Delhi Court August 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 23 of about 321 results (0.019 seconds)Track Parts of India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT417TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Track Parts of India Ltd. is whether the seal assembly and dust seal are classifiable under sub-heading No. 8431.49 of the CTA as claimed by the Appellants or under sub-heading 8485.90 as decided by the Asstt. Collector and confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order.2. Shri Shunil Tyagi, ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellants, submitted that the appellants are manufacturing undercarriage parts and track assemblies for different models of Bulldozers/Crawler Tractors; that specific parts which are identified by part number are required for specific model of the Bulldozers and Crawler Tractors. They had also placed the orders by model number and part numbers with their suppliers abroad. He, in this regard, referred to the letter dated 21-8-1993 placing the order with the supplier. He also drew our attention to the invoices dated 10-3-1994 of M/s. Nok Singapore Trading Pte. Ltd. in which the goods were mentione...
Tag this Judgment!Moira Wires Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC670
1. The Commissioner held that "However, keeping in view the capacity rules and the trade parlance - there will always be only one ACP for the entire mill of MWL irrespective of the size of the bars produced and obtained at different stands. Therefore, the ACP in above situations will be either 4074 MTs (lowest) or 8931 MTs (highest).Before deciding which will be the proper ACP, I would like to discuss the meaning of word "capacity". This word gives an idea about output, dimensions, size, volume, area etc. always related with maximum amount, quantity, number, weight etc. which can be received or contained. If we say that the capacity of the oil well is 150 barels a day means maximum quantity of oil that can be taken out in a day is 150 barels.Similarly, a container is having capacity of 100 litre means maximum 100 litre of any liquid can only be stored/kept in that container. On the same analogy, the word capacity used in the rule is related to yearly production which would always be m...
Tag this Judgment!Aryan Exporters Private Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT342TriDel
1. Appellants have filed this Appeal against order-in-appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals).3. Brief facts of the case are that the Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of articles of unhardened Vulcanised Rubber and claimed classification under Chapter Heading 40 of the C.E.T.A. The classification was approved. The Revenue appealed before the Collector of Customs and Excise and vide the impugned order the Collector of Customs and Excise (Appeals) accepted the contention of the Revenue and held that the goods manufactured by the Appellants are classifiable under Heading 86.07 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. Aggrieved by this order the Appellants filed this appeal. The contention of the appellants is that before the Collector (Appeals) the Appellants pleaded that in the case of M/s. Avadh Rubber the same goods were held to be classifiable under Chapter Heading 4016.19 of the C.E.T.A. But their contention was rejected on the ground that the Revenue had filed appeal before C.E....
Tag this Judgment!Blue Bell Polymer P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC528Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Bluebell Polymers Pvt. Ltd. is whether Phenol Formaldehyde Resins, manufactured by them, is classifiable under sub-heading 3905.51, as claimed by them or under sub-heading 3909.59 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, as held by the Collector, Central Excise, Ahmedabad, in the impugned order dated 26-5-1994 and whether the demand is hit by time limit as specified in Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act.2. Shri Jintendra Singh, ld. Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture Phenol Formaldehyde Resins and the inputs used are organic and/or inorganic chemicals falling under Chapters 28 and 29 of C.E.T.A.; that in the classification lists filed by them, all the details including the description of the inputs and the end use were disclosed and classification lists were approved by the Assistant Collector classifying the product under sub-heading 3905.51; that the samples were drawn by the department periodically an...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)237; (1999)156CTR(Del)12; 81(1999)DLT178; [1999]239ITR756(Delhi)
ORDERD.K. Jain, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (fort short the Tribunal) has stated the case and referred the following questions of law under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act), for the opinion of this Court:-'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the deletion of the disallowance of Rs.7,65,21,000/- on account of additional liability on the change of Rupee Rouble parity ratio? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the order of the CIT(A) holding that the assessed was entitled to weighted deduction u/s 35B(1)(b)(viii) of the I.T.Act, 1961 in respect of the following expenditures: Site Expenses Amount Percentagea) Malaysia 1,12,16,647/- 100%b) BRTW (Libya) 39,60,903/- 100%c) Erection sub- 32,36,32,647/- 100%contracts expenses on Civil, Mechanical& Electrical j...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Chameli Vs. Smt.Sujan Kaur and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)316; 81(1999)DLT549; 1999RLR501
ORDERVijender Jain, J.1.Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order of the Addl. Rent Controller on three counts. At the outset he has submitted that the respondent no.1/landlady was not competent to maintain the eviction petition as the relinquishment deed by other sons and daughters of respondent No.1 was only given in the year 1995. This argument is far fetched and absolutely irrelevant. Respondent No.1 being the widow of Kishan Chand could maintain an eviction petition even if there was no relinquishment deed in her favor by her other sons and daughters. Respondent No.1 was the widow of Kishan Chand who had purchased the property in the year 1958-59. 2. Next contention of the counsel for the petitioner was that the property was let out for composite purpose and the finding of the Addl. Rent Controller that the property was let out for residential purpose was contrary to the record. Addl. Rent Controller has recorded in his finding that on the basis of rent receipt issued on w...
