Delhi Court September 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 4 of about 308 results (0.020 seconds)Samarjit Singh Vs. Raj Kumar Bhasin
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-29-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)631
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 1.11.1997 passed by the Civil Judge. Delhi in Suit No. 159/1995 dismissing the application of the petitioner seeking for amendment of the plaint. The petitioner as plaintiff instituted a suit in the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Delhi seeking for a declaration that he is the owner, title holder of the suit property and also sought for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from disposing of the same. The respondent filed their written statement contesting the aforesaid suit. Subsequently, an application was filed by respondent/defendant contending inter alias that admittedly the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property and thereforee, the relief of permanent injunction could not be availed of by him. It was also stated that the defendants are in continuous possession and thereforee, the plaintiff could not have filed the suit by affixing Rs. 20/- only...
Tag this Judgment!Singapore Airlines Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-29-1999
Reported in: 2000(121)ELT289(Del)
ORDERArun Kumar, J.1. Petitioner has challenged imposition of penalty under Section 116, Customs Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on account of goods short-landed. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that notice under Section 116 of the Act had to be issued to the person-in-charge of the conveyance and not to the owner of the conveyance, the petitioner is the owner of the conveyance and cannot be said to be the person-in-charge. Section 116 imposes liability on account of short-landing of goods on the person-in-charge of the conveyance. The expression person-in-charge has been defined in Section 2, sub-section (31) of the Act to mean : '(b) in relation to an aircraft, the Commander or pilot-in-charge of the aircraft.' The aircraft in question had a pilot-in-charge and notice under Section 116 of the Act should have addressed to him rather than to the petitioner who is the owner of the conveyance.2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Mr. N...
Tag this Judgment!Phoenix Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT144TriDel
1. The claim of the appellants herein filed on 3rd May, 1996 for refund of Rs. 6,97,500/- paid as duty on 17-11-1994 (by debit in PLA) has been rejected on the ground that the claim is barred by limitation.2. We have heard both the sides and carefully considered the submissions. The basis of the claim is that duty on the recycled PVC granules is payable at the rate of Rs. 15/- per kg while duty was paid at the rate of 30%.3. The appellants themselves have been treating the deposit made by them on 17-11-1994 as payment of duty, as seen from their reply dated 21-11-1994 to the show cause notice dated 9-8-1994 for confirmation of duty on recycled granules and from their refund claim dated 20-5-1996 (received on 30-5-1996). Therefore, the debit of 17-11-1994 is to be construed as payment of duty. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Orient Paper Mills reported in 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 328) (S.C.) cited by the learned DR is very relevant to the facts of this case - the Sup...
Tag this Judgment!Amba Cement and Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-1999
Reported in: (2000)LC265Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-original dated 4-2-1997 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad. In the impugned order, a demand of Rs. 7,85,062.99 was confirmed and a penalty of Rs. one lakh was imposed on the appellant firm under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. A penalty of Rs. 10,000/-each was imposed on the Directors, authorised signatories, supervisor, Chief Chemist and on the Chartered Accountant was also imposed under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Portland cement. On 19-8-1991, the officers of the Central Excise, visited the factory of the appellants. After verification of the record, a show cause notice was issued to the appellants alleging that - (1) the appellants received lime stone from M/s. Sangam Lime Co. and M/s. M.K. Minerals. As there was a restriction on the quantity of load a truck could carry; the challans were prepared only f...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Himmatsingka and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT108TriDel
This is the party's appeal against the above captioned impugned order dated 7-1-1989 praying for setting aside the same and for the sanction of refund.1. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant received a telex order on 18-3-1989 NOIC 'M' duly countersigned by the Commander Dy. Director of Divine and undersea activities. Naval Headquarters, New Delhi - 11 for the supply of 20 number of 30 HP 'A' JOHNSON outboard motors at the rate of Rs. 49,750/- each. As it was required urgently the appellants immediately arranged for the import of the same from M/s. Pantime Ltd., Hongkong (by Telex and Telephone) as a result of which they were despatched on 22-3-1989 vide Air India Way Bill No.098-5276 4865. Immediately on receipt of the notice in that regard, the Bill of Entry No. 217979 was filed by the appellant on 27-3-1989 itself along with the suppliers invoice No. 3172, dated 25-3-1989 and suppliers packing specification, and requested for the release of the goods free of custom...
