Delhi Court August 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 12 of about 321 results (0.020 seconds)Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Banwari Paper Mills Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT726TriDel
1. Revenue has aggrieved by order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) stating that credit on capital goods namely Electrical Hoist, Static converter, Air circuit breaker and Fuse Switch unit. We find that the first item is in the nature of material handling equipment. It is an essential automatic part which brings the production automatically without any manual labour to the cutting point as per the demand of supplier and the paper is cut in manner . Following the ratio of the Tribunal's order in the case of Nova Udyog reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 532, we hold that the item is covered by the definition of capital goods in terms of explanation to Rule 57Q of the Central Excise rules and uphold the impugned order on this item. The remaining three items are admittedly electrical equipment. Static convertor converts AC current to DC due to which the DC motor runs and the whole operation of the paper machine is controlled and run by this item. Air Circuit breakers are used for ...
Tag this Judgment!Grand Chemical Works Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT730TriDel
1. In these matters we are concerned with the classification of liquid phenyle - whether Tariff Heading 3808.10 as contended by the assessee as "Insecticides" or under 3808.90 as contended by the Revenue as "Others." 2. Learned Advocate Shri J.S. Agarwal appearing for the appellant submits that this issue is no longer res integra in view of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Bombay Chemical Pvt. Ltd., reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). Further he fairly conceded that this judgment was in the context of old Tariff and exemption Notification No. 55/75-C.E., wherein description under relevant serial number in the Table to the notification was the same as the description in the Tariff sub-Heading 3808.10. He submits that change in Tariff Heading 3808 includes therein specifically 'disinfectant' - which liquid phenyle is - but it has not been specifically included under sub-heading 3808.10.This will not make any difference in view of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Ambey Lab...
Tag this Judgment!Agriculture Equipment Co. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(88)LC284Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellant imported certain goods; filed Bill of Entry No. 993937 dated 12.12.1996. Those goods were covered by Invoice No. AEC/Ind/96-31 dated 9.12.1996 issued by Asia Cycle Trading, Singapore. The price of the goods covered by the invoice was shown as 2940 Singapore Dollars.On the basis of that invoice the importer submitted a declaration under Rule 10 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The goods were examined by the Departmental Officials on 31.1.1997. They found that the market value of the goods imported was much more than the value declared. Even before the examination of the goods by the Customs Authorities, the importer, namely the appellant herein, by letter dated 20.1.1997 accepted the proposal of the Department to load the value and imposition of penalties by adjudication of the case, without issue of show cause notice.2. At page 3 of the impugned order, the declared assessable value and the maximum market value of each of the goods imported is given.______________...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Dena Snuff Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC123Tri(Delhi)
1. The question involved in the present case is whether preparation of snuff as manufactured by the respondents herein is to be classified under Tariff sub-heading 2404.50 which includes within itself snuff of tobacco or under sub-heading 2404.60 which pertains to "preparation containing snuff in any proportion".2. Learned Advocate Shri J.S. Agarwal appearing for the respondent submits at the out-set that this issue stands decided by the Tribunal in the case of Lachman Dass Behari Lal, reported in 1994 (71) E.L.T.728 in the respondent's favour upholding the classification under Tariff sub-heading 2404.60. He however, fairly conceded that Revenue's appeal against the said judgment has been admitted by the Apex Court as reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T. A 217 (S.C.). On a query from the Bench he pointed out that the Apex Court has not stayed the order of the Tribunal in the case of Lachman Dass Behari Lal and the ruling of the Tribunal in the said case will hold field. He, therefore, prays f...
Tag this Judgment!Vinitec Electronics Private Limited Vs. the World Bank and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)355; 85(2000)DLT5; 2000(53)DRJ209
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. This is a writ petition whereby the petitioner, Vinitec Electronics Private Limited, seeks quashing of the award of the contract for supply of uninterrupted power supply systems (for short 'UPS systems') to the seventh respondent Next Generation Business Power Systems Ltd., (for short 'NGBPSL'). The facts giving rise to the petition are as follows : 2. On November 7, 1996 the World Bank gave loan to the Government of India for modernisation of the banking operations in the country. As one of the beneficiaries under the aforesaid project of the World Bank the fourth respondent Syndicate Bank, invited sealed bids vide its tender No. SB:CPPD: WB: ICB: UPS: 05/97 dated June 1, 1997 for supply, installation and commissioning of UPS systems for working of their computers. The date of opening of the bids was fixed as December 4, 1997. The competitors including the petitioner and the seventh respondent submitted their bids. The bid of the petitioner was rejected, whil...
