Delhi Court August 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 26 of about 321 results (0.019 seconds)C.C.E. Meerut and anr. Vs. Super Electronics and Super
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC119
1. In all these appeals the issue is the same i.e. whether at the time of reversion from availing Modvat credit to small scale industries exemption the Modvat credit lying at the credit of an assessee is required to be reversed or not.2. Out of the 6 appeals one appeal has been filed by M/s. Super Electronics, remaining 5 appeals have been filed by the Revenue. We have heard Sh. S. Srivastava for the revenue and none is present for the assessee. They have however requested to decide their case on merits.3. We find that similar issue came up before the Tribunal. The Larger Bench of this Tribunal inter alia held that Modvat credit lying in the account to the credit of the assessee at the time of reversion from availment of Modvat credit to availment of exemption as an SSI unit.The credit shall have to be reversed. We note further that similar view was taken by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Super Casettes . In para 10 the Hon'ble Allahabad High As is evident, entries in PLA accou...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Modern Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC267
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the duty liability on cotton yarn manufactured and used in the same factory for the manufacture of cotton fabrics. Under Rule 49A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'), the Central Excise duty leviable on the cotton yarn could be paid with the duty on the cotton fabrics in whose manufacture such cotton yarn was used. When cotton yarn is used in the manufacture of cotton fabrics, certain wastages of yarn occur. The issue for consideration is whether from the duty leviable on such cotton yarn at the stage of manufacture of cotton fabrics, reduction is permissible to the extent of the duty ascribed to the waste arising after the yarn is taken off, the spindle and used in the weaving of cotton fabrics. The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, who had adjudicated the matter observed that cotton yarn is fully manufactured, excisable and dutiable item prior to its taking in weaving section for w...
Tag this Judgment!Vespa Car Co. Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC130
1. This appeal has been filed by M/s Vespa Car Co. Ltd. against the Order dated 31.5.96 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Allahabad.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellants manufacture scooters. They are selling their scooters in Uttar Pradesh through dealers and outside U.P. through authorised representatives. The Asstt.Collector under order dated 30.11.1994, disallowed Rs. 325 and Rs. 225 claimed as deduction in the price lists, ordered that duty be charged on the amount collected in excess of the actual freight and insurance incurred by them, holding that these amounts were remuneration paid to dealers and authorised representatives for discharging their responsibility in terms of agreement including post delivery services to the customers; that dealers and authorised representatives were promoters of the business of the appellants as they were required to maintain a proper show room and service station, undertake advertisement/publicity and collect amount from custo...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. M.J. Agro Chemicals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC546Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in this appeal preferred by the Revenue is whether the products Coxidot powder and Coxigard powder is classifiable under Heading 23.02 as Animal Feed Supplement or under sub-heading 3003.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as medicament.2. Shri S.K. Das, ld. DR submitted that the impugned product Coxidot powder contains DOT 25% by weight and excipients 75% by weight; that it is used by mixing 500 gms. of coxidot with one M.T. of complete finished feed; that as such the contents of coxidot and DOT in the finished feed works out to be 0.05% and 0.0125% by weight respectively; that similarly the product coxigard powder contains Clopidol 26% and excipients 74% by weight and their percentage in finished feed comes to be 0.05% and 0.0125% by weight respectively. He also mentioned that as per extra Pharmacopoeia; 29th Edition, 3:5 Dinitro - O Touluamide (DOT) and Clopidol are antiprotozoal agents used in Veterinary practice for prevention of coccidiosis ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Anamed Instruments P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT728TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the only issue for our consideration is whether the precision balances of the models which are in dispute, were the precision balances of sensitivity of 5 mg. or better. The respondents are M/s. Anamed Instrument P. Ltd. The respondents had claimed exemption under Notification No. 79/90-C.E., dated 20-3-1990 and have indicated the sensitivity of their Models at S. No. IV of the Classification List No. 4/91-92 effective from 26-7-1991 as 0.002 gm. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay had held that as sensitivity was 0.002 gm., they were eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 79/90-C.E., dated 20-3-1990.2. We have heard both the sides and have perused the records. We find that in the classification list itself the respondents had intimated the sensitivity which were covered by S. No. 13 of the table annexed to the Notification No. 79/90-C.E., dated 20-3-1990. The sensitivity of 5 mg. will come up to 0.005 gm while the sensitivit...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)137; 81(1999)DLT197; 1999(50)DRJ835
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. By this petition under Section 482 read with Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 26.10.1998 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi in S.C. No. 203/96 framing charge under Section 302/34 IPC against the petitioner.2. A short conspectus of the case is that the petitioner along with the accused persons Jangli Tyagi, Balbir Singh, Lakshmi Chand, Anil Kumar Tyagi and Sushil Kumar were charge-sheeted under Sections 147/148/302/149 IPC. Trial of the case against the petitioner and Lakshmi Chand proceeded under Section 299 Cr.P.C. due to their abscontion during the trial. However, by the judgment dated 19.1.1998, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, acquitted the accused Jangli Tyagi, Balbir Singh, Anil Kumar Tyagi and Sushil Kumar Tyagi of the offences charged under Sections 148/302/149 IPC. After the said judgment, the petitioner surrendered himself before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and sought his discharge on the gr...
