Delhi Court April 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 16 of about 164 results (0.018 seconds)Rajaram Maize Products Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC167
1. This appeal of M/s. Rajaram Maize Products is against denial of Modvat credit of over Rs. 18,000 in respect of Filter Press Machine.2. Arguing the appeal, learned Counsel, Shri A.C. Jain submits that credit has been disallowed on the ground that "the invoice on which credit was taken is in the name of their Head-Office" and that the appellants have not satisfied the requirements under CBEC Circular No.215/45/96-CE dated 14.5.96 to become eligible for Modvat credit in such circumstances. Shri Jain submits that the credit in such cases has been held to be due in Tribunal's decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore v. Corborundum Universal Ltd. 3. Shri T.A. Arunachalam, learned Departmental Representative submits that the Order-in-Original also mentions that the notice has not declared the actual end-use of the machine and place of use of the said machine. He also submitted that the appellants had not produced the original copy of the invoice and also original duty paying...
Tag this Judgment!Collr. of C. Ex. Vs. Surya Jyoti Safety Products
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC138
1. Matter called. None for the respondents. There is a request for adjournment but we are not adjourning the matter in view of the order we propose to pass hereafter.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows : The respondents herein were engaged in manufacture of glass and glassware falling under Chapter 70 of the CETA, 1985 and solar cooker parts, that is, frame and solar cooker frame falling under Chapter Heading 7321.90.3. During the course of scrutiny of RT 12 returns for October, 1990 to January, 1991, it came to the notice of the Revenue that after availing exemption of Rs. 20 lakhs for goods falling under Chapter 70, they started paying the duty on the goods falling under Chapter 70 but they were availing the benefit of exemption in respect of the goods falling under Chapter 73. Revenue took objection to clearances of goods falling under Chapter 73 without payment of duty on the allegation that once the respondents had started paying the duty on the goods falling u...
Tag this Judgment!Miraj Electricals and Mechanical Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(111)ELT616TriDel
1. Matter called. None for the appellant. They have however desired that the appeal to be decided on the basis of available records and their written submissions filed by them on 6-4-1998.2. Briefly stated the facts of this case are as follows : The appellants herein were manufacturing excisable goods and availing the benefit of full exemption from duty under Notification No. 46/81-C.E.on the ground that their factory was not covered under Clause (m) of Section 2 of the Factories Act. This notification however, was superceded by another Notification No. 178 / 85 which provided exemption to excisable goods up to a certain limit from First day of April of any financial year. One of the conditions of Notification No.178/85-C.E., dated 1-8-1985 was the aggregate value of the clearances of all excisable goods by a manufacturer or on its behalf for home consumption for one or more factories would not exceed Rs. 75 lakhs during the preceding financial year.3. In the present case, it is not d...
Tag this Judgment!Bishnu NaraIn Alias Lalji Agarwal Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC174
1. The present appeal is directed against confiscation of over 1.3 Kgs.of gold in crude form and imposition of a penalty of Rs. 10,000 on the appellants.2. Arguing the appeals, learned Counsel, Shri Gopal Prasad submits that the appellants have been held to be guilty of violation of Section 17 of the Gold (Control) Act. Shri Gopal Prasad submits that this finding is not sustainable at all. The entire findings of the case showed that the appellant's family gold ornaments were being melted in his own house. This activity could not amount to running of a refinery. He explained that running of a refinery meant melting gold so as to standardise purity, prepare standard bars out of such melted gold and to certify the purity for such standard bars. He submitted that the appellants did not possess any of the equipment required for preparing standard gold bars. Therefore, this charge and the consequent confiscation and penalty should fail. He, however, submitted that the appellant has also bee...
Tag this Judgment!Krishan Kumar Singh (Dr.) Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)385; 79(1999)DLT332; 1999(49)DRJ701
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner, who was Professor & Head of the Department, Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, AIIMS, New Delhi, attained the age of superannuation on the 30th of September, 1998. Before that date some time in April, 1998, process of regular selection for the post was started by the Institute. On the 3rd of June, 1998, the petitioner asked for extension of his services on the basis of Regulation 30(2) of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences Notification dated 15.10.1958. On the 26th of August, 1998, according to the petitioner, the Director of the Institute recommended his case for re-employment for two years. That was reiterated by the Director on the 4th of September, 1998. On the 28th of September, 1998, it was decided to grant reemployment to the petitioner for a period of six months but that was not given effect to. On the 28th of November, 1998, an order was passed giving petitioner re-employment for a period of six months. The order dated 28.11....