Tag this Judgment!Archana Airways Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)453; 81(1999)DLT565; 1999(51)DRJ23; 2000LC54(Delhi); ILR1999Delhi171
ORDERArun Kumar, J.1.By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged an order of the Central Government allowing the revision petition filed by the respondent Commissioner of Customs against the order of Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs imposing penalties upon the petitioner on account of delay in deposit of tax collected by the petitioner from passengers as per the provisions of Section 48 of the Finance Act, 1989 and the Indian Air Travel Tax Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as IAIT Rules) framed by the Central Government in pursuance of the Act. 2. Briefly the facts are that the Finance Act, 1989 introduced a tax on domestic travel by air called the Indian Air Travel Tax. The petitioner being a domestic air carrier was obliged to collect the tax and pay it to the credit of the Central Government. The Central Government also framed Rules in this behalf ...
Tag this Judgment!Sat NaraIn and Another Vs. JaIn Ram
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)653; 81(1999)DLT633; 1999RLR512
ORDERVijender Jain, J. 1. The present second appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the Rent Controller Tribunal dt. 13th January, 1987 wherein the Tribunal modified the order of the Addl. Rent Controller and held that the rate of rent which was to be paid by the respondent was @ Rs. 55/- and not Rs. 125/- as was held by the Addl. Rent Controller, who passed an order under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that this appeal does not raise any question of law. Rate of rent is not a question of law. I find no force in the argument of learned counsel for the respondent as it was the basis on which the Rent Control Tribunal had set aside the finding of the Additional Rent Controller which from bare perusal of records seems untenable. The first order for deposit of rent was passed by the Additional Rent Controller on 5th July, 1985 under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. In that order it was held that th...
Tag this Judgment!Kewal Krishan Wadhera Vs. Jai Gopal Kapoor
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 81(1999)DLT377; 1999(51)DRJ71; 1999RLR482
Vijender Jain, J. 1. A petitioner under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was filed by the respondent against the petitioner on account of non-payment of arrears of rent. However, an order was passed by the Addl. Rent Controller under Section 14(2) on 14.1.1988 giving benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act to the petitioner. It seems that thereafter the petitioner committed default in payment of rent w.e.f. 1.10.1988 till 31.12.1988. A notice of demand was sent by the respondent to the petitioner on 6.1.1989. In spite of notice of demand, the petitioner failed to pay the arrears of rent in terms of the demand notice. A decree of eviction under Section 14(1)(a) was passed by the Addl. Rent Controller on 1.2.1991.2. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal who also upheld the decision of the Addl. Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.3. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal by the Rent Control Tribu...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. Parshuram Pottery
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT231TriDel
1. This is an appeal against clsssification of a product described as "glaze frit" under Chapter sub-heading 3207.90.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent herein filed a Classification List about their product described as glaze frit and claimed its classification under Chapter sub-heading 3207.90. This product was being captively consumed by the respondent herein. The Department alleged that the product was not classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 3207.90 but was classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 3207.10. The Department claimed that it was Glass Frit though it was used for ceramic tiles to be glazed. For this they relied on the tariff entry under Chapter Heading 32.07 whereunder against Chapter sub-heading 3207.10, the description of the goods reads "Glass Frit and other glass, in the form of powder, granules or flakes" They also relied on HSN Notes. The case came up before the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Rajkot who inter alia held that in view...
Tag this Judgment!