Delhi Court May 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 16 of about 243 results (0.011 seconds)Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Phenolite Electro Heat P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1999
Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT262TriDel
1. In this appeal we are concerned with classification of Silicon Carbide Heating Elements. The lower authorities have classified them under Tariff Heading 85.14 as parts of furnance where they are used on the basis of various certificates supplied by the respondents.1.1 Revenue, on the other hand, contends that these are classifiable under Tariff Heading 85.16 inasmuch as these are nothing but electric heating resistors. Which is specifically mentioned in the Tariff Heading 85.16. Thus classification is sought under that heading.1.2 Major reliance has been placed by the Revenue on the Explanatory Notes to HSN, which inter alia, states that with the exception of those of carbon all electrical heating resistors are classified here, irrespective of the classification of the apparatus or equipment in which they are to be used. They consist of bars, rods, plates, etc. or lengths of wire (usually coiled), or of special material which becomes very hot when current is passed through it. Mate...
Tag this Judgment!Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT731TriDel
1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of the pre-deposit of the duty amount of Rs. 75,444/-.2. In this case the applicants are engaged in manufacture of Sugar and Molasses and during the course of manufacture of sugar which is made from Sugar Cane, whose juice is extracted which is subjected to cleaning by heating when certain inputs are mixed, and mud settles down during this process which was called Press Mud. The adjudicating authority held that this Press mud is being cleared at the Nil rate of duty. Therefore, according to provisions of.[Rule] 57CC 8% of the value of goods is to be reversed.3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that the Press mud is the waste/refuse which was thrown out and sometime it was sold at a very nominal price. The contention of the applicants is that as they are not clearing Press mud as a final product, therefore, the provisions of Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules are not applicable in the present case. He, t...
Tag this Judgment!Modi Xerox Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1999
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC140
1. The issue involved in this appeal is the classification of the following imported items :- The impugned order has confirmed classification of the items under Tariff-Sub-heading 8543.89 as "electrical machines and apparatus having individual functions not specified or included elsewhere in this Chapter" as against the appellants' claim for classification under Chapter Heading 84.71 as "automatic data processing machines and units thereof".2. Arguing the appeal, learned Advocate Shri V. Lakshmikumaran explained that the items in question are servers and they function in conjunction with digital photo copiers and computers. Their functioning is that documents scanned in the photo copier are transferred to the computer by the server. Similarly, materials composed in the computer are transferred for digital colour printing on the photo copier. On the one hand the servers receive data from network of computers or stand-alone computer, process such data with the help of MIPS and RIP trans...
Tag this Judgment!K.D.R. Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1999
Reported in: (1999)(111)ELT423TriDel
1. The appellants are manufacturers of grey yarn. They sell about 50% of the yarn so manufactured. The remaining are sent for dyeing to a job worker. Subsequently, dyed yarn is received back by the appellants and are sold in the market at a price higher than the price of grey yarn.The impugned order held that in respect of dyed yarn the assessable value should include the cost of dyeing.2. Learned Consultant Shri Gaur submits that manufacture of grey yarn and dyeing grey yarn consitute separate manufacturing activities under Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 55. The appellants are undertaking only manufacturing of grey yarn. Therefore, the assessable value in respect of grey yarn produced by them cannot include cost of dyeing. If duty was leviable on dyeing operation, it should be levied at the hands of the job worker who carried out the dyeing operation.3. Heard Shri Rao learned DR for the Revenue. He submits that the impugned order was correct in holding that the appellants were manufacturi...
Tag this Judgment!Pravesh Castings P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT67TriDel
1. Shri Amit Awasthi, learned Counsel arguing the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty submits that the applicants had submitted an application for re-determination of the capacity of the two furnaces installed in their factory. He submits that the Departmental officers came and verified the technical data required for determination of the Annual Production Capacity of the furnaces. This data verified by the officers was also signed by the appellants in token of its being correct. He submits that while determining the capacity of the two furnaces, the learned Commissioner did not spell out the technical details accepted by him for arriving at or the manner of arriving at the Annual Production Capacity. He submits that there is nothing in the order in dispute to show that the Collector had accepted or taken the technical data into consideration for determining the capacity. He submits that since the order does not indicate the precise formula taken for determination and the te...
