Delhi Court May 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 19 of about 243 results (0.007 seconds)Spangles International Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT828TriDel
1. The applicants made a request to decide the appeal on merits.Therefore, the appeal is being taken up in the absence of the applicants. Heard Shri T.A. Arunachalam, learned JDR.2. In this case the applicant made an import of battery charger of cellular phone and claimed the clearance under Customs Tariff Heading 8504.50 and Para-22 of the Exim Policy 1992-97. On examination the goods were found being capable of being used as consumer goods. Hence they come under the restricted category. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) and importers were given option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 60,000/- and penalty of Rs. 20,000/- was also imposed on the appellants under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The applicants filed appeal, set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant and reduce the redemption fine to Rs. 40,000/-.3. The contention of the appellants in this appeal is that the goods in question are Plug in Saver/Charger ...
Tag this Judgment!Metlex India (P) Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(88)LC464Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Metlex India (P) Ltd. have challenged Order-in-Original dated 24.10.1996 passed by Commissioner of Customs, IGI Airport, New Delhi holding that an amount of Rs. 11,37,824.00 being amount of customs duty short levied on 3,600 pieces of "INTERMETALLIC COMPOSITES METALLIZING BOATS" (IMC boats), imported by the appellants is liable to be paid by them. He also directed confiscation of another 300 pieces of IMC boats seized by the DRI Officers with option to get them redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 25,000/- Customs duty on the said 300 pieces of IMC boats amounting to Rs. 98,504/- was also confirmed. Penalty of Rs. 4 lakhs was imposed on the appellant firm and a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs was imposed on Shri Jamna Datwani, Chairman of M/s. Metlex (India) Pvt. Ltd. under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.2. Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Hot Stamping Foils and in metallising bare plain films of plastics. For purposes of metallising, evaporation boats known as ...
Tag this Judgment!U.P. Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC439
1. The issue involved in all these 5 appeals is whether the provisions of Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 enjoining upon the Collector to determine the duty liability of the appellants on the basis of actual production will prevail over the capacity as determined under the Induction Furnace Annual Capacity (Determination) Rules, 1997. This issue stands settled by the Tribunal's decision in the case of Minakshi Castings and Inder Steel (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur - Final Order Nos. A/85-86/99-NB dated 15-1-1999 wherein the Tribunal has held that Rule 96-ZO(3) is in conflict with the Sub-section (4) of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act and that whenever there is conflict in between Section and the Rule, the Section overrides the Rule. The Tribunal held that if an assessee claims that the actual production is lower than the production determined under Sub-section (2) of Section 3A, he may approach the Commissioner to determine the actual production an...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Moon Beverages P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC500
1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad who has rejected the Revenue's appeal filed before him against the Order-in-Original passed by the Assistant Collector, extending Modvat credit to the respondents on glass bottles and plastic crates used for packing of aerated waters. Credit was held to be available on the ground that the cost of the glass bottles and plastic crates was included in the assessable value of aerated waters.The Revenue's contention is that since in the price list filed by the respondents effective from 1-3-1994, it has been clearly mentioned that "bottles of durable and returnable nature cost of which is also included in the prices", the respondents are not entitled to credit and that the certificate of the Chartered Accountant which has been relied upon to hold that the cost of packing material has been included in the assessable value cannot override the position reflected in the relevant price list which...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and Another Vs. Ravi Parkash JaIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)181; 79(1999)DLT787; (1999)122PLR33
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. In this appeal directed against the order dated 3rd March 1997 of a learned single Judge passed in I.A.No.1918/93 C.M.2855/98 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 seeking condensation of delay of about 478 days in filing the appeal has been filed by the appellants.2. It is alleged in the application that the Central Registry of the Land and Development office received a letter dated 20th February 1998 from Ravi Prakash Jain, one of the respondents, enclosing therewith a photostat copy of the certified copy of the order dated 3rd March 1997 (received by the Advocate on 11th March 1997) and cheque for Rs.79,986/-. The dealing assistant put up the case file on 17th March 1998 to the Superintendent who on 19th March 1998, returned the same for preparing a brief history of the case. On 1st May 1998 the dealing assistant resubmitted the file to the Superintendent. In the meantime on 6th May 1998 representative of the respondents called on the Deputy Land & Develop...
