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.
Munch Food Products Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT521TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed being aggrieved by the order of the ld.Collector (Appeals) holding "I find that the classification list has been approved by the Asstt. Collector as per direction in the Order-in-Appeal No. 213-C.E./DLH/94, dated 31-3-1994 and the Hon'ble CEGAT has not passed any interim order in the matter. The Original authority has taken judicious decision approving the classification list in the persuance of cited order-in-appeal. I therefore do not consider it a fit case to interfere with the approved classification list".2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Chocolates Confectionery falling under Chapter sub-heading 1803.00. While approving a classification list the ld.Assistant Collector has observed that "Classification list amended in the light of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeal's Order-in-Appeal No. 213-C.E./DLH/94, dated 31-3-1994, value of clearances of items mentioned under Col. 7 of the list shoul...
V.V.S Concast Rolling Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-1999
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT635TriDel
1. Short question involved in this appeal is whether the provisions of Section 3A(4) are applicable even when the applicant/appellant herein had opted for the provisions of Rule 96ZO for determination of duty liability in terms of that rule. The adjudicating authority has held that after having opted for determination of duty liability in terms of the said rules which is popularly known as compound levy the provisions of Section 3A(4) cannot be applied. Ld. Advocate Shri Amit Awasthi submits that this finding of the adjudicating authority is against Tribunal's recent judgment in the case of Meenakshi Castings 32 RLT 82.He, therefore, submits that he is having not only a strong prima facie case in terms of the aforesaid judgment but also the appeal deserves to be allowed and direct the Commissioner for re-determination of duty liability in terms of the said Sub-section (4) of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from Id. JDR Shri...
Agarwal Textiles Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-1999
Reported in: (2000)LC166Tri(Delhi)
1. In the impugned order the Commissioner confirmed demand of Central Excise Duty of Rs. 42,645,60, confiscation of 20624.40 sq. metres of cotton fabrics giving the assessee an option to redeem the seized goods on payment of fine of Rs. 25,000/- and imposition of penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the appellant. Being aggrieved by this order/the appellants have filed the captioned appeal.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the processing of cotton fabrics. On a visit to the factory premises, the officers noticed that 12 jiggars meant for dying process were installed in the unit and out of 12 jiggars, 4 jiggars were being operated with the aid of electric blowers and diesel burners by which colour solution was heated upto certain required temperature. A statement of Shri Dwarka Prasad, Manager was recorded who stated that the appellant was using electric blowers and diesel burners to maintain temperature of dyeing solution at 50C so that at this temperature...
Hi Tensile Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT106TriDel
1. Ld. Advocate Shri R. Santhanam submits that by the impugned order in pursuance of a show cause notice dated 4-9-1998 issued Under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the duty liability of Rs. 32,49,117.00 has been imposed by the Commissioner for the period September, 1997 to March, 1998. He further submits that the basis of this duty liability is in the Commissioner's Order dated 30th March, 1998 fixing the annual capacity of the rolling mills at 20359.149 MTs.2. Ld. Advocate submits that the impugned order is no longer sustainable at all inasmuch as the basis of the impugned order that is Commissioner's order dated 30-3-1998 has already been set aside by the Tribunal, directing the Commissioner to determine the duty liability on the basis of actual production in terms of Sub-section (4) of Section 3A of the Act.3. That apart, ld. Advocate has further submitted that the show cause notice itself was never served to the appellant herein. It is for this reason that they could...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Ashok Plastic Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT319TriDel
1. Revenue has filed this appeal against the order of the learned Collector of Central Excise. The appeal mainly pertains to classification of sewing thread polypropylene not texturised. The classification of the product has a chequered history. Before 16-7-1993 the product was classified under Chapter sub-heading 5402.00. During the period 16-7-1993 and 24-9-1993, a show cause notice was issued. The matter was adjudicated by the Collector of Central Excise and the product was classified under Chapter sub-heading 5607.90. After 24-9-1993 the Assistant Collector approved the classification of the product under Chapter Heading 5608.00. The product during the material period was the same. There was no change in the Tariff description of the product during the material period. Revenue has come up in appeal before us only for classification of the product by the Collector during the period 16-7-1993 to 24-9-1993 claiming that the Collector has incorrectly classified the product under Chapt...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Bombay Dyg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT518TriDel
1. The Department has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the order of the Collector (Appeals) who has held that the product manufactured by the Respondents herein was classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 54.09 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the Respondents are manufacturing Arometic Woven Yarns including Aromatic Polymide Sheeting. The Department held that aromatic polymide sheeting is not classifiable under Chapter Heading 54.09. The Assistant Collector after considering the pleas of the respondents herein held that the product was correctly classifiable under Chapter Heading 59.09. The Respondents herein filed an appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector and the learned Collector (Appeals) held as indicated in the preceding paragraph.3. Shri A.K. Prasad, learned Senior Departmental Representative submits that the product in question is not a normal wear qualifying for classification under Chapter sub-heading 54.09 but was ...
