Delhi Court July 1999 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Ranutrol Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-1999
Reported in: (2000)LC353Tri(Delhi)
1.1 The appellant herein had filed Bond Bill of Entry dated 13-7-1990 for four pallets said to contain components of water mixer. They also filed another Bill of Entry for home consumption dated 13-7-1990 for one pallet set to contain components of water mixer. Both these consignments were imported from Hansa West Germany by the appellant herein. The clearance of the goods was sought under OGL Appendix 6 Item 1 of ITC Policy 1988-91 AM.1.2 Both these consignments were examined on 22-12-1990 in order to find out whether the goods fall within the definition of parts. On examination it was found that the goods were fabricated housing and not housing raw as declared by the appellant. It was alleged that the goods were hit by S. No. 11 of Appendix 2 Part B of 1990-93 AM ITC Policy read with para 7(18) and 20 of the said policy. The appellant, however, vide their letter dated 8-1-1991 explained that the goods covered by both the Bills of Entry are component parts of water mixer. The term 'r...
B.H.E.L. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT606TriDel
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal, dated 24-3-1993 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Trichy.2. In the impugned order, the mill scale was held to be classifiable under sub-heading 7204.90 of the Central Excise Tariff as 'waste and scrap' of Steel.3. Shri Z.U. Alvi, G.M. (Taxation), appeared on behalf of the appellants and submitted that this mill scale is generated in the process of manufacture of seemless steel tubes and submitted that the appellants claimed the classification of this mill scale under Heading 26.19 of the Central Excise Tariff. He submitted that this mill scale is nothing but thick layer of oxides deposited on the surface of the steel due to high temperature. For this, he relied on the Metal Hand Book, 8th Edition of American Society for Metals.4. He, further, submitted that the revenue is classifying the mill scale under Heading 7204.90 as waste and scrap of steel. He submitted that as per Section Note 6(a) of Section ...
Ashok Nagar Welfare Association (Regd.) Vs. Union of India and Others.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-1999
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)84
ORDERC.M. Nayar, J.1.This petition has been filed by an Association known as Ashok Nagar Welfare Association (Regd.) for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the colony of Ashok Nagar Welfare Association, Delhi which comprises of the area measuring 141 Bighas and 15 bids was falling in Khasra Nos. 391/263, 392/264, 393/264 and 402/268 situated at Ashok Nagar of village Chilla Saroda Bangar, Delhi along with site plan (Trans Yamuna Area) Delhi as per petitioner's proposal dated 19th September, 1988. 2. Notice to show cause was issued and as no reply was filed Rule was issued and the matter was directed to be heard along with CWP No. 1507/84 (Ashok Nagar Welfare Association v. Union of India and another) which was listed before the Division Bench. This matter could not be taken up at the time of hearing of CWP No. 1507/84 as the pleadings were not complete as will be indicative from reading of the order dated April 30, 1998 which reads as under: 'C.W. No...
S.C. Dubey Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-1999
Reported in: 86(2000)DLT523
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The second respondent is a public sector undertaking engaged in the manufacture of electronic instruments and manufacture of colour TVs and engaged in other activities with reference to electronics. The Headquarters of the second respondent is in Hyderabad and its factory is also in Hyderabad. The second respondent has been having officers in all over India. In the manufacture of colour TVs, the second respondent had been for nearly ten years incurring losses. thereforee, the second respondent decided to close down the manufacture of colour TVs. The second respondent had its sale and service sections/wings for colour TVs in all over India on zonal basis. When the losses were mounting and going on beyond unmanageable limit, the second respondent decided to close down the manufacture of colour TVs. 2. The effect was that it had to restructure its zonal wings and to cut short its establishment so that loss is avoided. In the process of restructuring its business...
Gokul Chand (Since Deceased) Through His Legal Representatives Vs. Gul ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-1999
Reported in: 81(1999)DLT99
C.M. Nayar, J.1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for calling the records of respondents 1 and 2 and for quashing the order of respondent No. -1 dated 20th October, 1976 in Case No. 18-R/D:H/76(GLA) and for a further relief in the nature of writ of prohibition directing the respondents not to treat the property bearing Municipal No. XII/5801-5803 constructed on Khasra Nos. 282 and 745/581 as evacuee property and for restraining from collection of rent from the petitioner and his tenants. The petitioner who is now represented by his legal representatives was alleged to be the owner of 5 bids was of land out of Khasra No. 282 and 15 bids was of land out of Khasra No. 745/581 in Patti Chandrawal, Tehsil and District Delhi. The petitioners' father and now the petitioners are stated to be in possession of the said land since the founding of the village. It is further submitted that the petitioner lived in...