Tag this Judgment!Pankaj Kumar JaIn Vs. the Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)461; 79(1999)DLT345; 1999(49)DRJ525
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.8.1995 by which his services were dispensed with by the third respondent.The petitioner was appointed on the 1st of September, 1993. The order of appointment reads as under:-'With reference to the letter No. DH/47/EO/ZO/93/E/3429 dated 19.8.93 of the Education Officer, Zone VIII, Distt.East regarding appointment of Shri Pankaj Jain S/o Late Shri H.R. Jain against a vacant post of UDC and the decision taken in the meeting of the Managing Committee of the school held on 28.8.93. The candidate is hereby offered the appointment on the post of UDC on the terms and conditions mentioned below:- 1. The appointment will be on probation for one year from the date of joining his duties. Failure to complete the probation period to the satisfaction of the Management will regular render him liable to be discharged from service without any notice. 2. The appointment may be terminated at any time by one month given on either si...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjiv Nanda Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)857; 79(1999)DLT141; 1999(49)DRJ278
ORDERJ.B.Goel, J.1. The petitioner is seeking bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the' Code') in FIR No.17/99 registered at P.S. Lodi Colony, New Delhi under Sections 338/304/201/34 IPC in the case now commonly known as 'BMW Accident Case'. 2. Briefly the facts as emerged during investigation so far are as follows. 3. Rajan Kumar, a CRPF Constable with Peru Lal and Ram Raj, two Home Guards of Delhi Police were on picket duty at Lodhi Road near Car Care Centre Petrol Pump during the night of 9-10 January, 1999. Four persons, namely, Manoj, Mehdi Hasan, Nashir and Gulab while going towards Nizamuddin railway station were intercepted by the said police picket for interrogation/checking. At about 4.30 a.m. car No. M-312 LYP driven by the petitioner came from the side of Nizamuddin, took turn towards extreme left side, struck against the seven persons present there and after so hitting the car went towards the right side and after covering some distance, afte...
Tag this Judgment!ircon International Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC144
1. By the impugned order, Commissioner of Customs, Bombay has levied certain amounts of duties in respect of 2 consignments cleared earlier and in respect of 2 consignments which was still under clearance. First point raised by the Ld. C.A. Shri D.B. Desai for the appellants is that, the appellants have not been issued any show cause notice for recovery of duty in respect of the 3 clearances effected earlier by the appellants under Section 28 which is a mandatory provisions. First requirement is issue of show cause notice and then only a recovery of duty not levied/short-levied etc. could be made.2. As for the current assessment of 2 Bills of Entry, Ld. C.A.submitted that even where the valuation of imported goods declared in the Bills of Entry by the appellants, was not acceptable to the Customs Authorities, higher valuation could be affected by the adjudicating authority only after giving a show cause notice in view of the requirements to the principles of natural justice not been d...
Tag this Judgment!German Homoeopathic Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT448TriDel
1. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (A) observed that "The main point for consideration in this case is whether the benefit of Notification No . 58/85 can be extended to subject import. Sugar of milk, according to the appellant is a homoeopathic medicine. The department's stand is that sugar of milk is nothing but lactose HPL, which is only a medium for dispensing homoeopathic medicine, rather than a medicine available for ready sale. I find that the department has correctly classified the goods under Chapter Heading 17.02, since that heading provides more specific description of the goods as per Interpretive Rule 3(a). He also held that the earlier appellants had declared the goods as "Homoeopathic Medicine" for basic form sugar of milk HPL. They claimed classification under Heading No. 30.04. He, therefore held that the appellants have suppressed these facts on the bill of entry. Being aggrieved by this order, the appellants have filed this appeal.2. The facts of the case in ...
Tag this Judgment!Rasmos Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC162
1. The appeal involves denial of Modvat credit of about Rs. 24,000.00 on the ground that the invoice of the supplier of the input had not been pre-authenticated. Learned consultant, Shri S.D. Gaur submits that this issue has been decided in favour of the appellant by the Tribunal in the case of Ramgarh Chini Mills v. Commissioner of Central Excise 1998 (26) RLT 169 (T). He also submits that the Tribunal has held in Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore v. Carborundum Universal Ltd. 1997 (70) ECR that defective invoice is not a sufficient ground to deny credit when particulars can be verified. Shri Gaur submits that the appeal may be allowed based on these decisions.2. Heard T.A. Arunachalam, learned D.R. He reiterates the findings in the impugned order.3. I have gone through the records of the case and have considered the rival submissions. The Tribunal has already held that the inadequacy defects in the invoices issued by the suppliers should not be a ground for denial of credit...
Tag this Judgment!