Tag this Judgment!Kohli Printographics Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-1999
Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC572
1. Appellant before us got one Cannon Laser Colour Copier with accessories cleared in May, 1991. The goods so imported was a gift to him from his cousin brother, Ravinder Singh Rence. Shri Ravinder Singh Rence sought permission to gift the Copier by filing an Affidavit dated 28th November, 1988. Pursuant thereto CCP dated 28-12-1990 was issued, permitting the import of one Canon Laser Colour Copier with accessories. Thereupon the goods were imported as is evidenced by Bill of Entry dated 17-5-91. Copier with accessories was valued at Rs. 2,71,580/-. Duty on that was shown as Rs. 4,07,370/- plus additional duty of Rs. 1,42,579.50. Thus the total duty came to Rs. 5,49,950/- as per the Bill of Entry. On the arrival of that consignment Officers of the Customs Deptt. examined the same. On such examination, the Officers made endorsement on the back of the Bill of Entry which reads "Canon Laser Copier 01 Unit with accessories as per invoice and packing list attached and examined......" There...
Tag this Judgment!U.P. Instruments Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT123TriDel
1. Along with this appeal, Application No. E/S/595/99-B was filed praying for dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of the amount levied by the impugned order. Notice was served on the appellant of the posting for hearing of the Stay Petition. Advocate representing the appellant has sent an application stating that he is pre-occupied in preparation and filing of his Income Tax Return and so prayed for adjournment. To say the least, the grounds mentioned by the Counsel for adjournment of the application for Stay is not at all convincing.2. The appellant is a small scale undertaking belonging to the Government of U.P. They inter alia manufacture Solar Cookers. Solar Cookers are exempted from payment of duty as per Notification No.205/88. Appellant manufacture not only solar cookers but also solar cookers with electrical back-up. Such Cookers have been taken to be outside the purview of Notification No. 205/88. Accordingly, by the impugned order a sum of Rs. 1,35,964/-has been lev...
Tag this Judgment!Batliboi and Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT673TriDel
1. The dispute in this appeal is about the classification of several items used in the manaufacture of humidifiers and dehumidifiers by the appellants. The contention of the appellant was that these are parts of machines and should get classified as such. The machines remained already classified under 8479, therefore, they submitted that there is no justification for classifying these components/parts under various other Tariff Headings like 7308, 8421, 8483 etc. During arguments, the ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that while the present dispute is for the period 1986-87, classification lists filed for that period remained approved classifying these items as claimed by the appellant under Heading 8479 (except for a few items). He also drew our attention to instructions of Central Board of Excise & Customs on the classification of these items from time-to-time. CBEC Circular No.353/69/97-C.E., dated 12-11-1997 relating to classification of parts and accessories of Refriger...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Hind Syntex Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT65TriDel
1. In this Revenue Appeal, the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal dated 9-7-1998 holding that P.V.C.Armoured Cables are eligible for credit as capital goods under Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 has been challenged. There is also a cross-objection filed by the Respondents referring to various decisions of the Tribunal holding that Cables are eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q.2. Ld. JDR, Shri Y.R. Kilania has submitted that the Explanation relating to 'capital goods' in terms of Notification No. 14/96-C.E.(N.T.), dated 23-7-1996 did not include PVC Armoured Cables falling under Chapter sub-heading 8544.00, one of the categories mentioned against (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the definition of the 'capital goods'.According to the Revenue, the meaning of 'capital goods' under categories (a) and (b) of the Explanation was related with the use for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in the substance for manufacture of fi...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Lloyd Safe Company
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-1999
Reported in: (2000)(68)ECC89
1. This appeal was filed by the Revenue aggrieved by the Order-in-Original No. 157/90-91 dated 25.2.91 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi in adjudication of show cause notice dated 27.2.89. The Adjudicating Authority had withdrawn show cause notice proceedings against the respondents herein as per the said Order-in-Original.2. In the aforesaid show-cause notice, the Additional Collector had alleged as follows: 2.1 Officers of Central Excise, on 15.7.87, visited the factory premises of the respondents at New Rohtak Road, New Delhi and the show room-cum-office premises at Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi simultaneously.The officers who visited the factory premises took the statement of one Shri R.M. Duggal, Foreman of the factory, who stated that he was working as Foreman for the last 3 years, hat the respondents were manufacturing steel furniture for the last 6 years, that the plant and machinery had been installed in the factory before his joining the firm and ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »