Delhi Court October 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 8 of about 176 results (0.020 seconds)Vishvaman Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT155TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Vishvaman Industries, is whether the process of drawing wire of lesser gauge from wire rods in coil form amounts to manufacture so as to attract levy of Central Excise duty.2. Shri J.S. Agarwal, learned Advocate submitted that the Appellants are engaged in the process of cold drawing of wire of iron/steel of lesser gauge as per the requirement of the buyers out of wires/wire rods purchased from M/s. S.A.I.L., etc.; that the inputs received by them are in coil forms which is evident from the invoices received from S.A.I.L. and annexed with the Appeal Memorandum. He also showed photographs of the raw material in support of his submission that it was in coil form. He also submitted that the Appellate Tribunal in many cases and recently in the case of Shri Puranmal Bansal v. CCE, New Delhi, Final Order No. 1791-1792/2000-B dated 10-10-2000, has held that the process of drawing wire from thicker gauge to thinner gauge does not amount to ma...
Tag this Judgment!Bharti Telecom Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(95)LC203Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue in this appeal relates to the availment of modvat credit by the appellants beyond a period of six months from the date of issue of the modvatable documents in contravention of the provisions of Rule 57G(2). The amount involved in the appeal is Rs. 7,20,903.60. The three documents concerned in this case are two Bills of Entry both dated 11.8.1995 and one Bill of Entry dated 14.8.1995. The credits in respect of the inputs imported under these Bills of Entry were taken by the party in part II of their RG 23A account on 21.5.1996 and 24.5.1996 respectively, whereas these inputs were received in their factory on 3.11.1995the date on which they made entries in part I of the same account. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Gurgaon vide his order dated 10.9.1997 confirmed the demand of the aforesaid amount on the appellants and also imposed a penalty of Rs, 5000/-. The appeal of the party was rejected by Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi vide her order dated 9.12.1999 ...
Tag this Judgment!Dossa Harjee and Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT306TriDel
1. A Division Bench of this Tribunal vide its Miscellaneous Order No.M/57-60/2000-D, dated 16.08.2000 has referred the following issue for consideration by Larger Bench : - "Whether the product of M/s. Simplex Mills Private Limited (Appellants in E/4413/93-D) viz. "filter cloth/grey coarse canvas" is classifiable under Chapter Heading 52.05 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as claimed by the assessees or under Chapter Heading 59.09 of the said Schedule as claimed by the Revenue in relation to the period of dispute (1-9-1989 to 30-11-1991)." 2. The issue has arisen in view of conflicting decisions of the Tribunal with regard to the classification of filter cloth/grey coarse canvas. The Tribunal held in the case of M/s. Simplex Mills Co. (one of the appellants in the present proceedings) in its order reported in 1993 (49) ECR 147 (Tribunal) that the goods in question are classifiable under chapter heading 5909 of the Central Excise Tariff and not under chapter 52 or...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Beltek Canadian Water Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT657TriDel
1. Revenue has filed this appeal challenging the Order-in-Appeal No.279-80/CE/MRT 2000, dated 12-5-2000 in which Commissioner (Appeals) has classified Water dispensing unit, manufactured by M/s. Beltek Canadian Water Ltd., under sub-heading 8479.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. In the present appeal, the Revenue has sought classification under sub-heading 8543.90 of the Tariff.2. Shri Harish Chander, ld. Advocate, submitted that the Respondents were classifying their impugned product under sub-heading 8479.10 whereas the Assistant Commissioner classified the impugned product under sub-heading 8418.10 under Adjudication Order; that on appeal filed by them, the Commissioner (Appeals) classified the product under sub-heading 8479.10 C.E.T.A. He further, mentioned that in the present appeal, Department has made out a completely new case as the classification now sought is under sub-heading 8543.90 which is not permissible. In support of his contention, he relied upon t...
Tag this Judgment!Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Exise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT269TriDel
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Gahaziabad vide his Order dated 31-1-1997 disallowed the Modvat credit totally amounting to Rs. 8,84,518/- availed by the appellants on the invoices issued by the Shakur Basti and Mathura depots of M/s. Bharat Peroleum Corporation Ltd. (M/s. BPCL). The grounds on which the Modvat credit is disallowed are extracted from the order-in-original as follows :- "To sum up, it is amply clear from the above that impugned items are used in relation to the final product but as the invoices issued by M/s. BPCI, Mathura/Shakur Basti do not fulfil various details/conditions prescribed in Notification No. 15/94, 21/94, 33/94 and 64/94, Madvat is disallowed and the demand in respect of both the Show Cause Notices is hereby confirmed." 2. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad vide his order dated 24-3-98 confirmed the order of the lower authority in following terms :- "I have examined the case and considered the matter. It is observed that LD...