Gsc Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Colilussioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-1999
Reported in: (1999)156CTR(Del)267
ORDERAR UN KUMAR, J.Under s. 256C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), the Tribunal has referred the following question of law in respect of the assessment year 1970-71, for the opinion of this Court :1. 'Whether the seats installed in the cinema auditorium constitutes plant within the meaning of s. 43(3) and whether the assessed is entitled to development rebate in respect thereof under s 33 of the Act, 1961 ?'2. The question whether the chairs installed in an auditorium could be treated as 'plant' within the meaning of s. 43(3) of the Act and whether the assessed was entitled to claim development rebate in respect thereof, under section 33 of the Act, came up for consideration before the Bombay High Court in CIT v. N.L. Mehta Cinema Enterprises (P) Ltd. (1994) 121 CTR (Bom) 223 : (1995) 216 IM 437 (Bom) and relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Tal Mahal Hotel : [1971]82ITR44(SC) and on a decision of the Karnataka High Court in Santosh Enterprises v. CIT...
Lalit Mohan Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-1999
Reported in: 77(1999)DLT517
1. The petitioners Lalit Mohan and Harish Chander have filed these habeas corpus petitions in this Court questioning their detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. It appears from the ground of detention, which is at page 58 of Cr.W. 214/97, that Lalit Mohan was acting as a Flight Attendant in the Ambassador Sky Chef for the last ten years and was on duty for loading and unloading trolleys in the aircraft on 8/9-7-1996. It is stated in para 6 of the grounds of detention that Harish Chander was working as a Flight Attendant with Ambassador Sky Chef for the last eight years and on 9-7-1996 he was on duty on the high loader of the business class and the driver of the high loader was Mahinder Singh Hada. These two persons Lalit Mohan and Harish Chander being Flight Attendant were alleged to be involved in removing of the catering trolleys in which gold was hidden and had removed such trolleys in the past. They were detained by t...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Viking Engg. (i) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-1999
Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT563TriDel
1. The issue involved in the appeal preferred by Revenue is whether capital goods credit is admissible in respect of Transformer under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules in February, 1995.2. No one was present on behalf of the respondents M/s. Viking Engg.(I) Pvt. Ltd. However, as the issue is no more res-integra in view of the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Jawhar Mills Ltd. v.C.C.E., Coimbatore, 1999 (108) E.L.T 47 (T), the appeal has been taken up for decision.3. Shri Y. R. Kilania, learned D. R., submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the credit in respect of distribution transformer relying on the decision in Nav Bharat Paper Mills v. C.C.E. Meerut, 1996 (86) E.L.T. 501 (T); that substitution of Explanation to Rule 57Q defining capital goods under Notification No. 14/96, dated 23-7-1996 was clarificatory in nature and thus, retrospective in application; that the same was the position with regard to Notification No. 11/95 also. He further submitted th...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Pittie Cement Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT1050TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal preferred by Revenue is whether switch gear/control gear used as spare parts in D.G. sets are eligible capital goods under Rule 57Q for the purpose of availing capital goods credit.2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the Respondents, M/s. Pittie Cement & Industries Ltd. The registry informed that the notice of hearing sent to them has been received back from postal authority with the remark 'Factory locked'. We, therefore, heard Shri Y.R. Kilaniya, learned DR and perused the records.3. Shri Y.R. Kilaniya, learned JDR, submitted that both the Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the capital goods credit on these two goods as these were used as parts of the D.G. set and would be covered by Explanation 1(d)(ix) to Rule 57Q. He mentioned that switch gear/control gear merely regulate the electric current and are not used for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in any s...
Godfrey Philips India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-1999
Reported in: (2000)LC357Tri(Delhi)
1. By a show cause cum demand notice dated 21st December, 1990 Revenue alleged against the appellants herein that the latter bring loose cigarettes and packets of cigarettes (packets of 10s and 20s) from making room, dry room and packing departments during every shift for tests such as inspection of wrapping and, packing, cigarettes de-fects, checking of moisture contents of tobacco, checking of physical parane-ters of cigarettes and firmness tests etc. in their quality control laboratory. But no central excise duty is paid on such cigarettes drawn for tests. It was further alleged that the cigarettes so taken for testing purposes in the qualify control lab are undoubtedly manufactured and there is no exemption from duty in respect of cigarettes used/consumed for the testing purposes. Hence it was alleged on the basis of the foregoing that the appellants herein have evaded central excise duty of Rs. 13,91,847.66 during the period 28-1-1987 to 28-9-1990. The appellants were, therefore,...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »