Delhi Court April 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 15 of about 164 results (0.009 seconds)P.G. Conductors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC166Tri(Delhi)
1.1 The appellants herein are manufacturers of ACSR Weasel Conductor.On the order of two customers, namely M/s. Mohan Aluminium P. Ltd. and M/s. Mysore Conductors P. Ltd. - both belonging to Bangalore - the appellants supplied the aforesaid conductors to UPSEB but they made the invoices to the aforesaid two parties. This arrangement was made on the direction of the appellants' customers, as aforesaid. The appellants in the first instance herein paid full duty on the said conductors. On being pointed by the customers of the appellants that no duty is chargeable since the appellants availed the benefit of Notification 175/86-C.E. the appellants issued the credit notes to the said two customers and then they filed the refund claims in respect of the duty so paid by them initially with the department.1.2 The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claims on the ground that despite the information sought from the appellants to the effect whether the two Bangalore parties were eligible for ...
Tag this Judgment!industrial Oxygen Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC165Tri(Delhi)
1. Matter called. None for the appellants. There is, however, a request for deciding the appeal on merits. Hence, we have heard the learned JDR, Shri R.K. Sharma for the Revenue.2. Short question involved in this appeal is whether the phototypes of three items, namely (1) water separating column, (2) M.S. Battery and (3) Expansion engine manufactured by the appellants and utilised in their factory producing oxygen would be entitled to the benefit of Notification 118/75, as it stood at the relevant time. Function of these three items as given in the impugned order and which is not rebutted by the appellants herein is as follows :- "The function of 'separating column' is to distill liquid air and that of 'M.S. Battery' is to remove Carbon-dioxide and moisture from the processed air. 'Expansion Engine' expands the compressed and purified air for cooling purposes. These alongwith other parts are required to effect/assemble a complete gas manufacturing plant." 3. Notification 118/75 provid...
Tag this Judgment!Jay Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC168
2. Arguing the appeal, learned Counsel Shri J.P. Kaushik submits that this amount of credit has come to be denied on account of an error of fact in the impugned order. He refers to para 4 of the impugned order and submits that it is clear that the order allows Modvat credit in respect of documents issued by manufacturer's depot. Shri Kaushik refers to the invoices in question and explains that all these invoices have also been issued by the depot of the manufacturer, namely, Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. As the credit has been denied on account of error of fact in noting that these invoices are issued by unregistered dealers, he submits that the credit was to be allowed in terms of the impugned order itself.3. Heard Shri T.A. Arunachalam, learned D.R. for the Revenue who submits that these invoices also appear to be issued by manufacturer's depot only.4. I have perused the records of the case and have considered the submissions. The denial of credit has taken place on accoun...
Tag this Judgment!Jas Kiran Kaur Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC992Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the order dated 31-7-1997 by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh.2. The appellant filed the Bill of Entry No. 787, dated ... at CFS Ludhiana for the clearance of one used Honda Civic Car of Model 1991 and 4 number of used Car Tyre. She submitted the invoice No. 276, dated 5-10-1996 issued by M/s. Daichi International Trading Co. Ltd., ABV Shaghara Street old Airport Road, Sharjah, UAE of 5900 Dirhams (CIF Value). The Assistant Collector who adjudicated the matter was of the view that since the invoice was not the invoice issued by the Manufacturer of the Car, the invoice, as such, cannot be accepted and, accordingly, he has determined the price of the car based upon the Parker's Car Price Guide and Japanese Car Catalogue after giving depreciation as per rule and freight amounting to Rs. 30,388/- and insurance at the rate of 1,125/- of the FOB value of car amounting to Rs. 2,551/-was added as per norms. He has ordered for confisca...