Tag this Judgment!United Ink and Varnish Co. Ltd. Vs. State of ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)783; 89(2001)DLT367; 2001(57)DRJ402
ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J.1. As common questions of law are involved in these petitions, thereforee, all these petitions are disposed of by this judgment. The detailed facts of only one petition Crl.M.(M).No.1432/2000 are recapitulated.2. Respondent No.2 (M/s Howard Ink Co.(P) Ltd.) and respondent No.3 (Shri S.R.Narula, the Managing Director of M/s Howard Ink Co. Pvt.Ltd.) issued cheque dated 31.1.2000 in the sum of Rs.6,75,000/- which was dishonoured on presentation. Thereafter the petitioner sent a statutory notice. Despite the notice dated 9.3.2000 when the payment was not made, the petitioner (United Ink. & Varnish Co. Ltd.) filed a complaint under Section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On 28.4.2000, the case was adjourned by the court for recording of the complainant's evidence for 2.4.2001.3. The main grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that the entire purpose of filing the complaint is defeated, if the trial court gives an 11 months long date for recording...
Tag this Judgment!Prafullachandra Bidwai Vs. Aiims and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)494; AIR2001Delhi19
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. The facts germane for the disposal of this application need to be mentioned. A suit for damages was filed by the plaintiff in September 1991 through his Advocate Shri B.V.Desai, whose vakalatnama appears to have been filed along with the plaint. A perusal of the record shows that the first appearance made by the present counsel for the Plaintiff Shri Anil Kher was on 6.11.1992, and he continued to appear for the plaintiff, intermittently, thereafter. On 5.10.1998 the suit was dismissed in default, since there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff when the case was called on for hearing. The present application under Order 9, Rule 4 was filed on 12.10.1998. In reply thereto, as the first preliminary objection, it was stated on behalf of Defendants that the Counsel who had filed the application had not been duly authorized in this regard. It was further stated that the application, which was supported by an affidavit of the Clerk of this Advocate, was not pro...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Shaqila and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(55)DRJ713
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. 2nd October Dussthra day of 1987 fell on birthday of Mahatama Gandhi and Lal Bahadur Shastri two of the greatest sons of India and advocated doctrine of 'Ahinsa'. Instead of a joyful day, it turned out to be one of nightmares for the family of Tale Ram. An innocent child who had not even celebrated three birthdays was sacrificed so that a barren woman can get a child; an act of abhorrence difficult to conceive. This primitive belief is unthinkable in the modern jet set twentieth century; but that is what prosecution alleges happened. The act is to say the least diabolic in its conception and cruel in its execution.2. Five persons are said to be responsible for the barbaric act and they are appellants in Criminal Appeals and are the respondents in Murder Reference No. 1 of 2000 which has been made to this Court by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as Trial Judge) who convicted each of the accused for offences punishable under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Elecon (Madras) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Madras
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC54
1. This appeal filed by M/s Election (Madras) Ltd. is against the order of the Collector dated 21.9.90 passed in adjudication of show-cause notice dated 5.6.89.2. The department, by the aforesaid show-cause notice, demanded differential duty of excise amounting to Rs.11,14,963.63 for the period from 14.3.86 to 2.3.87 by invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 11-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The show-cause notice, for the purpose of such demand, alleged that the appellants had manufactured and cleared parts of material handling equipments at the lower rate of duty applicable to the complete equipments under Tariff Sub-Heading No.8428.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule, instead of at the higher rate of duty applicable to parts of material handling equipments under TSH No. 8431.00. The show-cause notice, for the purpose of invoking the extended period of limitation, alleged that the appellants had mis-classified the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Mukesh Steels Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT832TriDel
1. In all these appeals preferred by Revenue the common issue involved is whether runners and risers emerging during the process of manufacture of ingots are eligible for exemption from payment of duty of excise under Notification No. 49/97-C.E., dated 1-8-1997 as waste and scrap.2. Shri Manish Pushkar, learned Advocate appeared on behalf of M/s.Jyoti Industries and M/s. Antarctic Industries Ltd. in Appeal No.E/1820/2000-B and E/1814/2000-B respectively. No one appeared on behalf of M/s. Aar Kay Concast Ltd. in Appeal No. E/1819/2000-B. In all other appeals the respondents have requested under their respective letters for decision on merits, submitting that the issue involved has already been decided by the Tribunal vide Final Order Nos. 1450-1493/2000-B, dated 26-9-2000. The learned advocate also submitted that the matter has been settled by the Tribunal vide decision in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. K.C. Alloys & Steel Castings and Ors., supra. We also heard Shri K.K. Goel, lea...
Tag this Judgment!