Delhi Court October 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 1 of about 176 results (0.022 seconds)Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC258
1. Issues raised in all these appeals are identical. It is whether the ship's demurrage charges which ware actually incurred by oil companies were includible in the assessable value of petroleum crude oil and other petroleum products like motor spirit, high speed diesel, superior kerosene oil, furnace oil and aviation turbine fuel. Another issue as to whether the oil companies and their senior officials were guilty of suppression of payment of ship's demurrage charges with intent to evade duty and consequently liable to penalty under Section 114A or Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) also rises for consideration.2. As stated earlier, all the appellants are Public Sector Undertakings. Aggrieved by the order of adjudication passed by the departmental authority, appeals have been filed before this Tribunal.The appellants thereupon approached Committee of Secretaries for clearance, in terms of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Oil and ...
Tag this Judgment!Khabros Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC274
1. The applicants were granted Industrial Licence by the Ministry of Industries, Government of India on 11.6.1986 for setting up a 100% Export-Oriented undertaking (EOU) for manufacture and export of stainless steel cutlery. As per the conditions of the licence, the EOU had to export the entire production excluding rejects not exceeding 5% for a period of ten years. For the purpose of setting up 100% EOU, the applicants imported capital goods without payment of Customs duty by availing the exemption under Notification No. 13/81-Cus dated 9.2.1981 during the period 1986 to 1988 and also procured indigenous capital goods and raw materials without payment of Central Excise duty in terms of Notification No. 123/81-CE dated 6.6.1981 during 1988 to 1992.Before expiry of the above period of ten years, the Department issued a show-cause notice to the applicants. Two corrigenda were issued later.As per these proceedings, the Department proposed to recover customs duty on the imported capital g...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Bottling Co. (Ltd) Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT261TriDel
"I direct M/s. Delhi Bottling Co. Ltd., 60, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi to immediately pay the amounts of Rs. 1,16,96.622 towards the illegally availed and utilised Modvat credit by them during the period from March, 94 to 21-10-94 and from 1-4-95 to 30-11-95 under Rule 57-1 of the Central Excise Rules, 44. The demand of Rs. 21,69,523.61 relating to the crown corks is hereby dropped. I impose a penalty of Rs. 11,00,000/- on them under Rule I73Q of the Central Excise Rules, 44".2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of aerated waters and flavoured syup. They had been availing the benefit of duty on inputs under the Modvat Scheme. They filed Modvat declaration under Rule 57 G wherein the plastic shells, glass bottles and crown corks had been declared as packaging materials.The Department observed that under sub-clause (b)(iii) of exclusion clause under Explanation to Rule 57A, Modvat credit was not permissible in respect of those packaging m...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. S.T.P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT820TriDel
1. In this appeal, the Revenue has challenged the validity of the impugned order dated 26-4-1995 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), who upheld the order in original of the Assistant Commissioner regarding classification of the product in question (Tarfelt) under sub-heading 5909 of the CETA as claimed by the respondents and availability of benefit of Notification No. 53/65, dated 20-3-1965 to them.2. The respondents are manufacturers of Tarfelt. They sought classification of their product under sub-heading 5909.00 of the CETA and claimed benefit of Notification No. 53/65-CE dated 20-3-1965. They, were however, served with show cause notice dated 19-2-1990 for denying them the benefit of the notification and for not accepting the classification of the product as claimed by them. They contested the correctness of that show cause notice and the Assistant Commissioner accepted their version that the product is classifiable under sub-heading 5909 of Central Excise Tari...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Meerut Vs. M/S Hello Mineral Water P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT716TriDel
1. This appeal by the Department challenges the concurrent decision of the adjudicating and lower appellate authorities that the "water dispenser" manufactured and cleared by the respondents merited classification under Chapter Sub-Heading 8479.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.2. The notice of hearing sent by registered post to the respondents was returned with some postal remarks. However, since it was found that the appel could be disposed of on the basis of records and after hearing the Departmental Representative, we took up the case for final disposal.3. Examined the records and heard ld. JDR, Sh. M.P. Singh, who reiterated the grounds of the appeal.4. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents in their declarations, effective from 1.3.97 and 15.7.97, filed under Rule 173-B of the Central Excise Rules claimed classification of their product viz. water dispenser under TSH No. 8479.10; that the department, by show-cause notices, proposed to amend the de...
