Delhi Court November 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 23 of about 261 results (0.020 seconds)Krishnan and Associated Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC370
1. This appeal is filed by M/s. Krishnan & Associated Engineers (hereinafter referred to as Party) who are manufacturers in addition to other goods of razor and razor blades including Blank cartridges. M/s.Indian Shaving Products (hereinafter referred to as ISPL) who pursuant to an agreement dated 27-2-1991 with the Party supplied them for assembly and packing the products i.e. razors and razor blades on job work basis. The said goods after assembly/packing were stock transferred to ISPL and duty was paid based on costing supported by a C.A. certificate.2. As the price of the goods did not include several components enriching its value, assessments were made provisionally under Rule 9(B) on a Bond of Rs. 25,000/- and since the Bond amount was insufficient 18 SCN were issued to the Party. Two more SCN were issued demanding duty on the Advertisement cost incurred by M/s. ISPL on the products manufactured by the Party on their behalf. The 18 SCN were decided by the Assistant Commissi...
Tag this Judgment!ipf Vikram India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT116TriDel
1. The Appellant company is a manufacturer of detergent powders/cakes of Brand name of M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. (hereinafter referred to HLL) and the other appellants Sh. J.S. Bowa is the factory Manager of the appellant company at Mohali and Sh. S. Dey is Unit Manager of HLL.2. The appellant company has two manufacturing units at Mohali and Majra where they manufacture detergent powder and cake from raw material supplied including labels, packages, wrappers by HLL and the packed product is sent to various depots of M/s. HLL on stock transfer basis on payment of duty and from 1-4-94 duties were paid under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act read with Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules and such values were declared to the department based on cost certificates provided by M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. 3. It was observed that even though the appellant company was the job worker of M/s. HLL technical specification and checking of incoming material and manufactured goods was performed by the Quality Contro...
Tag this Judgment!intrade Impex (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC199
1. The applicants filed these applications for waiver of duty and penalties. Vide impugned order, a duty demand of Rs. 32,55,280/- and penalty of the same amount has been imposed on M/s. Akay Cones Pvt.Ltd. and duty of Rs. 3,44,528/- and penalty of the same amount has been imposed on M/s. Intrade Impex Pvt. Ltd. 2. In this case, the duty was confirmed on the applicants on the ground that they wrongly availed the benefit under Notification 11/97 dated 1-3-1997 in respect of goods imported by them, as much as the goods, in question, incapable of being used as insole sheets in leather industry, were being cleared at concessional rate of duty under the above mentioned notification.3. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicants, submits that the applicants made import of nylon tericot flocking fabrics and availed the benefit of Notification No. 11/97 dated 1-3-1997. The notification provides concessional rate of duty to the goods capable of being used as insole sheets in leather ind...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT291TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by the Revenue is the admissibility of Modvat credit under Rule 57A on explosives used by the respondents herein in their mines. The contention of the Department is that the explosives are not used in the factory of the manufacturer and hence Modvat credit is not admissible thereon.2. We have heard both sides. We find that this issue stands settled against the respondents by the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Jay-pee Rewa Cements v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur reported in 2000 (38) RLT 1111. In para 9.2 of the order, it has been held that the inputs in respect of which Modvat credit has been allowed under Rule 57A are required to be brought into the factory for being used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. In the present case, there is a clear finding of the Assistant Commissioner that the approved factory premises does not include the mines. Applying the ratio of the Larger Bench decision, we set ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Singla Steels Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT562TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue the issue involved is whether runners and risers emerging during the process of manufacture of ingots are eligible for exemption from payment of duty under Notification No.49/97-CE dated 1-8-97 as waste and scrap.2. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the M/s.Singla Steels Ltd., nor there was any request for adjournment. Shri A.K. Jain, learned D.R., mentioned that the issue involved in this appeal has already been decided by the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. K.C. Alloys and Ors., Final Order No. 1450-1493/2000-B dated 26-9-2000. He also mentioned that he reiterates the grounds mentioned in the memorandum of appeal and relies on the decision in the case of Vishwakarma Steel Industries Ltd. v. CCE, 1986 (26) E.L.T. 126 (T).3. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. The issue involved in the present appeal stands settled by the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. K.C. Alloys and Ors., supra. ...
