Delhi Court August 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 24 of about 321 results (0.019 seconds)Eee and Cee Pressings P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT556TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the classification of the products manufactured by M/s. EEE & CEE Pressings P. Ltd. is under Heading 73.08, as claimed by the appellants or Heading 86.07 as ordered by the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order.2. Shri Shiv Das, ld. Advocate, submitted that they are fabricating certain products as per drawings given by the Indian Railways and the items fabricated by them are Tray with inspection cover, tray, lower spring beam, body bolster, bogie bolster and head stock complete. The Assistant Collector approved the classification list under Heading 7308. On appeal, the Collector (Appeals) classified them under Heading 8607 holding that the goods have been worked to such an extent that they are clearly identifiable as parts of rolling stock. Ld. Advocate, further, submitted that their main challenge is to this findings of the Collector (Appeals). They have merely fabricated the items, which are further worked upon by the railways b...
Tag this Judgment!Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Tapi Prestressed Products Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT821TriDel
1. The above appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of Collector of Central Excise who has dropped the proceedings raised in the show cause notice for adding the interest on advances received by the respondents herein, to the assessable value of their goods.2. We find, on hearing both the sides, that the Adjudicating authority has given a clear finding that the advances have not enhanced the price of the raw material and there is no nexus between the advances received and the price of the final product. In such a situation, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of VST v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1998 (97) E.L.T. 395 S.C. is required to be followed.Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad v. Harisidha Detergents the Western Zonal Bench vide Order No. 1810/98-WRB, dated 23-6-1998, followed the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the effect that notional interest on advances cannot be added to the assessable value unless it is shown...
Tag this Judgment!Vimal Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC685
1. The appellants herein, who are manufacturers of iron and steel products falling under Chapters 72 & 73 of the Schedule to the CET 1985, make preparations of sand by mixing River sand with Bentonite and water which is then poured for the purpose of manufacture of sand moulds. The demand in this case has been raised on preparations of sand which the Department holds to be an excisable commodity falling under CET sub-heading 6807.00 which covers "all other articles of stone, plaster, cement, asbestos, mica or of similar material not elsewhere specified or included." The order is challenged on the grounds that :- (a) the item in question is not marketable as it has extremely short shelf life of approximately 5 minutes and is therefore, not excisable commodity (b) that the demand was barred by limitation since the notice for recovery of duty for the period 20th May, 1989 to September, 1993 has been issued on 20-5-1994, beyond the period of 6 months from the relevant date and the ext...
Tag this Judgment!Jaipur PolyspIn Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC677
1. Vide impugned order, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) while holding that the claim for refund of duty of Rs. 9,24,526 filed by the appellants is admissible on merits as well as on the ground of payment of duty under protest, has directed credit of the same under Sub-section (2) of Section 11-B to the Consumers Welfare Fund, on the ground that the bar of unjust enrichment will operate against them.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Counsel submits that there is sufficient evidence placed on record to establish that the duty burden had not been passed by the appellants to their customers and in this connection, he draws our attention to the affidavits filed by the customers which clearly state that they had paid the rate of duty as applicable under TI18-III(i) while the Revenu had levied a higher rate of duty applicable under TI-18 IH(ii) and to a chartered Accountant's certificate and to certain invoices which according to the learned Counsel would all bear out his contention that...
Tag this Judgment!Jindal Drilling and Industries Vs. Commr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC123
1. The dispute in the instant case is with regard to certain goods imported for the purpose of supplying as ship stores to ONGC's drilling rigs in the Bombay offshore. The goods have been confiscated with a redemption fine of Rs. 25,000.00 on the ground that they were unloaded at an unauthorised place, namely, Nhava base. The appellants have also been ordered to pay duty of over Rs. 10 lakhs on the goods and interest on such duty demand.2. Arguing the appeal, learned Counsel, Shri L.P. Asthana, submits that it is an admitted case that these goods were imported for supply as ship stores. The goods were also being unloaded at Nhava base and supplied from there as ship stores from 1987. The Customs Authorities were also aware of such use of the Nhava base for unloading and supplying the goods. He, therefore, submits that they have not committed the offence of unloading imported goods at an unauthorised place deliberately with intent to evade customs duty or to overcome any prohibition. H...
