Delhi Court April 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 17 of about 164 results (0.011 seconds)Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT182TriDel
1. Learned Counsel seeks leave to mention that the Department has not yet quantified the demands in terms of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) despite requests.2. However, he is prepared to place on record the amount which would be payable in terms of the impugned order if time is allowed for the purpose.3. He is even prepared to offer that the stay application may be disposed of with an observation to the effect that no recovery may be made in terms of either the Order-in-Original or the Order-in-Appeal till the quantification of the demand by the Department and in the latter case they may be given liberty to approach the Tribunal again for waiver of pre-deposit.4. Learned DR says that they had also written to the Commissioner concerned regarding quantification but have not received any response from the officers concerned. As such he is not in a position to say or clarify at this stage.5. We have considered the above submissions. We observe that as on date the Order-in-Origina...
Tag this Judgment!Tony Electronics Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(88)LC496Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Customs, New Delhi.2. The brief facts of the case are that appellants were sent ten pieces of Calender Rolls for repairs and reconditioning out of India as the same repairs cannot be undertaken in India. The said repair rolls were reimported into India. The appellants claimed the benefit of Notification No. 204/76-Cus. dated 2.8.1976 for basic customs duty. The appellants claimed that the additional duty of customs as NIL on the ground that the same is not chargeable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act. The plea of the appellants in respect of additional excise duty of customs was not accepted by the adjudicating authority. The appellants filed appeal and the same was dismissed.3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the Calender rolls were originally imported on payment of customs duty including the additional duty under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Honeycomb India Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC17Tri(Delhi)
1. In the present case we are concerned with classification of two items namely 1. Aircraft/floor board/flat panels, 2. Honeycomb floor boards/partition panels.2. The lower appellate authority has classified the aforesaid two items under Tariff Heading 88.03 (as part of aircraft) and under Tariff Heading 86.07 as part of Rail coaches respectively as claimed by the respondents herein the assessees.3. Revenue in its appeal now seeks to classify the first item as aluminium article under tariff sub-heading 7610.90 or alternatively 7616.90. As regards honeycomb floor boards/partition panels Revenue contends that its classification would be under the following sub-headings i.e. two as mentioned above and remaining two are 7308.90 and 3925.99.4. We have gone through the impugned order. We have also gone through the grounds of Appeal filed by the Revenue's. Tariff Heading 88.03 speaks of parts of goods under Heading Nos. 88.01 or 88.02. Tariff Heading 88.02 speaks of other aircraft for exampl...
Tag this Judgment!Y.M. Sehgal Vs. K.V. Sachdeva
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 79(1999)DLT101; 1999(49)DRJ692
Vijender Jain, J. 1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition under Section 14(C)(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), owner-petitioner has filed the present petition.2. Mr. Ishwar Sahai, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has contended that the Rent Controller has committed a grave irregularity which has manifested into miscarriage of justice by dismissing the petition on the ground that the premises are not required bona finely by the petitioner. Mr. Sahai has contended that the petitioner was borne at Delhi, got education at Delhi and was having his circle of friends in Delhi. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was employed with All India Radio and as such he was transferred to different places. In the rejoinder the petitioner has mentioned the details of his postings from 1962 to 1966 at Delhi, 1966 to 1968 Radio Kashmir, Srinagar, 1968 to 1978 Chandigarh, 1978 to 1982 All India Radio, Shimla, 1982-1991 Delhi, 1991 to ...
Tag this Judgment!