Tag this Judgment!Avtar Singh Vs. Gurbux Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)306; 81(1999)DLT346; 1999(51)DRJ65; 1999RLR571
ORDERVijender Jain, J.1.Learned counsel for the petitioner has cotended that the findings of the Additional Rent Controller are not based on correct appreciation of the affidavit filed by the petitioner and in his support has cited Precision Steel & Engineering Works and another Vs . Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal : [1983]1SCR498 . He has further contended that during the pendency of the eviction petition, the property No.8977, Naya Mohalla, Pul Bangash, Delhi was sold by the respondent by a registered Sale Deed. He has further contended that the size of the family of the respondent is not large so as to require any additional accommodation. 2. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties. 3. The argument of counsel for the petitioner that the property was sold during the pendency of the eviction petition, as a matter of fact, goes in favor of the respondent. The court can always take subsequent events into consideration and when according t...
Tag this Judgment!Sneh Lata and anr. Vs. Ajay Kumar Khanna and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)289; 1999CriLJ4209; 81(1999)DLT176; II(1999)DMC451
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1.This petition, being one under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is directed against the order dated 8.9.1998 passed by Shri S.K. Kaushik Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Criminal Revision No.121/97, whereby the order dated 23.9.1997 passed by Ms. Santosh Sneh Mann, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi in case No.99/94 was modified. 2. Briefly speaking, the facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioners filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the respondent for grant of interim maintenance. By the order dated 23.9.1997, the learned Magistrate directed the respondent to pay interim maintenance @ Rs.400/- per month from the date of filing of the application. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent moved the Additional Sessions Judge by filing a revision petition. By the impugned order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge modified the order dated 23.9.1997 passed by the learned Magistrate directing payment of maintenance from the date when the a...
Tag this Judgment!Avis Fatimat and ors. Vs. Pushpa Devi and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)604; 81(1999)DLT205; 1999(50)DRJ845; 1999RLR481
ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order under Section 15(4) was passed on 9.3.1994 when nobody was present on behalf of the petitioner or on behalf of the respondent. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that as a matter of fact he was not aware whether any order under Section 15(4) was passed on 9.3.1994. herefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the final order subsequently passed by the Addl. Rent Controller dated 6.8.1996 be quashed. In support of his contentions, counsel for the petitioner has cited Nirankar Nath Wahi & Others v. Fifth Addl. District Judge, Muradabad and others and Jagmohan Lal v. Tara Chand Verma 1982 (2) RLR 108. Another contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that no prejudice has been caused to the respondent as she was entitled to take the rent only after the decision of the matter when the matter was finally decided on 6.8.1996. 2. I have given my careful conside...
Tag this Judgment!Swaran Arora and anr. Vs. Sh. Shyam Lal JaIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)755; AIR1999Delhi343; 84(2000)DLT363; 1999(50)DRJ767
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. These Objections (being I.A. No. 1696/96) have been filed against the Award dated 10.12.1995 whereby an amount of Rs. 9,81,000/- together with interest at the rate of two per cent per month with effect from 2.6.1992 till the date of the Award was granted in favor of the Claimants and against Respondents 1 to 5. These Objections have been filed on behalf or Shri Shyam Lal Jain, who was respondent No.1 before the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator had accepted the case of the Claimants that the Respondents had taken a friendly loan of Rs. 9,81,000/- and had also signed the Arbitration Agreement dated 15.6.1993. In these Objections Shyam Lal Jain i.e. Respondent No.1 in the arbitration proceedings has assailed the Award on a number of grounds. The following grounds were pressed at the time of arguments.(i) That the Arbitration Agreement is forged. (ii) That the petitioner had not consented to refer to the disputes to arbitration. (iii) That the receipt on which reliance ...
Tag this Judgment!