Delhi Court November 2000 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
National Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT106TriDel
1. The applicants filed these reference applications for referring the question of law arising out of Final Order Nos. 592-594/99-C, dated 14-7-1999 [2000 (123) E.L.T. 720 (Tri.)].2. Ld. DR, appearing on behalf of Revenue, took a preliminary objection in respect of maintainability of reference application on the ground that the issue involved in the appeal, which was decided by the Tribunal, is in respect of interpretation of notification, which provides a concessional rate of duty. His submission is that the issue involved in the case was in respect of rate of duty of excise, hence, the applications for referring the question of law under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, are not maintainable.4. Section 35G of Central Excise Act provides that any party to the order under Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, not being an order relating to determination of any question having relation to rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for the purpose of assessment, make an appli...
Devidayal Non-ferrous Indus. (P) Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT402TriDel
1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Devi Dayal Non-Ferrous Industries Pvt.Ltd., the issue involved is whether the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 69/86-CE dated 10-2-1986 under Sl. No. 1(ii) is available to the paper insulated copper winding wire, manufactured by them.2. Shri Jawaharl Lal, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture copper winding wires; that paper is covered on the copper wire so that insulation is achieved; that such paper covered wire is wound around the relevant part of transformers/dynamoes; that the department has not disputed that the impugned goods are winding wires; that Sl. No. l(ii) of Notification No. 69/86-CE provides 15% duty in respect of winding wires made of copper falling under heading 85.44 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that the department has denied them the benefit under the said Sl. No. and has held that the impugned product would be covered by Sl. No. 4 of the Notification which refers to 'insulated w...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. H.E.G. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT121TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. I find that the issue involved in this case has been properly analysed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as can be seen from his finding portion. Issue relates to Modvat credit. Modvat credit has been denied and ordered to be debited on the ground that input on which credit has been taken under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, were destroyed by fire before the manufacturing operation started.2. On the other hand, the Commissioner (Appeals) has categorically held that manufacturing operation has already been commenced and destruction by fire took place at second stage namely Blow Room, whereas the first stage involved the blending of 2 different fibres. Finding portion of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is as under : - "I have gone through the case records. There is considerable merit in the submissions made by the appellant. Reliance was placed by them specially on the Tribunal's decision in the case of Asmaco Plastic Industri...
S.C.J. Master Batches Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-2000
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC545
1. Appellant placed orders for Twin Screw extruder from Japan. Four Extruders were covered by different contracts. On the basis of those contracts proforma invoices were issued on 22-12-1999 and 2-2-2000. One extruder reached Bombay Port on 31-5-2000. Customs authorities in Bombay accepted the price shown in the invoice which was reflected in the Bill of Entry and cleared the goods. The second machine reached Delhi on 6-5-2000. A Bill of Entry No. 226496 was filed on 1-6-2000.Value of the machinery imported was shown at 47,23,310 Japanese Yen, FOB. Customs authorities did not accept that value and they wanted to load the same and bring it to Japanese Yen 67,17,353 GIF. This course was resorted to because that was the price of an identical machine imported by another, covered by Bill of Entry No. 225810 dated 19-5-2000. Proceedings initiated by the Department to load the price of the imported goods was objected to by the appellant contending that they were old customer of the manufactu...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Hind Lamps Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-2000
Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT183TriDel
1. Assistant Collector vide his order dated 15-9-1999 passed the following order in the case of M/s. Hind Lamps Ltd. observed Respondents herein. "The assessment of M/s. Hind Lamps Ltd. Shikohabad with regard to Electric Lighting bulbs and Fluorescent Tubes are being made provisionally due to pendency of S.L.P. in Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has pronounced the judgment vide O. A. No. 2858 of 1977 on 2-5-1989 [1998 (43)) E.L.T. 161 (S.C)]. As per order the investigation were made in this regard to establish whether five customer companies were favoured buyers or not. In this connection the Superintendent Range Shikho-habad was enquired and his enquiry report clearly indicates that M/s. Hind Lamps Shikohabad have no contract/agreement between their customer companies with regard to sale of Electric Lightening Bulbs and Fluorescent tubes. The price of their product and the condition of sale are fixed by their Board of Directors from time to time con...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bharat Electricals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT468TriDel
1. This is an appeal preferred by Revenue being aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal No. 389/98, dated 17-11-1998, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. We heard Shri M.P. Singh, ld. DR and Shri Bipin Garg, ld. Advocate.The brief facts are that the Respondents M/s Bharat Electricals are purchasing Tig Iron and C.I. Scrap' from the market and sending the same to M/s Sagoon Foundry Pvt. Ltd. for manufacture of C.I. Castings.They approached the Department for allowing them to send the raw-materials to their job worker under the provisions of Notification No. 84/94-CE, dated 11-4-94. The Assistant Commissioner, under letter dated 2-11-98, directed them to follow the procedure as laid down in the Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned Order set aside the Assistant Commissioner's directions, holding that Notification No. 84/94 did not prescribe the condition of following the procedure prescribed under Chapter X. He has also given his fi...
