Delhi Court August 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 31 of about 321 results (0.020 seconds)Luxmi Electronic Corporation and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC668
1. These two appeals are directed against a common order. Accordingly, they are disposed of by this common order. The appeals are directed against clubbing the production of both the appellants, treating them as one unit for the purposes of small scale exemption and the consequential demand for duty, confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty.2. Both the appellants are registered partnerships and are the manufacturers of speakers. Luxco Electronics was in the business of manufacturing speakers since 1967 and Luxmi Electronics Corporation started in 1978. The impugned order has held that Luxmi Electronics Corporation is only a camouflage and, therefore, clearances of both should be clubbed, treating them as one unit for the purposes of small scale exemption. The reasons for treating Luxmi Electronics as a camouflage are that the members of both the partnerships are related persons/members of HUF except for one partner, Luxco Electronics advanced Rs. 18,000.00 to Luxmi Electronics ...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Ferodo Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC656
1. The dispute in the instant case is with regard to eligibility of Brakes Lining in roll form for the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notifications No. 96/86 and 59/90. The concessional rate was available to "Brake Linings and pads and clutch facings, other than those used in vehicles of Chapter 87." The appellants availed themselves of the concessional rate. The impugned order has held that the brakes linings in roll form were not eligible as they were supplied to M/s. Kinetic Engineering Ltd. (70%) and other manufacturers of automobiles for use as brake lining. The appellants have been contending all through that brake lining in roll form cannot be readily used in motor vehicles, several processes have to be carried out before they become usable as brake lining in vehicles and it has been held by the Madras High Court in the case of Brakes India Ltd. v.Superintendent of Central Excise that the processes involved in converting brake lining in roll form to usable motor veh...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Jindal Vs. International Marketing Co. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 81(1999)DLT351; 1999RLR477
Vijender Jain, J.1. Nobody has been appearing in spite of respondent having been served. It is contended by Mr. Rajiv Behl, Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders passed by the Rent Control Tribunal as well as by the Trial Court have not been taken into consideration that the decree for eviction was passed on 25th March, 1988 after summons were issued to the respondent and the report on the summons was that premises was locked from many years. Subsequently, an application under Order 5, Rule 20 of CPC was moved by the petitioner which was allowed for service bypublication. Respondent was served by publication. An ex-parte order was passed on 26th October, 1987 and eviction order was passed on 25th March, 1988. 2. It is a case of the petitioner that the possession of the premises was taken over through Court bailiff by the petitioner on 4th June, 1988 and the premises were again re-let on 15th August, 1988 and the same fact was stated in the reply filed by the petitioner to...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Employees Union Vs. the Secretary (Labour) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1999)IILLJ1136Del
A.K. Sikri, J.1. This writ petition is filed against the order dated 11.7.1995 passed by respondent No. 1 refusing to make reference Of the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication.2. The facts of the case are brief and undisputed. One Shri Sansar Pal was working with respondent No. 2 namely Municipal Corporation of Delhi and he died while in service on 15.2.1993. His family consists of his old parents and one younger brother Badley Ram. After the death of Shri Sansar Pal, Shri Badle Ram requested MCD to give him appointment on compassionate ground and when no reply was received, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute by filing a statement of claim before the Conciliation Officer. Conciliation proceedings ended in failure. Thereafter respondent No. 1 namely Secretary (labour) Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi passed impugned order dated 11.7.1995 declining to refer the dispute for adjudication by giving the following reasons in the impugned order dated 11.7.199...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Goyal Gases (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2000]241ITR451(Delhi)
1. This is a petition under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, whereby the Revenue seeks a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer the following questions, stated to be of law, for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Members of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal erred in holding that the assessed did not furnish inaccurate particulars of income under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act despite the fact that the Assessing Officer through protracted investigation established beyond doubt that the claim of depreciation on cylinders was shown deliberately wrong 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned members of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal erred in setting aside the order under Section 271(1)(c) despite the fact that it was established beyond doubt that the computers were never purchased never used and never leased out ?' 2. The assessme...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. United Traders