Tag this Judgment!Oswal Agro Furnace Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC126
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the denial of exemption to bottom work platform for weigh bridge and M.S. Grating under Notfn. No. 123/81-Edt. 2.6.81.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are 100% Export Oriented Unit. They were permitted to bring excisable goods components without payment of Excise duty and additional duty of excise in terms of Notfn. No. 123/81. The Asst. Collector held that the bottom work platform for weigh bridge and M.S. Grating are necessary equipments for the manufacturing operations of the assessees and thus dropped proceedings. However, on review of the order of the Asst. Collector, the department contended that the bottom work platform for weigh bridge is used for weighment of various incoming and out-going consignments and cannot be termed as capital goods so as to attract the benefit of Notfn. No. 123/81. Similarly, it was also contended by the Revenue that M.S. Gratings are used as steps of stairs connecting different flo...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. G.S. Auto International
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC150
1. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh has filed this appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals) dated 10-1-1992 by which the Order-in-Original passed by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Ludhiana was set aside. The matter relates to classification of certain items viz., (1) U-Bolt (2) C-Bolt (3) H. Bolt (4) Axle Stud (5) Shackle Bolt (6) U-Clamps (7) Check Nuts (8) Shaft Belts (9) Shackle Assembly (10) Misc. Bolts and (11) Nuts. The appellant's claim is that these items are classifiable under Chapter 87 of CETA as parts of Motor Vehicles specified under Chapter sub- heading 87.01 to 87.05. The Asstt. Collector by the Order-in-Original classified them under Chapter 73 (Articles of Iron & Steel) under Chapter sub-heading 7318.10 (Threaded articles). While setting aside the adjudication order Collector (Appeals) observed that the said parts manufactured by the respondents herein were specially designed for use in automobiles and that the said parts had more functions ...
Tag this Judgment!Commr. of Central Excise Vs. Kuber Lighting (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC172
1. These two appeals filed by the Revenue pertain to the admis-sibility of Modvat credit on Molybdenum wire. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that Modvat credit will be admissible to the respondents before us. For coming to this conclusion, he had relied on a number of decisions of the Tribunal on the issue. Being aggrieved by this order, the Revenue has filed these two appeals. Since the issue in both the appeals is the same, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The appellants are manufacturers of tungsten filament and Molybdenum wire for captive consumption for making coils of tungsten wires. The department alleged that the Molybdenum wire was used by the assessees as support wire for the manufacture of tungsten filament and it was used as tool or appliance and was therefore covered by the exclusion category under Rule 57A. Accordingly a show cause notice was issued to the assessees. In reply to the show cause notice, the assessees contended that...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Gopal (Huf) Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)14; 79(1999)DLT229; 1999(49)DRJ285
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The present suit was instituted by the plaintiffs against the defendant for recovery of possession of the suit property being No.22/90, Connaught Circus, New Delhi, and also for recovery of mesne profits/damages for use and occupation and for recovery of arrears. It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiffs are the owners of the entire mezzanine floor and the entire ground floor of suit property No.22/90, Connaught Circus, New Delhi and the plaintiff is acting through its Karta Shri Raj Gopal. The defendant bank is a tenant to the extent of 1544.01 Sq. Ft. on the Mezzanine floor and to the extent of 1623.07 Sq. Ft. on the ground floor, thus making a total of 3167.08 Sq. Ft. of the said suit property. The said property was let out to the defendant bank in the month of February 1981 on a monthly rent of Rs.23,878.40 in terms of the communication of the defendant bank dated 15.5.1979 read with the letter dated 11.5.1981 for a period of 5 years. A lease deed wa...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Vs. M/S. Apna Metals and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)521; 79(1999)DLT355; 1999(49)DRJ300; (1999)122PLR47
ORDERDR. M.K. Sharma, J.1. By this order, I propose to dispose of the application filed by the defendants under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC praying for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 28.11.1991 passed in the present suit.2. The present suit was instituted by the plaintiff bank against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 2,49,572.78 along with pendente lite and future interest. Summons and notices were issued to the defendants. The defendants, however, could not be served for one reason or the other although, eight attempts were made to serve the defendants. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the defendants were allowed to be served through substituted manner of service by publication of the summons in a Newspaper. The defendants were thereafter, served through publication. In spite of service on the defendants in the aforesaid manner, the defendants did not appear and accordingly they were ordered to be proceeded ex parte. The plaintiff was allowed to lead evidence by filing ...
Tag this Judgment!Suneet Vaish Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)570
ORDERS.N. Kapoor, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In this case, the exception has been taken by the petitioner against the following two directions given by the learned chief Metropolitan Magistrate: '...Let SHO appear in court for handing over investigation to another competent officer. Meanwhile notice be also given to the complainant to appear on 6.8.98 at 2 p.m. Another direction given is to the following effect: 'Perused the file. Heard. The Ld. counsel for the applicant/complainant submits that the investigation should proceed from two angles namely financial angle and extra-marital angle. He further submits that there are three properties namely one at Maya Enclave, Second at Dwarka Co-op. Society and a DDA flat. Which were purchased in the name of the mother of the accused and the installments for which were being paid after the marriage by deductions from the salary/property loan of the husband of the deceased. There is also an indication in the statement of t...
Tag this Judgment!