Delhi Court September 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 1 of about 308 results (0.020 seconds)Hindustan Newsprint Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT1125TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned order, dated 8-4-1994.In the impugned order the ld. Collector had held : "It is seen that vide circular No. 38/90-CX. 4, dated 12-9-1990, Ministry has clarified the position that prior to 28-2-1986, wood pulp obtained by Chemi-mechanical, Chemi-thermo mechanic at pulping process would be appropriately regarded as mechanical wood pulp. That being so, the benefit of Notification No. 163/67 cannot be denied to the party. The demand raised for the period up to 28-2-1986 is, therefore, dropped. In so far as the position from 1-3-1986 is concerned under the new tariff, Mechanical wood pulp, Chemical wood pulp, semi-chemical wood pulp and pulps of other fibrous cellulosic materials are mentioned separately under Tariff Heading 47.01. That being so, the benefit of exemption available to Chemical wood pulp, semi-chemical wood pulp and pulps of other fibrous cellulosic materials, the benefit of exemption notification will not be available." "I hol...
Tag this Judgment!Samanta (P) Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT682TriDel
1. This Stay Application has been filed by M/s. Samanta (P) Ltd. against Order C. No. IV (16) 441 /Tech/DL-II/98-99/5228, dated 21-5-1999, passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi determining the annual capacity of appellants' textile processors. The applicants contend that in their declaration, they had given the details of their Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processor as three chambers each of the length of 300 cm and width of 155 cm. After verification by the Excise Authorities and in terms of Trade Notice No.22/99, dated 12-3-1999, the Commissioner had determined the size of the chambers as under : Accordingly, the month-wise duty liability had also been revised by the Commissioner to Rs. 2,54,277.00 for the period 16-12-1998 to 31-12-1998 and Rs. 5,08,554/- per month from January, 1999 onwards.2. The applicants contend that the revision of the capacity and the calculation of duty demand month-wise has been determined by the Commissioner by adding length of Gallery ...
Tag this Judgment!Crystal Sanitary Fittings Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT816TriDel
1. By the impugned order, Commissioner has confirmed the demand of Rs. 35,82,340.00 under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and also imposed a penalty of a like amount under Section 11 AC of the Act.Interest on the amount has also been ordered under Section 11AB of the Act. Manufacturing process relied on by the Commissioner for levying the duty is the process of affixing/reaffixing of ticklis taps, cocks and valves after embossing/printing/sticker affixing with brand name "ARK" and subjecting the taps, cocks and valves to pressure testing.According to the appellant, they are getting the taps, cocks and valves with ticklis from its manufacturer. They affix their brand name "ARK" on the ticklis and sell it to dealers. Marking of brand name "ARK" on the ticklis, according to the appellant, does not involve any manufacturing process warranting levy of duty.2. For an earlier period authorities demanded duty to the tune of Rs. 46,61,978.00. That was also in relation to same type ...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Refractory Maker Vs. Designated Authority of India
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT714TriDel
1. When these matters came up before us on 13-8-1999 we directed the appellant to take out notice to all concerned parties interested in the outcome of these appeals and also to the designated authority. Pursuant to that direction, appellant served notice of the appeal and copies of the memo of appeal on all the opposite parties including the designated authority. Evidence of service have been produced before this Tribunal.This Tribunal also sent notice to the designated authority by post on 6-9-1999 fixing the hearing of the case today 29-9-1999. In spite of the service of above notices, designated authority has not cared to enter appearance.2. Rule 6 of CEGAT (Countervailing Duty and Anti-dumping Duty) Procedure Rules, 1996, reads "On receiving notice of appeal, the designated authority shall transmit to the Tribunal the records and the procedure leading to the appeal including confidential information, if any, under Rule 8 of the Countervailing Duty Rules or Rule 8 of Anti-Dumping ...
Tag this Judgment!Banmore Foam Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC700
1. After hearing for some time with reference to the stay petition filed by the party we felt, that the matter itself can be disposed of on the limited issue. Accordingly, main matter itself can be disposed of with the consent of both the sides.2. Arguing for the appellant, Shri Ravi Holani, learned C.A. drew our attention to the respective interim order as well as final order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal. It appears that the party has filed the said application before the Commissioner (Appeals).Commissioner has rejected the stay application without giving an opportunity of hearing. Further, taking into consideration that stay order has not been complied with and appeal has also been dismissed for non-compliance as per order dated 15.4.99.3. Shri S. Srivastava Ld. JDR submits that against the rejection of the interim order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) the party has gone to High Court by way of writ petition and the matter is still pending.4. We have carefully c...