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT426TriDel
1. This is a Revenue appeal filed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 29-12-1992 passed by Collector (Appeals). The issue relates to the availability of deemed credit of duty on inputs in terms of the Government of India Order No. B/22/30/86-TRU, dated 7-4-1986.2. The respondents who are engaged in the manufacture of parts and accessories of tractors falling under Chapter 8708 of the Central Excise Tariff had availed of deemed credit amounting to Rs. 3482.46 on their inputs, namely, plates, rounds etc. The Department took the stand that since the inputs were clearly recognisable as non-duty paid/charged to nil rate of duty, because of non-production of documents evidencing payment of duty, duty, deemed credit on the inputs was not admissible. By Order-in-Original the Assistant Collector confirmed the demand. Collector (Appeals) reversed the Order-in-original and held that the respondents herein would be eligible for the said deemed credit. Collector (Appeals) observed that the responden...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Pistons Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC611Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Indian Pistons Ltd. the matter relates to the eligibility of gauges manufactured by the appellants and used by them within the factory of production for measuring their final product with a view to ensure the given specifications for the said final products. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Madras had held that gauges were in the nature of apparatus, tools etc. and they were used for processing and producing their final products and thus were an excluded item in terms of the explanation under Notification No.217/86-C.E., dated 2-4-1986 as amended.2. The appellants have prayed for decision on merits. They have relied upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Pune 3. Today, the matter is listed for mention. As the appellants have prayed for decision on merits and there is nothing to indicate about the Larger Bench decision referred to earlier and as the facts are not disputed, we are proceedin...
Tag this Judgment!J.R. Synthetics P. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Collector of Customs and Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC663
1. These appeals are directed against a common Order-in-Original.Accordingly they are disposed of under this common Order.2. The impugned order confiscated 750 pieces of man-made fabrics valued at over Rs. 14 lakhs with an option to redeem them on payment of a fine of Rs. 1.5 lakhs, demanded duty of over Rs. 89,000 on the said seized fabrics, demanded duty of over Rs. 9 lakhs in respect of fabrics held to be clandestinely removed without payment of duty, imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the manufacturer, imposed penalties of Rs. 3 lakhs on the Directors of the manufacturer, confiscated land, building, plant and machinery of the appellants' factory with an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 1 lakh. The adjudicating authority passed the order consequent to search of the appellants' premises, recovery and seizure of the documents and other investigations which showed that the appellants had been clandestinely manufacturing and removing fabrics without paying the add...
Tag this Judgment!Panchdeo Singh Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT820TriDel
1. Shri S.P. Ojha, ld. Consultant arguing the stay petition for dispensing with pre-deposit of Rs. One lakh imposed as penalty, submits that the applicant looks after his agriculture in the village that the cash books and slips resumed from the Gadi of his elder brother pertained to the work undertaken as job work. He submits that the entire case of the Department is built on a telephone number recorded in the cabin of the driver among four other telephone numbers. He submits that there is no statement of the driver or any other person which implicated him. He submits that statement of his brother at the time of search of his Gadi was recorded and in his statement he only stated that sometimes, the applicant was dealing in Chinese silk yarn.He submits that at no stage the question of smuggled Chinese silk yarn was raised. He submits that his client is very poor farmer and was not in a position to pay the amount at all. He, therefore, prays that having regard to the financial condition...
Tag this Judgment!R.S. Industries (Rm) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC122
1. Shri K.K. Anand, Ld. Counsel arguing the stay petition submits that in the instant case the appellants had dismentled one of the re-rolling mills and had changed the capacity of another rolling mill. He submits that the case was already before the Ld. Commissioner in pursuance of a SCN issued for the earlier period. He submits that the applicants could not submit a reply to the SCN as they were awaiting the result of the reply submitted consequent upon the issue of the earlier SCN. He submits that the applicants were not given any opportunity of being heard either. He submits that there has been complete failure of natural justice and, therefore, prays that pre-deposit of duty may be waived and the appeal may be remanded for redetermination of the annual capacity.2. Shri Sanjeev Srivastava, Ld. DR submits that the applicants had not submitted any reply. Reading from the SCN, he submits that there was a specific provision in that SCN that in case the appellants wanted any personal h...
Tag this Judgment!