Tag this Judgment!P.N. Krishna Murthy Vs. Cooperative for American Relief Everywhere
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1009; AIR2001Delhi258; 88(2000)DLT506; 2001(2)RAJ87
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. These are two cross appeals filed against judgment and decree dated 4th May, 1998 passed by learned Additional District Judge. By the impugned judgment and decree the two suits of the plaintiff were decreed (one for injunction and the other for damages and rendition of accounts although in the cause title, reference is made to Suit No. 250 of 1990 only) in the following terms:1. Consequently, the plaintiff is hereby granted a decree re- straining the defendants from infringing the copyright ownership of the plaintiff permanently in any manner. 2. The defendants No. 1 to 6 shall hand over the copies of the infringing Malayalam Edition within two months from today to the plaintiff. 3. The decree for Recovery of Rs. 2,31,000/- (Rs. two lakh and thirty one thousand) in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants No. 1 to 5 Along with costs of the suit is also passed with interest at the rate of Rs.18% P.A. from the date of suit till date of realisation. No decre...
Tag this Judgment!Rashtriya Mukti Morcha Vs. the Mayor, Municipal Corporation of Delhi a ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 89(2001)DLT731; 2001(57)DRJ704
ORDERANIL DEV SINGH, J.1. By this petition the petitioner, who is stated to be a socio-political organisation, seeks intervention of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for declaring the Councillors of the Delhi Municipal Corporation disqualified for not having declared their assets as per section 32A of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act') read with Rule 3 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Declaration of Assets by Councillors) Rules, 1994 (for short 'the Rules') The petitioner also seeks a direction prohibiting the Councillors from participating in the meeting of the Corporation on February 23, 1997.2. The Election Commission of the National Capital Territory of Delhi held elections for 132 wards of the M.C.D. The election process was completed on February 23, 1997. The councillors took oath under sub-section (1) of section 32 of the Act on April 1, 1997. The grievance of the petitioner is that except four Councillors, whose names have not bee...
Tag this Judgment!Universal Trading Co. Vs. M/S. Hindustan Pencils Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 88(2000)DLT729; 2001(1)RAJ397
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J,1. This appeal is filed by appellants M/s. Universal Trading Company under Section 72 (2) of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 against the order dated 27th February, 1999 passed by Copyright Board. By the said order Copyright Board has allowed the application of the respondent herein for rectification of copyright registration in favor of the appellant in registration Nos. A-30813/80 and A-35887/82 under Section 50 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957. The events as stated by the appellants which led to the passing of the said order by the Board may be summarised at this stage.2. The appellants were established on 1st January, 1974 and have been using the trade mark NATRAJ and device of NATRAJ in respect of Mathematical instruments/geometrical boxes and water colour boxes since then continuously, extensively, intensively and openly. The trade mark NATRAJ is registered under Registration No. 324345 dated 6th April 1977 in class 16 claiming user since 1st January, 1974 in re...
Tag this Judgment!K.B. and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(57)DRJ208
ORDERArijit Pasayat, CJ.1. On being moved by the assessed under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench-C (in short, the Tribunal) has referred the following question for opinion of this court. 1. Whether, on lthe facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that on a true interpretation of clause 8 of the partnership deed dated 19-7-1971 and clause 9 of the partnership deed dated 26-5-1972 there was no partnership in existence and what was evident was only an employer-employee relationship in the garb of partnership? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the action of the Revenue in refusing registration for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974- 75? 2. Factual position as indicated in the statement of case is essentially as follows :- One Brij Lal was carrying on business in the name and style of M/S K.B. & Co on proprie...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.K. Moorjani
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2003(156)ELT184(Del)
Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1. Sections 397 read with Sections 401 and 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. This revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with Sections 401 and 482 of Cr. P.C. challenging the order dated 1-7-1998 passed by the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi. The short submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that once the petitioners have been totally exonerated in the departmental proceedings, then on the same charges criminal proceedings against them cannot continue. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal reads as under :- 'The appellants from the very beginning i.e. from the date of seizure took a specific stand that goods were not in finished form and the Tribunal in their final order No. A/54/90-NB, dt. 19-2-90 accepted the plea of the appellants and directed for joint inspection of the goods. The goods were never inspected as they were not available for in...
Tag this Judgment!