Tag this Judgment!Vandana Steel Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT73TriDel
1. For reasons recorded below, we dispense with the requirement of pre-deposit of duty payable in terms of the annual capacity as determined by the impugned order and stay its recovery and proceed to hear the appeal itself with the consent of both the sides.2. In this case, the ACP of the furnace of the appellants has been determined by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad as 10.2 MT for the year 1-9-1997 and 6 MT from 10-9-1997 onwards. The appellants submit that the Commissioner ought to have determined the ACP on the basis of their actual production and the fact that they had opted for determination in terms of Rule 96ZO(3) does not take away their right to claim that the determination should be on the basis of production.They further pointed out that when the matter had come up earlier under ACP order dated 20-3-1998, the Tribunal vide its Final Order No.A-291-294/98-NB, dated 26-5-1998 (including the present appellants as well as others) had remanded the matter for takin...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Vxl (India) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1999
Reported in: (1999)LC980Tri(Delhi)
1. Question involved herein i whether raw greasy wool as imported by the respondents herein should b charged to the countervailing duty or not. The lower appellate authority he accepted the plea of the respondents herein and extended the benefit of Notif cation 60/87 to the said wool. His reasoning is contained in paras 8 and 9 of th impugned order which for better appreciation we reproduce below :- "8. From the above it would be evident that in the Customs Tariff while raw wool or fleece whether or not washed is chargeable to Basic Customs duty in case of Central Excise, wool only after they are scoured becomes chargeable to duty. That means the raw wool or greasy raw wool which is nothing but raw wool as it is obtained from the sheep and which contains dirt and grease is not excisable in the C. Ex. Tariff. Wool only in the condition after it has been washed and cleaned, which process is called scouring becomes excisable. From this point of view, the contention made by the appellant ...
Tag this Judgment!Jay Cylinder Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT94TriDel
1. Shri C.L. Sawhney, Consultant appearing for the appellants referred to the show cause notice issued on 31-7-1996 raising duty demand for the period 1993-94 and 1994-95. He submits that the demands were time barred. Learned JDR submits that the show cause notice itself states that the price lists were approved only provisionally and therefore there was no question of any time bar and the show cause notice was not barred by limitation.2. We have been referred to the declaration filed by the appellants for 1994-95 (page 13-14 of the appeal papers) in which the Assistant Commissioner has made endorsement "accepted provisionally". Learned Consultant submits that endorsement made in 1996 cannot relate back to the period for which the declaration was made and therefore the claim of provisional assessment made by the department is not tenable.3. We find that this preliminary objection taken by the appellant has force as there is nothing on record to show that the provisional assessment was...
Tag this Judgment!Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar and anr. Vs. Haldiram Bhujia Wala and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1999
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)41; 80(1999)DLT26; (1999)122PLR65
J.B. Goel, J.1. Plaintiff No. 1, M/s. Anand Kumar Pradeep Kumar, a partnership firm constituted by Shiv Rattan Aggarwal, Manmohan Lal Aggarwal and Madhu Sudan Aggarwal and plaintiff No. 2 Shiv Kishan Aggarwal all sons of Late Mool Chand have filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendents alleging that they are the registered proprietors of the trade mark and continuous user through their ancestors since 1941 of the trade mark name and trade mark 'HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA'. They had strated a shop at 1454, Chandni Chowk, Delhi and doing business there since 1983 using the said trade mark. The defendents intended to start a new shop to carry on similar business under the same tradename and with the same trademark at Karol Bagh, New Delhi. They sought an injunction. The suit was initially filed in the Court of the District Judge, Delhi on 10.12.1991. However, subsequently, the plaintiff amended the plaint incorporating claim for recovery of damages of Rs. 6.00 lakhs which exceede...
Tag this Judgment!Hajra Iqbal Memon Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1999
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)801; AIR1999Delhi271; 80(1999)DLT185; 1999(50)DRJ17; ILR1999Delhi430
ORDERC.M. Nayar, J.1. This petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the restriction placed on travel on passport of the petitioner, such as, restricting her travel from India to United Arab Emirates only as well as a writ of mandamus seeking direction or commanding the respondents to issue passport valid for 20 years for all the countries of the world. The petitioner is stated to be an Indian citizen and is presently residing in Dubai. She was holding an Indian Passport bearing No.A-992578 which expired in July 1996. She submitted her application for renewal on June 6, 1996 to respondent No.4 and on June 10, 1996 the petitioner went to collect the renewed passport from the said respondent. However, it was not delivered to her and she was told to come again. Consequently, she again visited the Consulate General of India at Dubai on June 12, 1996 on which date again it was not delivered to her. Thereafter, the petitioner made several su...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »