Delhi Court November 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 25 of about 261 results (0.020 seconds)Prabhat Fertilizer and Chemical Vs. Commr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC768
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Prabhat Fertilizer & Chemical Works, is whether Zinc Ash imported by them could have been imported under OGL.2. Shri A.C. Jain, ld. Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture Zinc Sulphate (Agri. grade) from Zinc which can be obtained from Zinc Ash containing 70-85% total Zinc; that they were importing Zinc Waste without any hindrance since 1989; that Zinc Waste though is not a hazardous waste, the Appellants had been obtaining necessary clearances from State Pollution Control Board; that three consignments imported by them were held by the Commissioner to be hazardous waste and same were confiscated in absence of any import licence with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 1 lakh in each case and Commissioner also imposed penalty of Rs. 50 Thousand, in each of the three cases; that as per chemical test report the sample contained 82.1% by weight total Zinc, 58.6% by weight metalic Zinc; that it contains 0....
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Arvind Exports
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT133TriDel
1. The Advocates for the respondents had preliminary objections on the admissibility of the subject appeals filed by the Revenue. These were : - (i) All appeals are filed against remarks and observations made in the note sheets in different office files. There is no decision or order passed by a Collector in these cases as an adjudicating authority and he relied on CC v. Metro Exporters P. Ltd., 1988 (37) E.L.T. 610 (T). (ii) Appeals are filed and signed by Assistant Collector of Customs based on the letter of Authority from the Collector, who has no power to delegate under Section 129D. The Counsels relied uponState of MP v. Bhupendra Singh (iii) The CBEC has passed common review order under Section 129D(1) i.e. Order Nos. 87R to 88R dated 1st October, 1983 passed by Shri J. Dutta. This is invalid as facts of Arvind Exports & Pacific Exports are totally different. There was no revalidation of licences.2. We find that the Central Board of Customs in exercise of powers conferred up...
Tag this Judgment!Association for Democratic Reforms Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2001Delhi126; 2000(57)DRJ82
Anil Dev Singh, J. 1. Information is a many splendered virtue. It is the key to power, fortune, science and technology and even steadfast democracy. Its potential when channelised is capable of banishing ignorance, poverty, hunger and want. It plays significant role in every walk and sphere of life, including the field of politics and democracy. It can transform democratic institutions and the governance of the country.2. In this petition the petitioner inter alias seeks an informed right of voting for the voters of this country based on information and knowledge about candidates seeking election to Parliament and State Legislatures. The prayer in this regard of the petitioner is as follows :--'(iv) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondent No. 2 to put together the information on criminality of all the candidates for an election and make this information available to public, and print and electronic media for wide dissemination.'3. Besides, the petitioner seek...
Tag this Judgment!National India Constructor Vs. National Buildings Construction Corp. L ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(55)DRJ824
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. By this Judgment I propose to dispose of OMP 222/1997, which is an application tiled by National India Construction, (Claimant) under Sections 10 and 12 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for removal of Respondent No. 2 as the Arbitrator, and OMP 83/1998 which has bee filed by National Building Construction Corporation Ltd. (NBCC) under Section 28(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for extension of time for making the Award.2. The facts are common in both the Petitions.3. By order dated 21.5.1996, Lokeshwar Prasad, J. had appointed Shri Prem Prakash as the Sole Arbitrator. On 13.6.1996 the Sole Arbitrator addressed a letter to the Manager (Law), NBCC Ltd. in which he stated inter alias that 'I may please be advised in the matter further, if so, the orders if received may please be sent to me.' This letter has been mentioned by me because it is the contention of Learned Counsel for the Claimant that this indicates that the Sole Arbitrator was biased in favor of NBCC. It appe...
Tag this Judgment!Magnum International Trading Company Ltd. Vs. Export Credit Guarantee ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(55)DRJ664
S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This order will dispose of the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for defendant that the suit is liable to be rejected as no part of the cause of action wholly or in part arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. 2. Brief facts are : that the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,71,18,467/- against the defendant alleging therein that the plaintiff is engaged in the business of export. The plaintiff secured an export order dated 11th August, 1988 from 'SUDOIMPORT, Moscow, for supply of vessels from July 1990 to March, 1991. For executing this order the plaintiff placed two separate orders dated 20.8.88 with a format 'Singapore' which was to design the equipment, partially build 6 vessels under the contract and to deliver unfinished/incomplete vessels in India between January, 1990 to September, 1990. The payments for this were to be made at different stages. The defendant- Government of India Undertaking, incorporated under the...
