Delhi Court May 1999 Judgments

Kulbhushan JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)LC955Tri(Delhi)

1.1 Acting allegedly on information, officers of the DRI conducted search of the house A-2/16, Sector 8, Rohini on 25-4-1997 which resulted in no recovery. At the time of search, the appellant was present. He was asked to accompany them to his godown situated in Kanhaya Nagar (Tri Nagar Delhi) on the same day search of the godown, in presence of the two panchas resulted in recovery of 9,029 pieces of ball bearings of Polish origin totally valued at Rs. 9,02,900. Ball bearings were packed in 43 gunny bundles. Since the appellant could not produce any document for legal import/possession of those ball bearings, the same were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 on reasonable belief that the same have been smuggled into India. The appellant was identified by the landlord of the house as the person to whom the premises, from where the aforesaid ball bearings were recovered, had been let out.2. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 108 ibid on 25/26-4-1999. He ...

C.C.E. Vs. Niranjan Singh Kartar Singh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT628TriDel

1. Captioned 2 appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Collector (Appeals) who held that "I have considered the submissions made by the appellants in the memoranda of appeals and also the arguments tendered by the ld. Counsel at the time of personal hearing. The main point which required determination in these appeals is whether the appellants are entitled to avail Modvat credit of duty in excess of Rs. 500/- per MT or Rs. 600/- per MT as restricted by proviso to Notification No. 177/86, dated 1-3-1986 as amended on ship breaking scrap obtained by breaking up of ships, boats and other floating structures. It is observed that the appellants have availed Modvat credit of duty @ Rs. 600/- per MT paid on goods under Heading No. 72.30 or 73.27 and obtained from breaking up of ships, boats and other floating structures imported into India on which the duty liability had not been discharged. As proviso to Notification No.177/86, dated 1-3-1986 do not get attracted in ...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Impreg and Insulations

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT292TriDel

1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 26-4-1995 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi.2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of unsaturated polyester resins falling under sub-heading 3937.91 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondents claimed exemption from excise duty under Notification No. 70/77, dated 7-5-1977 on 1600 kgs. of unsaturated polyester resins. A show cause notice was issued to the respondents stating therein that the benefit of Notification No. 70/77 is not available to the goods, in question, as the goods were not supplied to the Indian Navy as stores on board. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings. The Revenue filed the appeal and the same was rejected.3. Ld. J.D.R., appearing on behalf of the Revenue, submits that the notification provides exemption from payment of central excise duty on the goods supplied as stores on board a vessel of Indian Na...

Liberty Footwear Co. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(85)LC959Tri(Delhi)

1. The short point for determination in this appeal is whether the appellants were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 268/67 dt. 1.12.1967 as amended or they were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 150/72 dt. 17.6.1972.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of parts of footwear. Central Government by its Notification No. 268/67 as amended by Notification No. 182/76-CE dt. 5.6.1976 had exempted parts of footwear falling under 36(2) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises Act, 1944 as are made out by artificial or synthetic resin or plastic materials or both which have already borne the appropriate duty under Item 15A. Central Government also exempted parts of footwear under Notification No. 150/72 dt.17.6.1972.3. The appellants were importing polyol (synthetic resins) on which countervailing duty under Item 15 was being paid at the time of importation. They were also importing Isocynates. The main raw ma...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Klassik Enamellers

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT90TriDel

1. Question before us in this appeal of Revenue is whether the goods described as metal reflectors used for fluorescent light fittings and enamelled are entitled to the benefit of Notification 76/86, dated 18-2-1986 against S. No. 10 to the Table thereof. The said serial number grants exemption to "enamelware" "simplicitor" without any qualification or the heading under which it falls. The adjudicating authority whose order is impugned before us has held that in the absence of qualification to the article "enamelware", any article which is sold across the counter and enamelled would be covered by the said notification and hence the benefit was extended.2. The CBEC in exercise of its powers under Section 35E of the Act has raised the following points :- "(1) Whether or not in the facts and circumstances of the case, the goods namely 'enamelled reflectors' are classifiable under 9405.00 and assessable at the rate of 15% adv. of Central Excise duty. (2) Whether or not in the facts and ci...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These appeals of the Revenue are directed against the orders of the CIT for the asst. yrs. 1986-87 and 1988-89.2. The assessee in this case is a limited company deriving income from manufacture and sale of refrigerators. For the asst. yr. 1986-87, it filed its return of income on 27th June, 1986, declaring income of Rs. 58,18,520. Assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on 8th March, 1989, on a total income of Rs. 1,10,08,344.3. Similarly, for asst. yr. 1988-89. the assessee filed the original return on 30th June, 1988, declaring income of Rs. 49,55,592 (at Rs. 88.82,463 under Section 115J). This return was revised on 5th Oct., 1989, whereby depreciation claimed amounting to Rs. 3,49,82,152 in the original return was withdrawn. There was no change, however, in the total income as assessable under Section 115J of the IT Act, 1961.Assessment was completed vide order dt. 29th Dec., 1989, on a total income of Rs. 88,82,462 under Section 115J of the Act.4. On 20th April, 1990, the...