Tag this Judgment!Narendra Prasad Dube Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)620; 81(1999)DLT378; 1999(51)DRJ152
ORDERArun Kumar, J.1.By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,the petitioner has challenged the assessment and determination of rateable value with respect to property belonging to the petitioner at 57, Poorvi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi and the notices and bills etc. issued by the respondent Corporation in this behalf. In an order passed by this Court on 17th February, 1998 it was observed: Broadly speaking the writ petition involves two questions: (i) jurisdiction of the respondent to make the assessment for the years 1988-89 to 1991-92; (ii) the determination of rateable value of the property. 2. On the question of determination of rateable value of the property,the assessing authority was directed to assess the rateable value afresh.We find that the assessing authority has determined the rateable value afresh. The petitioner has challenged the same by filing an additional affidavit. We are of the view that the petitioner has tatutory remedies available...
Tag this Judgment!Kishori Lal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IAD(Delhi)787; 82(1999)DLT960
ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J. 1612. Brief facts necessary to dispose of the appeal are recapitulated as under: 3. The appellant was a Sanitary Guide, in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. One Rattan Lal, a Safai Karamchari was posted in Vivek Vihar. The accused was a Supervisor and used to mark the attendance of Rattan Lal. Ratan Lal made a complaint against the accused that he demanded Rs. 40/- per month and threatened him that if he did not pay this amount regularly, the appellant would mark him, absent even if he were present on duty. 4. On 15.9.76 accused asked Rattan Lal to pay his monthly payment of Rs. 40/-. Rattan Lal promised him to pay the amount at the time of next roll call at 2.00 PM. This time was utilized in making the complaint against the accused. On his complaint raid was organized in usual manner by the Anti Corruption Branch to catch the appellant red handed in the act of receiving the amount from the complainant on the same date and the appellant walked into the trap....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Novelty Jewellers
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1999)157CTR(Del)352; [2000]244ITR868(Delhi)
1. By this petition under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Revenue seeks a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), to state the case and refer the following questions, stated to be of law, in respect of the assessment year 1983-84, arising out of ITA No. 3603 (Delhi) of 1991, for the opinion of this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which deleted the addition of Rs. 13,77,563 being bogus purchases debited in the profit and loss account without appreciating the fact that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was in conformity with the directions of the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 in regard to the valuation of closing' stock 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has not erred in not appreciating the f...
Tag this Judgment!Vindhya Telelinks Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT362TriDel
1. Modvat credit of Rs. 4,43,858/- has been disallowed on DC Boards, DE Motors, PC Board, Ramo Unit, A.C.Voltage Sparktester and other components of testing bridge used for resistance switching matrix and certain electrical equipments such as control panel, and DC and AC motors on the ground that these items do not fall under the category of capital goods under Rule 57Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules. In addition, a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- has been imposed in terms of Rule 173Q.2. We have heard Shri N.R. Khaitan, learned Advocate and Shri Sanjiv Srivastava, learned DR.3. From the use and functions of the items as noted in the impugned order, we can divide them into two categories (1) electrical items used for transmission/supply of power and (2) testing equipments for measuring or checking electrical quantities. The decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Jawahar Mills and Ors.reported in 1999 (108) E.L.T. 47 in which electrical items have been held to be elig...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Shilpi Electricals Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC606Tri(Delhi)
1. The notice of hearing issued to the respondents received back with the postal remark 'Left'. Therefore, appeal is being taken in the absence of the res pondents.2. Revenue has filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 18-3-1993 passed by the Collector (Appeals). Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of P.D. pumps and in respect of ball bearings they were availing exemption under Notification No. 64/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 and were following the procedure as laid down under Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules. A show cause notice was issued to the respondents on the ground that Ball/Roller bearings are not parts of P.D. pumps but these are inputs of these pumps. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand by holding that these are not parts of P.D. pumps but these are items of general use, and therefore, the benefit of Notification No. 64/86-C.E.is not available to the respondents. The respondents filed an appeal and the Com...
Tag this Judgment!