Tag this Judgment!A.T. and T. Switch System (India) Vs. Commissioner of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT674TriDel
1. Brief facts of the case as summarised in paragraphs 1 & 2 of the impugned order are as under :- "In response to a tender issued by the Department of Telecommunication M/s. AT & T Switching equipment for 200 K Lines Electronic Exchange during the period June, 1992 to July, 1993. The imported equipment was allowed to be cleared without payment of duty in terms of exemption Notification No. 3/89-Cus., dated 9-1-1989, on the appellants giving requisite undertakings backed by bank guarantees, promising to re-export, the goods within six months of the date of import. On the party's request the date by which the goods were to be re-exported was extended more than once, but as the importer had not re-exported the goods even upto March, 1994 the bank guarantees of Rs. 6,37,00,520/- furnished in terms of the undertakings were encashed by the Asstt. Commissioner of Customs on 29-3-1994. 2. The appellants filed a letter with the Collector of Customs on 8th April, 1994 requesting for fi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. FranklIn Steels (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT719TriDel
1. The Revenue is in Appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi dated 18-12-1997, by which the Commissioner (Appeals) had held that Cables, Regulators and Capacitors would be eligible for Modvat credit as 'capital goods'.2. Ld. JDR Shri S. Ramanathan, appearing for the appellant Collector submits that the impugned order is not sustainable for the reason that the Tribunal had in C.C.E., Coimbatore v. Shanmugaraja Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. 1997 (89) E.L.T. 84 (T) clearly held that production or processing would mean physical processing of the goods and that capital goods must have direct nexus in bringing about change in the substance of the goods by direct participation in the manufacturing stream. The items under dispute were electrical equipments facilitating the transmission of electricity used in the factory. No nexus for bringing about a change in the substance of the goods by direct participation in the manufacturing stream can be attributed to the three ...
Tag this Judgment!Juhi Modi Vs. Suresh Kumar Gupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)178; 82(1999)DLT266
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. This petition filed under Sections 439(2) and 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks the cancellation of bail granted to respondents 1 to 4 by the order dated 16th October, 1998 by an Additional Sessions Judge.2. Facts giving rise to this petition, in brief, are that the petitioner was married to Neeraj Gupta, respondent No. 3 and 3rd July 1998 at Delhi. On a complaint made by the petitioner, FIR No. 997/98 under Sections 406/498-A/34 IPC was registered at PS Sriniwas Puri on 14th October, 1998. Thereafter, on 15th October, 1998 search was conducted at the respondents residence No. A-57, New Friends Colony, New Delhi and respondents 1 to 4 were also arrested. Application filed by these respondents seeking anticipatory bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, after their arrest, was allowed to be treated as application for regular bail and they were admitted to bail by the order dated 16th October, 1998, the cancellation whereof is n...
Tag this Judgment!Dalmia Dairy Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Central) N ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)144; (1999)157CTR(Del)179; 83(2000)DLT33; [2000]241ITR9(Delhi)
ORDERD.K. Jain, J.1. In these two sets of three references each, at the instance of the assessee, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') for the opinion of this Court :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure (Rs. 4,520/- in 1967-68, Rs. 1,19,816/- in 1968-69 and Rs.1,02,440/- in 1969-70) incurred by the assessed in pursuing its claim against the National Bank of Pakistan before the International Chamber of ommerce was capital expenditure and has to be disallowed in the computation of the taxable income?.'2. Since, except for the difference in the amount of expenditure, the question in respect of assessment years 1970-71 to 1972-73 is the same, it is needless to set out the question referred in the second set of reference.3. The question referred and the statements of case drawn up by the Tribunal, in substance, ...
Tag this Judgment!Sub Dharampal Singh Verma (Retd) Vs. the Chief of the Army Staff and O ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)15; 82(1999)DLT497; 1999(51)DRJ741
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner was enrolled in the Army (Corps of Electrical) and Mechanical Engineering i.e. EME) on 11.4.69 and he retired from service on 30.4.97 as Subedar. However, even after his retirement he is fighting for promotion to the rank of Subedar Major.2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that he was promoted as Subedar w.e.f. 1.2.92. Persons senior to him in the seniority list of Subedar were to retire, in normal course, between August 1996 to November, 1996 and he was to become senior most Subedar by then. Accordingly, he was expecting to become Subedar Major after November, 1996. Vacancy of Subedar Major arose and one JCO, Sub. Rajan Thomas who was at Seriall No. 36 in the seniority list was promoted to the rank of Subedar Major. The name of the petitioner in the seniority list was at Seriall No. 52 and as per his calculations persons above him would have retired including Rajan Thomas. He was surprised to note that Rajan Thomas at Seriall No.36 was promo...
Tag this Judgment!