Ganges Fertiliser and Chemicals Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)257; 80(1999)DLT148; 1999(50)DRJ1; ILR1999Delhi12

ORDERC.M. Nayar, J.1. This judgment will dispose of C.W.P.No.3966/95,C.W.P.No.3601/94, C.W.P.No.4365/95 and C.W.P.No.4366/95 as common questions arise for consideration in all these petitions though the petitioners have claimed different amounts as fertilizer subsidy from the respondents. 2. The petitioners in each case are alleged to be units manufacturing Single Super Phosphate Fertilisers (SSP). In the manufacturing process, the petitioners utilised rock phosphate and sulphuric acid as the raw material for the manufacture of SSP. Prior to 23rd May, 1982 there was a system of having a flat rate of subsidy for all manufacturing units in the country and thus the amount of subsidy was simply to be deducted from the total price and the advantage of the subsidy was simply passed on to the consumers. With effect from 23rd May, 1982 the flat rate of subsidy system was abolished and it was decided by the respondents to have a uniform price for supply of SSP to the consumers and a scheme was ...

Ram Sahay (Shri) Vs. Indo Tibetan Border Force (Mha)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)476; 83(2000)DLT149

ORDERK. Ramamoorthy,J.1.The petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.6.1996 terminating his services by the Additional Deputy Inspector General, Indo Tibetan Border Police. He applied for being appointed as Constable. He was to fill up a form called 'Verification Roll'. In column 12 of the form, there are two Clauses which are as under:- '(a) Have you ever been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/lined, convicted by a court of law for any offence or debarred/disqualified by any Public Service Commission from appearing at its examination/selection, or debarred from taking any examination/rusticated by any University or any other education authority/Institution? (b) Is any case pending against you in any court of law, University or any other education authority/Institution at the time filling up this Verification Roll. If the answer to (a) or (b) is 'yes' full particular of the case, arrest, detention/line, conviction, sentence, etc. and the nature of the case pe...

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shri P.K. Walia

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)626; 81(1999)DLT692; 1999RLR529

ORDER1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal the appellant has preferred the second appeal. Mr. alhotra, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the misuse was stopped when the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 12.2.91 was passed. He has further contended that no notice of re-entry has been issued to the espondent and, thereforee the finding of the Tribunal as well as Additional Rent Controller be set aside. He has further contended that the finding of the Rent Control Tribunal that still commercial activity was going on in the premises was based on wrong premises.2. Before dealing with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant I would like to say few words on the conduct of the appellant.3. The matter was argued at the time of admission on 5.4.99 when court did not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. Malhotra has sought time to seek instructions as to whether on grant of some reason...

Allied Nippon Ltd. and anr. Vs. M/S. Allied Motors

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)967; 80(1999)DLT38

Devinder Gupta, J.1. The appellants are the defendants against whom on 30.4.1999 learned Single Judge while issuing summons in the suit granted an ex parte order of injunction restraining them, their employees, officials, representatives, dealer and stockists from infringing trade mark and trade name 'allied' in respect of automobile parts excepts brake-linings and clutch facings and further restraining them from using colour scheme, get up, etc. on their cartons and packing material and also from passing off their goods except brake lining and clutch facing as those of the plaintiff. 2. The defendants/appellants instead of approaching the learned Single Judge by moving an application under Order 39, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure have challenged the order on the ground that no ex parte order of injunction ought to have been granted.It is stated that number of circumstances as have been enumerated in the grounds of appeal, if taken into consideration, are sufficient enough to de...