Tag this Judgment!Northern India Chemical Distributors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income T ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Del)190
Arijit Pasayat, C. J.On being moved by the assessed for reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), following question has been referred for opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in sustaining the disallowances of Rs. 63,405 and Rs. 2,750 being the amount paid to the State Trading Corporation and legal expenses incurred in connection therewith, respectively, claimed as allowable deductions in computing the business profit of the assessed for the assessment year 1972-73 ?'2. Background facts, as indicated in statement of the case, are as follows :Assessee is a public limited company and it maintained its books on mercantile system of accounting. So far as for assessment year 1972-73 is concerned, the previous year ended, on 31-12-1971. assessed at the relevant point of time, carried on business as an importer of Chemicals. These were not allowed to be impo...
Tag this Judgment!Northern India Chemical Distributors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)802A; [2001]248ITR790(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. On being moved by the assessed for reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'), the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in sustaining the disallowances of Rs. 63,405 and Rs. 2,750 being the amount paid to the State Trading Corporation and legal expenses incurred in connection therewith respectively, claimed as allowable deductions in computing the business profit of the assessed for the assessment year 1972-73 ?'2. The background facts, as indicated in the statement of the case, are as follows :The assessed is a public limited company and it maintained its books on the mercantile system of accounting. So far as the assessment year 1972-73 is concerned, the previous year ended on December 31, 1971. The assessed at the relevant point of time, carried on business as an importer of Chemicals. These were not a...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Ahmedabad Vs. M/S. Dyestuff and Intermediates,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT1330TriDel
1. The dispute involved in this appeal of the Revenue is on the classification of "copper complex" manufactured by the respondents.While the assessee claims classification of the product under Tariff Sub-heading (TSH) 2922.00, the Department claims it under TSH 3204.29.The Assistant Collector classified the product under TSH 3204.29. The Collector (Appeals) classified it under TSH 2922.00.2. There was a drawal of sample of the product for chemical test in 1988 and the report of the Chemical Examiner was as under: "The sample is in the form of bluish coloured liquid. It is composed of an aqueous ammonical solution of copper complex, an oxygen function amino compound." On the basis of the above report, the assessee filed classification list No.4/88-89 effective from 01.01.89 claiming classification of the product under TSH No.2814.00. The Department issued a show-cause notice [SCN] directing the assessee to show cause why the product should not be classified under TSH 3204.29. The party...
Tag this Judgment!J.S. Autoparts Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT299TriDel
1. The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 53,092/- and penalty of Rs. 5,000/-.2. In this case, the benefit of Modvat credit on capital goods was denied on the ground that declaration in respect of capital goods was filed after the receipt of the capital goods and the applicants failed to explain the delay in filing the declaration.3. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicants, submits that their unit was registered with the Revenue authorities on 19-3-1996. He submits that the capital goods were received in the factory on 2-1-1996 and 30-3-1996 and necessary declaration was filed on 25-3-1996. He submits that, thereafter, the applicants also filed the necessary request for condonation of delay in filing the declaration. He relies upon the circulars issued by the Board dated 26-12-1994 and 7-3-1996 whereby the Board had clarified that credit should not be denied merely on the ground that the declaration had been filed after the ...
Tag this Judgment!United Leasing and Industries Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT486TriDel
1. In this case Modvat credit of Rs. 21,34,776/- has been disallowed and the amount has been confirmed under Rule 96ZL of the Central Excise Rules on the ground that the applicants who are engaged in the manufacture of embroidered fabrics with the help of vertical automatic shuttle type machines and working under the compounded levy scheme under Rule 96ZH, are not entitled to Modvat credit under Rule 57Q. A penalty of Rs. 2000/- has also been confirmed upon the applicants.The present application is however, confined to the prayer for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 17,12,000/- (since the applicants have already deposited the balance amount of Rs. 4,22,776/-) and the penalty amount.2. Shri Y.K. Kumar, learned Counsel submits that even though Rule 96ZJ which is a special provision for certain assessees like the applicants requires payment of duty in cash, there is no prohibition against taking of Modvat credit even by persons operating under the above mentioned special provisions. He furth...
Tag this Judgment!