Tag this Judgment!State and Raj Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar and State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2001IAD(Delhi)285; 88(2000)DLT428; 2000(55)DRJ749; 2001(1)JCC29
ORDERArijit Passayat, C.J.1. This Murder Reference under Section 366 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short, the Code) and appeal are interlinked being in respect of judgment of learned Additional Session Judge, Delhi in Session' Case No. 162/94. He imposed death sentence on the accused for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (In short, IPC), ten years RI for the offence punishable under Section 307 and two years RI for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act 1950 (for short Arms Act). Since death sentence was imposed, reference has been made to this Court under Section 366 of Code. 2. Prosecution case sans unnecessary details is as follows -On 22-5-1994, information was received in Police Station Subji Mandi that a quarrel was going on in house No 4289,Arya pura subji mandi ASI Krishan Chand was directed to go to the spot and make an enquiry Kishan Chand along with_ Constable Krishan Kumar went to the spot but another information was...
Tag this Judgment!Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(55)DRJ648; 2000(72)ECC717; 2003(151)ELT496(Del)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.9.2000 passed under Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short, the Act) by the Central Excise & Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (in short, Tribunal) in stay application No. E/Stay/1290/2000-D in Appeal No. E/2368/2000-D. 2. Background facts so far as relevant are essentially as follows: Petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of vegetable products falling under Chapter 15 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (in short the Tariff Act). A show cause notice dated 30.11.1998 was issued requiring petitioner to show cause as to why differential Central Excise duty amounting to Rs 72,27,073.20, not paid by it, should not be recovered under Section 11A of the Act by invoking the extended period of limitation as petitioner did not pay the duty on soap stocks manufactured by it and why penalty should not be imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (in short, the Rules) read with Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. S.S. Ahluwalia
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(55)DRJ673
Anil Dev Singh, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated April 3, 2000 whereby the appellants herein were directed inter alias to reinstate the respondent who was allowed to retire voluntarily from service. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows: The respondent served the Army as a Commissioned Officer for a period of about seven years from 1966 till July 15, 1973 when he was selected as Deputy Superintendent of Police in G.R.P.F, On August 3, 1983, the respondent was promoted as Assistant Commandant in the C.R.P.F. Subsequently, in August 1990 he earned a further promotion as Second in Command. After serving for a period of about twenty years in the C.R.P.F. the respondent on March 15, 1993 sought voluntary retirement by giving a three months' notice under Rule 43(d) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, to the competent authority. However, before the expiry of the period of three months, a charge memo was issue...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Dr. Sarjoo Parshad
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2001]118TAXMAN41(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.At the instance of the revenue, following question has been referred for opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', New Delhi :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and keeping in view the judgment in Garg & Co. v. CIT : [1974]97ITR639(Delhi) , the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest of Rs. 56,720, Rs. 39,037, Rs. 53,780 and for the assessment years 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65 respectively levied under section 139 could be deleted under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'This judgment shall cover ITR Nos. 90 of 1980, 91 of 1980 and 92 of 1980 as the dispute involved is identical in all the three income-tax references.2. Brief reference of the factual aspects would suffice :The assessed did not file his returns of income under section 139(1) of the Act for the assessment years 1962-63 to 1964-65. Notices under section 1...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. National Electric Supply and Trading Co ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2001IAD(Delhi)245; [2001]248ITR794(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. On being moved by the Revenue under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), the following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-B (in short 'the Tribunal'), for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the capital gains arising from the transfer of capital assets by the assessed is not taxable in this year ?'2. The factual position as stated in the statement .of case essentially is as follows :The assessment year involved is 1969-70. The assessed, a private limited company, amongst others was engaged in the generation and distribution of electricity in the Municipal town of Moga in Punjab. It had obtained a license for that purpose on February 21, 1939, from the Government of Punjab by notification of that Government under the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (in short 'the Electricity Act'). l...
Tag this Judgment!