Delhi Court May 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 11 of about 243 results (0.010 seconds)Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. U.P. Aluminium Indus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC422Tri(Delhi)
1. Matter called. None for the respondents despite a notice of hearing sent to them. Therefore, we have heard the ld. JDR. Sh. S. Nunthuk in support of Revenues appeal.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows : The appellant herein is a manufacturer of aluminium circles falling under Chapter Heading 76.06 of the CETA 1985. They filed a classification list in respect of circles having thickness above 0.56 m.m. but not above 2 m.m. and they claimed exemption under Notification 180/88-C.E., dated 13-5-1988.3. The said Notification exempts such circles from levy of Central Excise duty if these are manufactured from the goods falling under Chapter 76 of the Schedule on which duty of excise leviable has already been paid. It is not disputed that the appellants are manufacturing aluminium circles from such old, broken, discarded and refuse articles of aluminium or aluminium utensils and other such articles which have not borne the burden of Central Excise duty and thus do not s...
Tag this Judgment!Sidwal Refrigeration India P. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(88)LC663Tri(Delhi)
The appellant herein is a manufacturer of both air conditioners and water coolers. While the air-conditioners are dutiable and he clears the same on payment of duty, water coolers are exempted from duty under Notification 166/86-CE.2. However, some of the inputs being common to both water coolers and air-conditioners, the appellant was taking mod vat credit of duty paid on such inputs. It is also stated by the appellants' Works Manager, Shri V.K. Behl that whenever the inputs were used in exempted final product i.e. water coolers, the appellant reversed the modvat credit of duty paid on inputs by it initially. In that view of things, Ld.Advocate submits that there was no need whatsoever to demand any duty in respect of either motors or fan blades as fans were only an intermediate product for the manufacture of water coolers because these goods were exempted by Notification 217/86-CE.3. Alternatively they had also taken the plea that even if it is held that a fan has been manufactured ...
Tag this Judgment!Kishori Lal Sudesh Kumar Metals Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC496
1. The issue in this case relates to redetermination of Annual Capacity of Production of the Induction Furnace of the appellants' firm.2. The ACP of the appellant was determined as 9600 m.t. The assessee increased his production capacity and accordingly the ACP was redetermined as 20,800 m.t. They requested for redetermination of duty liability under Section 3A(4) & (5) of the Central Excise Act, on the basis of actual production. The Commissioner directed them to explain as to why the claim for redetermination should not be rejected. They filed appeal before the Tribunal which by its order dated 26-5-1998, remanded the matter to the Commissioner with the directions to hear the applicant and to determine capacity on basis of actual production on the basis of data to be furnished by the appellant. The present impugned order has been passed by holding that the assessee had exercised their option to pay duty under Rule 96ZO(3) and therefore, were, debarred from availing of the benefi...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Thawani Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(85)LC529Tri(Delhi)
1. The appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi who has imposed a penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act 1962 on the appellant herein, holding him to be the person who indented high value electronic consumer durables of foreign origin such as TVs, music systems, walkman, cordless telephone, speakers, video cassettes, etc., seized on 25.11.1994 from C-31, Lajpat Nagar III, New Delhi which is found to be in the possession and occupation of one Asabuddin, a driver in the Bangladesh High Commission, procured them from overseas company of which he was the Indian agent, and arranged their clearance, storage and subsequent sale in the local market in contravention of the provisions of Section 111(d), (i), (1) (m) and (o). The goods have been held to be "cover cargo" to conceal misdeclared items and items in excess of : those declared and the goods have been confiscated under a separate adjudication order for violation of the...
Tag this Judgment!India Casting Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC180
The appellant herein is engaged inter alia in the manufacture of diesel engine (both above and below 10 H.P.) and centrifugal water pumps falling under Chapter Heading 8408.00 and 8413.00 respectively of the CETA, 1985.2. Diesel engines of capacity above & below 10 H.P., and centrifugal water pumps were exempted from excise duty during the relevant period i.e., 1-12-1991 to 16-6-1993. For the manufacture of these exempted final products, the appellants were procuring non-duty paid inputs under the provisions of Chapter X of Central Excises Rules, 1944.Non-duty paid inputs were brought into the factory under C.T.-2 certificates, issued by the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise.3. On the basis of intelligence that the appellant was misusing the facility of Chapter X of Central Excise Rules, 1944 by showing excess issue of inputs in the relevant records than their actual use and disposing the same in the manner other than as specified in the application for grant of regi...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Vindhya Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC452Tri(Delhi)
1. Matter called. None for the appellant. They have given a request for deciding the appeal on merit.2. Question before us in this appeal is classification of the following goods:- 3. The adjudicating authority has classified racks under Tariff Heading 94.03 and the other articles as mentioned above under Tariff Heading 73.08. The adjudicating authority has not accepted the plea of the appellants that the articles fabricated by them out of duty paid iron and steel products by cutting them to size, drilling holes, by joining them by rivetting or welding are not goods and that they are embedded in earth or in walls. Collector's finding is that these are goods which can be removed and refixed and these cannot be covered under the category of 'immovable' articles, though attached to the ground or walls.4. After having heard the ld. JDR and going through the Memo of Appeal, we observe that "rack" is a furniture and cannot be treated as immovable goods as argued by the appellants, similarly...