Tag this Judgment!Arati Bhargava (Ms.) Vs. Shri Kavi Kumar Bhargava (Deceased) Through L ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1999Delhi280; ILR1999Delhi498; (1999)122PLR14
ORDERMohd. Shamim, J.1. This is an application by the plaintiff under Order 13 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to place on record an application moved by Shri K.K. Bhargava on March 20, 1990 before the Assessor and Collector, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Central Zone, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and to prove the same by summoning the record from the office of the Assessor & Collector, Municipal Corporation of Delhi. 2. The application has been vehemently opposed by the defendant. 3. It has been urged for and on behalf of the plaintiff that the case of the plaintiff is that she is a tenant on the first and the second floor of the property bearing No. E 15-16, Nizamuddin West, New Delhi. She was inducted as a tenant herein by her mother Mrs. Savitri Devi Bhargava on August 1, 1984, whereas this fact has been denied by the defendant. The plaintiff applied for a certified copy of the letter dated March 20, 1990 adverted to above, on September 2, 1998. A photocopy of the...
Tag this Judgment!S.C. Gupta Vs. Jawahar Lal Nehru University
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 79(1999)DLT582; 1999(50)DRJ151
K. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The petitioner, who was working as Assistant, was promoted as Section Officer in 1981. A disciplinary action was taken against him and ultimately the punishment imposed was reduced to the penalty of reduction from his substantive post of Senior Assistant, where he was working on ad hoc basis. The ultimate order dated 26.11.1986 reads asunderi-'WHEREAS the penalty of compulsory retirement from the University service was imposed on Shri S.C.Gupta with effect from 13th November, 1987 (Afternoon) vide order dated 19th November, 1987. AND WHEREAS on having considered the fresh representation dated 24.11.1987 of Shri S.C.Gupta pleading for leniency in punishment on account of his age and his unfulfilled commitments towards his family and also the facts that he is in the age group where he may not be able to getemployment anywhere/elsewhere, the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on Shri S.C. Gupta vide aforesaid order has been reviewed;NOW, thereforeE, IN suspensi...
Tag this Judgment!Faridabad Forcings Private Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT643TriDel
1. The question involved herein is whether the forgings and forged products are classifiable under Tariff Headings 72.07, 72.24 and 72.18, as contended by the appellants herein, whereas the Department has assessed them as parts of machinery falling under different Chapter 73 as other articles of iron and steel or as other parts of machines etc.under Chapters 84, 85, 86, or 87. Learned Advocate, Shri R.C. Gupta has taken us through the impugned order and pointed out that extensive machining is done after the forgings are cleared from the appellants premises at the customers end. He, therefore, submits that the forgings cleared by the appellants cannot be treated as articles of iron and steel or as part of various machineries, as contended by the Revenue.For this proposition, learned Advocate relies upon the Tribunal judgment in the Aravali Forgings Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur 2. He, therefore, submits that the appeals be allowed with consequential relief to the appel...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Recondo Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT826TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the order-in-appeal dated 31-8-1990 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai is under challenge. The respondents M/s. Recondo Limited had filed the price lists in which they had claimed deduction towards testing and erection charges. The Assistant Collector who had adjudicated the matter had held that the testing and erection charges were includible in the assessable value and he approved the price lists filed by the party with such observations. On appeal the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) decided the matter in favour of the assessee and had observed that the respondents had taken Fan Blades along with the Hub-Assembly which was a bought out item to site where they had undertaken the work of erection and commissioning of the Fans on cooling towers as per the contract. He said that no further Excise duty was payable on such erection, commissioning and performance testing charges.2. When the matter was called, no one appea...
Tag this Judgment!Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Gujarat Perstorp Electronics
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT832TriDel
1. The issue involved in the appeal filed by the Revenue is regarding classification of paper based technical laminates.2. Shri Sumit K. Das, learned DR submitted that the classification of paper based laminates has been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E., Hyderabad v. Bakelite Hylam Ltd. reported in 1997 (91) E.L.T. 13 (S.C.) in which these laminates were classified under sub-heading 39.20. The Supreme Court again in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Wood Polymers Ltd. reported in 1998 (97) E.L.T. 193 (S.C.) classified paper based laminates under Heading 39.20.3. Shri P.K. Ram, learned Advocate submitted that the paper based technical laminates manufactured by them are insulators and as such, are to be classified under Heading 85.46 as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bakelite Hylam's case (supra). He further submitted that the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Vadodara v. Wood Polymers reported in 1998 (27) RLT 130 (CEGAT) has held that pap...
Tag this Judgment!