Tag this Judgment!Plastikos Packagings Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC679
1. The appellant is aggrieved by the order confirming a demand of duty of Rs. 1,05,245.50 for the period 20.10.92 to 25.2.93 on the basis of classification of their product i.e. HDPE woven sacks under Chapter 39 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985 which classification has been upheld by the Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of Raj Packwell P. Ltd. . It is the contention of Shri Srivastava, learned Counsel, that in the light of Ahmedabad Collectorate Trade Notice 78/94 dated 9.5.94, the Department would not be entitled to recover the amount since the Trade Notice sets out that the order that the product is classifiable under Chapter 39 shall not change the position for past closed assessment. He submits that the manufacturers are entitled to rely upon such a beneficial circular and that therefore, the Department cannot recover the amount of duty as confirmed in the impugned Order. He submits that the RT 12 returns for the period involved have already been finalised and, therefore, this...
Tag this Judgment!Wadhwa Poly Foam (P) Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC632Tri(Delhi)
1. The short point in dispute in this case is whether benefit of Notification No. 14/92, dated 1-3-1992 shall be admissible to the scrap, parings and waste of plastic arising in the manufacture of P.U.Foam sheets and articles manufactured from blocks. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of P.U. Foam Sheets. P.U. Foam Sheets and other articles are produced from blocks. For manufacture of blocks duty paid inputs like Polyol Isocynate etc. are inputs. The Department alleged that since blocks are not dutiable/non-duty paid, therefore, scarp, parings and waste arising in the process of manufacture of P.U. Foam Sheets and articles from blocks will not be admissible to the benefit of Notification No. 14/92, dated 1-3-1992. This allegation was confirmed in the impugned order.2. None appeared for the appellants. We are, therefore, passing the following order after hearing Shri K. Srivastava, ld. SDR for the respondents. He submits that th...
Tag this Judgment!Shobha Mehta Vs. Arjun Lal
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)253; 81(1999)DLT489; 1999(51)DRJ109; ILR1999Delhi262; 1999RLR509
ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. This petition was filed under Section 14(1)(k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act by Smt. Shobha Mehta. She had purchased the property from one Shri Ram Lal vide registered sale-deed dated 7.11.1979, the same is Ex.AW 1/2. That petition found favor with the Addl. Rent Controller who passed a preliminary order under Section 14(1)(k) on 14.9.1984 and after giving opportunities to the L&DO; and taking into consideration the statement of L&DO; on account of misuse charges and that further misuse was not allowed, passed an order under Section 14(1)(k) directing the tenant/respondent to stop the misuse within one month and also make the payment of the misuse charges as per the statement given by the L&DO; within four weeks.2. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. The Rent Control Tribunal set aside the findings of the Addl. Rent Controller on the ground that as the property was purchased by the petitioner from Sh...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Aggarwal Vs. Abdul Aziz
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)295; 81(1999)DLT278; 1999(51)DRJ75; 1999RLR569
ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. Mr. Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petition filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. On the other hand, Mr. Saini, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the matter is appealable and this petition is not maintainable. Mr. Sethi in support of his contention has cited Smt. Bhagwati Devi & Ors. v. Haji S.M. Sayeed 1979 (2) RCR 142. On the other hand, Mr.Saini has cited in his favor Sita Ram Talwar v. Jai Deva Sharma 1972 RCJ 562 and Kishan Chand v. Ramesh Chander & Ors. 1969 RCJ 839. The law is well settled with regard to the orders which are appealable under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Any order which affects or determines the right of the parties is appealable. For that one has to go to the facts and circumstances of each case whether the amendment sought for results into withdrawal of an admission and whether the amendment sought for changes the nature ...
Tag this Judgment!Suraj Prakash Sehgal Vs. Lt. Col. Smt. Amrita Sehgal (Darnal)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)291; 82(1999)DLT327; II(1999)DMC677
ORDERDR. M.K. Sharma, J.1.The present appeal arises out of the ex parte judgment and order dated 14th August, 1997 passed by the Additional District Judge dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act in which the petitioner prayed for annulment of marriage by a decree of nullity. 2. Case of the petitioner as pleaded in the said petition filed under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act was that he was widower and the respondent was a divorcee and they were married according to the Hindu rites on 6th June,1996 at Delhi. It is alleged in the petition that the marriage of the parties could not be consummated owing to the impotency of the respondent and that both the parties lived together up to 28th July, 1996 when the respondent left for her sister's home and that there was no consummation of marriage at all due to the behaviour, conduct and impotency of the respondent. It is also alleged that even the parties to the proceedings went to Nainital ...
Tag this Judgment!