Himachal Shots and Metals (P) Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT120TriDel
1. Arguing the case for the appellant Shri K.K. Anand, ld. Counsel submits that in the instant case the appellant received Steel Tank and Melting Furnace. He submits that a declaration was filed on 15-4-1994 in general terms without giving the sub-heading number under which the goods fell. He submits that steel tanks were received on 5-10-1994 and melting furnace crucibles were received on 21-10-1994 and credit of duty paid on them was taken on those dates. He submits that the appellant filed a revised declaration on 2-1-1995. After receipt of the goods and noting their sub-heading number etc. that in the letter dated 2-1-1995, the appellants requested the Asstt. Commissioner as under: "Now therefore, we are enclosing detailed declaration of the above said goods which may please be accepted".2. Ld. Counsel submits that under Rule 57-T(3) there is a provision of condonation of delay. He submits that a reading of the Rule will show that the Asstt. Commissioner was competent to condone t...
Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Entremonde Polyecoaters Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT700TriDel
1. This appeal has come up before us on a, reference made by a Bench of two Members evidence by miscellaneous order No. M/69/2000-D dated 30-8-2000. The question referred is : "Whether the product manufactured by the respodent is eligible for concessional rate of duty in terms of serial No. 2 of the Table annexed to Notification No. 63/87-C.E., dated 1-3-1987 for the period from 1-3-1987 to 11-6-1989?" 2. Revenue questions the correctness of order-in-original No.416/CEX/93 dated 23-12-1993. That order happened to be passed by Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad in a proceeding initiated pursuant to show cause notice dated 5-6-1992. Respondent, Entremonde Polycoaters Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of impregnated, coated, covered or laminated cotton textiles classified under Chapter 59 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They claimed concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 63/87-C.E., dated 1-3-1987. As per the show cause notice, r...
Malviya Chem. and Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT274TriDel
1. The brief facts of this case are that the appellants manufacture Paracetamol, a bulk drug falling under Chapter Heading 2942 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They are also availing Modvat credit of duty on the inputs used in the manufacture of Paracetamol under Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. In the manufacturing process, the product - Paracetamol emerges in the powder form which is cleared on payment of duty @ 18% ad valorem. A part of this powder is converted into tablets which are cleared without paying any duty, as the tablets are subject to 'Nil' rate of duty. The party in their Classification List dated 3-5-98 filed with the Central Excise authorities stated that since they availed Modvat credit under Rule 57A on the common inputs used in the manufacture of Paracetamol powder cleared on payment of duty @ 18% ad valorem and Paracetamol tablets chargeable to Nil' rate of duty, they debited duty @ 8% under Rule 57CC on the clearance of tablets. The Asst. Commissio...
Rajiv Nag Vs. Quality Assurance Institute (India) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-2000
Reported in: [2001]106CompCas262(Delhi); 2000(57)DRJ32
Cyriac Joseph, J.1. The appellant challenges the order dated 20-9-2000, passed by the Company Law Board, Northern Region Bench, New Delhi, in C.P. No. 4/ 113/2000/CLB, dismissing the appellant's petition filed under Section 113(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act').2. The appellant was a shareholder in the respondent-company. Quality Assurance Institute (India) Ltd. He held 5,000 equity shares of the respondent-company. In the notice for the sixth annual general meeting (AGM) of the shareholders of the company held on 30-9-1999, the following was included as item No. 8 of the agenda:'To consider and, if thought fit, to pass, with or without modification, the following resolution as a special resolution :Resolved that pursuant to the recommendation of the board of directors and article 133 of the articles of association of the company, and part of the sums standing to the credit of the company's general reserve be capitalised and such be applied in terms of articles 133 and 134 of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »