Delhi Court April 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 9 of about 164 results (0.019 seconds)Panamid Treads Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT469TriDel
1. These are three appeals arising out of common order dated 17-3-1993 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Trichy involving the classification of precured tread rubber in rolls and sheets form, whether classifiable under sub-heading 4016.99 as claimed by the appellants or under sub-heading 4008.21 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.2. When the matters were called no one was present on behalf of any of the appellants in spite of notice issued to all the appellants and their Advocate", nor is there any request for adjournment. We therefore heard Shri A.M. Tilak, ld. DR and perused the records. The appellants have submitted in their memorandum of appeal that the impugned product was classifiable under Heading 4016.99 of the Tariff as per the clarification issued by the CBEC vide Circular No. 61/89, dated 10-11-1989. They have further submitted that Heading 40.80 covers vulcanised rubber in the form of plates, sheets, strips etc. whereas Heading 40.16 is intended to cover art...
Tag this Judgment!Superior Steel Products Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC491
"The issue which is required to be determined is as to whether in the relevant period the assessee was manufacturing ingots of non-alloy steel or such ingots were being incidentally produced. As the operation of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in this case would commence from 1-9-1997, the production pattern of non-alloy steel ingots from April, 1997 to Aug., 1997 as well as in the preceding years would be relevant for determining the issue in question. In 1994-95,1995-96 and 1996-97 the ratio of production of the steel castings and non-alloy steel ingots is 1 :0.86,1 : 0.81 and 1 : 0.55 respectively. This production pattern does not support the contention of the assessee that the production of non-alloy ingot steel was only incidental. The production figures of April, 1997 to Aug, 1997 also do not lend any support to the assessee's contention. The assessee is relying on the production figures of Sept., 1997 onwards to prove its point. These figures cannot be taken as the f...
Tag this Judgment!Aradhana Steel and Allied Ind. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC415
1. The captioned three appeals are taken up together as they arise out of similar orders passed on an identical issue. The issue was whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Sub-section 4 of Section 3A even if they had opted for taking the benefit of Rule 96-ZO(3).2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of MS Ingots. They have induction furnace for production.With the amendment of Section 3A, the mode of charging duty on MS Ingots produced by induction furnace was changed, Section 3A(4) provided that annual capacity can be fixed on the basis of the actual production of the furnace among other.3. Shri Alok Arora, ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that similar issue came up before the Tribunal in the case of Minakashi Castings and M/s. Index Steels Pvt. Ltd. Final Order Nos.A/85-86/99-NB, dated 15-1-1999 and that the Tribunal in para 13 of this judgment held as under : "13. We have carefully considered the matter. As...
Tag this Judgment!Mideast India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT1036TriDel
1. Ms. Reena Khair, Advocate, arguing for the appellants, submitted that apart from the merits of the case, the order suffers from denial of principles of natural justice inasmuch as an opportunity of personal hearing was not afforded to the party before passing the order.2. Shri Shiv Kumar, JDR, submitted that the show cause notice has been issued and served on the party and in spite of reminders no reply was filed by the party and accordingly it resulted in an ex parte order.Ms. Reena Khair, Advocate, replied that the appellants could not make use of the opportunities given for inspecting the documents, but nevertheless no notice of hearing has been issued.3. We have carefully considered the matter. We find that there is a statutory requirement to issue notice of hearing before passing the order. In the absence of any evidence to show that the notice of hearing has been issued, we feel that the matter will have to go back for re-adjudication. We also take note of the fact that in th...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Ambica Metal Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC129
1. The issue before us in this appeal is the classification of two way keys and Cotters manufactured by the appellants herein. Learned advocate submits that the issue, as mentioned above, is directly covered by the Tribunal's judgment in the case of C.C.E. Chandigarh v.Bhushan Industries Co. Ltd. 2. Learned SDR, Shri R.D. Negi reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority.3. We observe that Shri R. Santhanam, learned advocate is correct in his submission that the issue is clearly covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Bhushan Industries Co. Ltd. (supra). Consequently, following respectfully the said judgment of the Tribunal, we allow this appeal, after we set aside the impugned order, with consequential relief to the appellants....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Deeplaxmi Textile P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT605TriDel
1. Matter called. None for the respondents despite notice of hearing having been issued by the Registry on 18-2-1999 by registered post.Accordingly, we have heard the learned JDR, Shri V.M. Udhoji for the Revenue in its appeal. 2.1 Respondents herein filed a classification list bearing No. 12/89 w.e.f. 1-4-1989 claiming benefit of various Notifications for various types of cotton fabrics processed by them. It appears that large scale amendments have been made by the Revenue in classification list deleting the benefit of Notification 57/87 read with 112/87, and 57/87 read with 113/87 changing not only the description of the goods but also the reference to Notification. The description of the goods was changed to "for all parties & self; general bleaching, mercerising, stentering and packing". This was approved subject to the condition that the cotton fabrics of the said variety were exempted upto 50,00,000 sq.mtrs. vide Notification 111/87. A third description of cotton fabrics was...