Tag this Judgment!Skyways Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT433TriDel
1. The above appeal was filed against the Order dated 3-11-1997 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, suspending the licence of the CHA in exercise of powers conferred under Regulation 21(2) of the CHALR, 1984.Vide Stay Order No. S/352/97-NB, dated 16-12-1997, the Tribunal directed the Commissioner of Customs concerned to issue show cause notice and complete the adjudication proceedings within 3 months from the date of receipt of the order of the Tribunal, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The appellants moved a miscellaneous application seeking directions for implementation of the above order.Miscellaneous Order No. M/117/98-NB was passed on 9-6-1998 directing the Commissioner to fix the hearing in this caste, hear the appellants and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from that date and the matter was listed for reporting compliance or 10-8-1998.It came up on that date and was adjourned on one or two occasions awaiting the report on the action ta...
Tag this Judgment!Manisha Pharma Plasto Pvt. Ltd.(M/S) Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)172; 79(1999)DLT771; 1999(50)DRJ102; 1999(66)ECC93; 1999(112)ELT22(Del); ILR1999Delhi501
ORDERArun Kumar, J.1.The question for consideration in the present writ petition is about the classification of Nycil Prickly Heat powder, i.e., whether it falls under heading 30.03 or it falls under heading 33.04 of the Central Excise Tariff. 2. The petitioner is engaged in manufacturing prickly heat powder called 'Nycil' under a manufacturing license issued by the Drug Controller under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. According to the petitioner, the said product is used for prevention and cure of ailments such as athlete's foot, dhobie itch, prickly heat and sores. The presence of the drug Chlorphenesin IP in the product helps in prevention and cure of such ailments because the said medicine has a strong anti-bacterial and anti-fungal agent. According to the drug licence, the composition of the petitioner's product is as under: Chlorphenesin IP - 1% w/wZinc Oxide IP - 16% w/wStarch IP - 51% w/wTalc Purified IP to - 100% w/w3. The petitioner has challenged a circular No.356/72/97-C...
Tag this Judgment!Shashi Bhushan Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)231; 1999(50)DRJ142
ORDERS.N. Kapoor, J.1.Heard. Prosecutrix Sunita aged about 15 years along with Renuka PW3 on 19th October 1989 at about 7.30 PM was abducted from the park opposite her house in P&T; Colony, Janak Puri. On the pretext of making enquiry about Qr. No. 8/1 Janak Puri, she was called near Maruti parked at the gate. Though she pleaded her ignorance, the driver caught hold of her and forcibly dragged her in the car. There were seven persons in the car. Two boys aged about 17 and 18 years gagged her mouth.One of the boys aged about 18 years was living in the Janata Colony near their house. She was put in car and the tape-recorder was switched on so that nobody could hear her cries. One person showed her knife to keep silence. When she made noise that person threatened to kill her and throw her in the naala. Two persons gagged her mouth. After traveling some distance, the car stopped and two persons took her out of the car. They were dragging her to a house. She gave a teeth bite on the hand of...
Tag this Judgment!Akash Ganga Builders and Engineers (P) Ltd. Vs. G.P. Seth Huf and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)371; 80(1999)DLT579; 1999(50)DRJ589; ILR1999Delhi510; 1999RLR410
ORDERUsha Mehra, J.1.Akash Ganga Builders and Engineers Pvt. Ltd. has assailed the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, thereby decreeing the suit of the respondent granting decree of possession and mesne profits. 2. The impugned judgment and decree have been assailed primarily on the grounds: (i) That the noticeterminating the tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter called the T.P.Act) dated7th May,1996 was not valid. Hence in the absence of valid notice decree could not have been passed.(ii) That as per oral agreement the period of tenancy could be extended at the option of the lessee (appellant herein). The appellant/lessee exercisedthat option seeking extension of lease for another period of ten years. Since the tenancy was subsisting it could not have terminated by efflux of time. (iii) That there was no admissions made by the appellant on the basis of which decree could be passed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, and finally (iv) t...
Tag this Judgment!