Sidharth Choudhary Vs. Mahamaya General Finance
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-1999
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)633; 80(1999)DLT460; 1999(50)DRJ479; ILR1999Delhi45
ORDERCyriac Joseph, J.1. The revision petitioner was the plaintiff in S. No. 190/1995 and the respondent were the defendants therein. The suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for Specific, Performance in respect of plot No. B-11, Rampuri Colony, Ghaziabad. According to the plaintiff the defendants had agreed to transfer the said plot the plaintiff and had delivered physical possession of the said plot to the plaintiff but the defendants neglected to execute the sale deed in respect of the said plot in favor of the plaintiff. The prayer in the suit was for directing the defendants to execute and get the sale deed registered in favor of the plaintiff in respect of the aforesaid plot. The defendants are limited companies having their registered office at New Delhi. They are carrying on their business in Delhi. 2. On the basis of the pleadings and after hearing the parties issues were framed by the court of Civil Judge, Delhi in the suit. One of the issues was whether the...
Ram Lal Fruit Juice (M/S) Vs. P.K. Saxena and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-1999
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)637; 80(1999)DLT455
ORDERCyriac Joseph, J.1. The applicant in this application is respondent No. 2 in the Writ Petition No. 4921/1995. The writ petition was filed by M/s. Ram Lal Fruit Juice, Shop No. 6, Sant Pura, near Gurudwara, New Delhi-110018 challenging the award passed by respondent No. 1 - Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. IX, holding that termination of service of respondent No. 2 Shri Mahadev Pandit, was illegal and that he was entitled to reinstatement with full back wages. The writ petition was admitted by this court on 22.12.1995 and on the same day an order was passed in C.M. 8179/1995 staying the operation of the impugned award until further orders. However, on 8.5.1997 a further order was passed by this court in C.M. 8179/1995 directing that on the petitioner's depositing a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with the workman within one month there shall be stay of the impugned award. However, the petitioner did not deposit the sum of Rs. 10,000/- within the stipulated time. Later by order dated 24.11.1...
Municipal Employees' Union Vs. the Presiding Officer and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-1999
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)642; 80(1999)DLT313; [1999(82)FLR1022]
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition is filed against the order passed by the Presiding Officer of Industrial Tribunal who declined the prayer in the application filed by the petitioner seeking the copy of the evidence recorded in cross-examination of the workman in the industrial disputes pending before the respondent No. 1. The petitioner herein is the Municipal Employees Union representing the employees of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the respondent No. 1 is the Industrial Tribunal through its Presiding Officer and the respondent No. 2 is the National Capital Territory of Delhi. The order under challenge in the writ petition reads as under:- 'These are two Misc. Applications moved by the authorised representative of the workman with a request that the copies of the evidence being recorded by the Tribunal be given to him. In support of this fact he has placed reliance on Delhi High Court Rules. On being desired to help the Tribunal about there being any provision of l...
Kimti Lal Vs. Smt. Indu Kundra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-1999
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)737; AIR1999Delhi325; 80(1999)DLT427; 1999(50)DRJ459; ILR1999Delhi34
ORDERCyriac Joseph, J.1. This revision petition arises from an order passed by the trial court in divorce petition No. 530/88- titled Shri Kimti Lal v. Smt. Indu Kundra. 2. The divorce petition was filed by the husband Shri Kimti Lal against his wife Smt. Indu Kundra on the ground of cruelty. During the pendency of the divorce petition Shri Kimti Lal died. When the divorce petition came up before the trial court on 20.5.1998 learned counsel for the petitioner/husband submitted that the petitioner had expired. Hence the trial court dismissed the divorce petition observing that as the petitioner had expired the cause of action did not survive. A legal representative of late Shri Kimti Lal has filed this revision petition challenging the order of the trial court dismissing the divorce petition. 3. According to the revision petitioner the trial court ought to have continued with the proceedings in the divorce petition notwithstanding the death of the petitioner/husband. In support of this ...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »