a center of excellence for learning. It was established by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956 (Central Act No. 25 of 1956). The Statement of Objects & Reasons states as follows:-'For improving professional competence among medical practitioners, it is necessary to place a high standard of medical education, both post graduate and under graduate, before all medical colleges and other allied institutions in the country. Similarly, for the promotion of medical research it is necessary that the country should attain self sufficiency in post graduate medical education. These objectives are hardly capable of realisation unless facilities of a very high order for both under graduate and post graduate medical education and research are provided by a central authority in one place. The Bill seeks to achieve thes...
Tag this Judgment!Pradeep Kumar Vs. the State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1998Delhi249
ORDERS.N. Kapoor, J.1. This petition u/s 397/401 read with Section 482 CrPC is directed against the order dated 2nd February 1999 passed by a Metropolitan Magistrate. There is no dispute that the applicant was facing trial for offence u/s 292 read with Section 34 IPC committed on dated 30th October 1988. The accused was arrested on the same day at the spot. Charge was framed on 4th October 1993. It appears from the order sheets of various dates that the prosecution failed to examine any witness before 2nd February 1999. This is so despite the fact that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate repeatedly issued warrants against the witnesses to procure their attendance when police witnesses were served but they did not appear. 2. On 21st November 1998, an application was moved by the accused for discharging the accused in the light of the order passed by the Supreme Court in Raj Deo Sharma Vs . State of Bihar : 1998CriLJ4596 . The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: i) 'In cases...
Tag this Judgment!Mohinder Pahalwan Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 85(2000)DLT314
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. The petitioner challenges the order of detention passed by the Commis-sioner of Police on 21.5.1998 under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act. 2. The petitioner submitted his representation on 10.7.1998 to the Superintendent, Tihar Jail for onward transmission to the State Government as well as the Central Government. While the State Government disposed of the representation of the petitioner on 23.7.98 the Central Govt. disposed it of on 24.8.1998. It is not disputed by learned Counsel for the Central Government that the representation of the petitioner reached the Central Government through the Ministry of Home Affairs on 21.7.1998. It is also not disputed that the representation was disposed of on 24.8.1998. The Explanationn of the first respondent for taking 33 days in disposing of the representation is contained in the affidavit of Mr. Bina Prasad, Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. The relevant portion of the affidavit ...
Tag this Judgment!R.K. Nehra Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)657; 78(1999)DLT415
Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. By this order, I propose to dispose of the review application filed by the petitioner seeking for review of the order dated 3.4.1998 passed by this Court in C.W.P. No. 1549/1998. 2. The petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking regularisation/confirmation of his appointment in the post of Section Officer (Horticulture). The petitioner was appointed as a Section Officer (Horticulture) as against direct quota for three months by order dated 5.11.1983. The said appointment of the petitioner was extended from time to time and the petitioner has been serving in the said post since then on ad hoc basis. This Court upon hearing the Counsel appearing for the parties held that the petitioner did not satisfy the eligibility criteria as laid down in the Recruitment Regulations and accordingly it was held that no direction could be issued to the respondents to either regularise or confirm the petitioner in the post o...
Tag this Judgment!Schmiede and Maschinen Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC66Tri(Delhi)
1. Matter called. None for the appellants. However, by their letter dated 4-1-1999 they have desired the case to be decided on merits on the basis of available records. Question involved before us is whether various types of coupling such as pin coupling, bush coupling, chain coupling, brake bush coupling, Toothed coupling, Rachet coupling, flexible coupling, gear coupling, brake coupling are classifiable under Tariff Heading 84.83 or under Tariff Heading 84.85. Revenue contends that these are all in nature of "shaft coupling" which is specifically stated in Tariff Heading 84.83. On the other hand, appellant contends that these have nowhere been described as shaft coupling in any of the purchase orders of their customers; they are parts of machines specific to certain machineries for which their customers have given the orders.Consequently, it has been contended that the proper classification would be the residuary Tariff Heading 84.85 and under sub-heading 8485.90.2. Ld. SDR Shri R.K...
Tag this Judgment!Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC569Tri(Delhi)
1. The impugned order demanded Central Excise duty of Rs. 16,891.20 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellants. The allegation was that the appellants had cleared a consignment on 10-2-1993 of 81.60 M.Tonne of ALH without payment of duty.2. Arguing the appeal, learned Counsel, Shri Ashok Sagar submits that the only material relied upon in the proceedings is an entry in the factory's Inward Outward Register which shown a clearance on 10-2-1993 by Truck No. MHO 4C 724 under internal GP No. 5382-Calcutta. He submits that the relevant GP1 for this entry is GP No. 53, dated 11-2-1993. In fact there was no clearance on 10-2-1993 of the goods. He also submits that the appellant had charged the entry in the Inward Outward Register itself as having been made by someone other than the Register Keeper.He also submitted that the purported clearance had been investigated by the Central Excise Range Authorities and a report has been sent on May, 1993 wherein he reported that on 10-2-19...
Tag this Judgment!