Tag this Judgment!R.S Bakshi and Another Vs. Mr. H.K. Malhari and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)469
ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC'), present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioners.2. Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has contended that in view of the plain language of Section 14(1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), it was sufficient that the respondent was allotted a flat by the Society. In support of his contentions, he has cited Ganpat Ram Sharma v. Smt.Gayatri Devi 32 (1987) DLT 371, Vardesh Chander Chanana Vs . Prem Nath & Anr. : 19(1981)DLT346 , Baij Nath Vs . Bhagat Singh & anr. : 43(1991)DLT325 , Mr. T N Rai Vs . Rent Control Tribunal : 67(1997)DLT308 and Hem Chand Baid Vs . Prem Wati Parekh : AIR1980Delhi1 .3. I need not go into the question whether Legislature intended that a tenant has acquired vacant possession or has been allotted a residence is suf...
Tag this Judgment!Rajnish Gupta and ors. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)725; 80(1999)DLT481
ORDERCW. 528/99. 1. The 51 petitioners, who are senior officers of Delhi Police, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Daman & Deo and are commonly known as DANIPS officers, have approached this Court in this writ petition seeking to enforce the decision of the Cabinet in their meeting on 10th September, 1998, as communicated by the Chief Secretary in his order dated 15.9.1998. 2. It is common ground that decision had been taken to grant the reliefs mentioned in the communication to the petitioners and other officers similarly situated but that has to be formally approved by the Govt. of India and it is not disputed that the first respondent had written to the Govt. of India for approval and the matter is pending onsideration by the Govt. of India. The question is pending the decision of the Govt. of India relating to approval, whether the petitioner could be granted the relief as decided by the Cabinet and as reflected in the order dated 15.9.1998. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petition...
Tag this Judgment!G.C. Singh Puri and Another Vs. Smt. Surjit Kaur
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IAD(Delhi)791
ORDERFAO(OS)85/99 & CM. 1022/991. Despite two opportunities learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to substantiate the main ground on which appeal has been preferred that once proceedings in the suit are stayed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the Court thereafter cannot pass an order on interim application. We may refer to a decision on the point in Vashdev Bheroomal Pamnani Vs . M/s. M. Dipin Kumar and Co., : AIR1987Bom226 , holding that while staying the suit proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the court must hear the parties for passing final orders on application for grant of temporary injunction. Learned Single Judge rightly proceeded in the matter of simultaneously disposing of application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC. 2. No ground otherwise has been made out to interfere with the order of learned Single Judge by which he proceeded to vacate the ex-parte order of injunction which had been granted earlier on 17th November, 1993. Learned Sin...
Tag this Judgment!India Poly Fibres Limited Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC72
1. In the impugned order, the Collector (Appeals) held theat "I have carefully considered the submissions of appellants. The short point to decide in this case is as to whether credit will be admissible if the final products are cleared without payment of duty for deemed export under Rule 191B. Rule 57C provides non-admissibility of credit if the final product is exempt from payment of duty or cleared at nil rate of duty. It means that credit is not admissible on the inputs if duty is not paid on the final product. Appellant's contention that exemption referred in Rule 57C is the exemption granted by the notification issued under Section 5A of the Act is not valid, because while referring the exemption from duty, Rule 57C does not specify that this exemption should be granted by a notification issued under Section 5A of the Act. The word "exempt" used in Rule 57C is used in general sense which means "exempt" from payment of duty under any section or rule within the ambit of which exem...
Tag this Judgment!