Delhi Court December 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 21 of about 243 results (0.020 seconds)Cemcon Tracks Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC237
1. Arguing for the assesses Shri M. Chandra Shekharan, learned Sr.Counsel submitted that issue relates to excisability of switch expansion joints and fan shaped switches. He said that with reference to fan shaped switches the duty amount has already been deposited and is not contesting in respect of excisability on fan shaped switches.However, switch expansion joint is concerned, it does not amounts to manufacture. The process undertaken by the appellant are cutting of rails to the required lengths which are slightly bend at one end and one end is sharpened slightly and cut portion is smoothened. Issue with reference to this item has already been considered by the Tribunal in the case of /. Sons Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut reported in 2000 (125) E.L.T. 1068 (T). In this connection he drew our attention to the para 5 of the said order which reads as under :- "5. Opposing the appeal, Shri R.K. Sharma, learned SDR, submitted that the process undertaken by t...
Tag this Judgment!Panban Furniture Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT430TriDel
1. The appellant herein, who is an SSI Unit registered with the Directorate of Industries, Greater NOIDA, UP, is engaged in the manufacture of export of hotel furniture. It imported samples of "hotel amenities" (such as soaps, body lotion, shower caps, etc., on behalf of its sister concern, M/s. Panban American Hotel Registered Company, at the request of certain 5 Star Hotels, as free commercial samples under Notification 154/94-Cus., dated 13-7-1994. The Assistant Commissioner vide spot Adjudication Order No. 653/95, dated 29-5-1995 confiscated the goods on the ground that they are consumer goods which have been imported without a licence, in violation of the Export-Import Policy with option to redeem the same on payment of a fine and also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. The order was upheld by the lower appellate authority; hence this appeal.2. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. We note that the samples of negligible value to be used for soliciting orders...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Hindustan Copper Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC263
1. The above appeals involve identical issues and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order.E/A No. 984/96-C:-- In this case, the respondents were granted L-6 licence to obtain goods falling under Chapter 28, 29, 36 and 38 of the Schedule to the CETA1985 without payment of duty for use in the manufacture of zinc and lead concentrate in terms of Notification No.191/87 dated 4.7.87. The mines belonging to the respondents were issued CT-2 certificates for obtaining explosives falling under Chapter 36 without payment of duty. On a study of the process of use of explosives, it was observed that detonators and detonating fuses are being used to blast the mines to obtain zinc and lead ore through drilling and blasting and subsequent process such as crushing, grinding, flotation and filteration etc. were carried out to obtain zinc and lead concentrates. The Department was of the view that this use of explosive was not used in the manufacture of lead or zinc concentrates an...
Tag this Judgment!J.C.T. Vs. Cce. Jaipur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT651TriDel
1. The issue involved in the appeal, filed by M/s J.C.T. Ltd is whether refund of excise duty paid by them is admissible to them.2. Shri K.K.Maheshwari, Deputy Manager, Commercial, submitted that the appellant manufacture cotton yarn and cotton fabrics; that no duty is leviable on woven cotton fabrics when not subjected to any process as per Notification No.25/95-CE., dated 16.3.1995; that the Superintendent directed them under letter dated 18.1.96 to deposit duty amounting to Rs. 58335/- on grey calandered fabrics cleared during the period from 1.4.1995 to 23.4.1995 which was paid by them through their P.L.A. on 30.3.1996; that they filed a refund claim on 29.4.96 on the ground that the duty was not chargeable on the grey calandered cotton fabrics; that the process of calendering is not mentioned in Note 3 to Chapter 52 of the schedule to Cental Excise Tariff Act in relation to products of Heading Nos 5s2d.07,5208 and 52.09 and as such the process of calendering does not amount to ma...
Tag this Judgment!Vishal Malleables Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT856TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Vishal Malleables Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s. Vishal'), being aggrieved with the order-in-original dated 23-11-1993 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara. The matter relates to the duty liability in respect of (i) Railway Inserts meant for fittings in railway sleepers, (ii) Overhead electrification (OHE) fittings used for railway electrification, and (iii) Metal parts for electrical insulators for use in electrical transmission caps. M/s. Vishal had claimed that all these products were unmachined iron castings and un-machined cast articles of iron, and were eligible for full exemption from the payment of central excise duty under Notification No. 275/88-C.E., dated 4-11-1988 (as amended). It was alleged in the show cause notice dated 8-11-1991 that M/s. Vishal had wrongly availed of the exemption under Notification No. 275/88-C.E., dated 4-11-1988 (as amended) by giving misleading description of the goods in the classificatio...
Tag this Judgment!Unisys Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC239
1. The applicant filed this application under Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for rectification of mistake in the Stay Order No. 160/2000-B dated 17th August, 2000.2. The contention of the applicant is that the case of the applicant before the lower authorities was that they were clearing goods with the House marks of M/s. Fujitsu India Telecom Limited, whereas in the Stay order No. 160/2000-B dated 17th August, 2000, it was noted that applicants were clearing goods with the brand name of M/s. Fujitsu India Telecom Limited. The submission of the applicant is that therefore, the stay order dated 17th August, 2000 be suitably amended.3. Learned, JDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue submitted that this application is for rectification of mistake in the Stay order. He submits that under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, the Tribunal can rectify the mistake apparent on record in any order passed under Section 35C(1) of the Central Excise Act. His submission is that t...
Tag this Judgment!Cce Vs. Komal Straw Board and Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC607
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the respondents are M/s. Komal Straw Board and Mill and the order-in-appeal is of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh being order dated 22.6.2000.The Ld. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) has made a reference to the Notification No. 22/94-CE dated 1.3.94 as amended by Notification No. 22/95-CE dated 16.3.1995 and had mentioned that no retrospective effect could be given to the amending notification. We find that the Central Excise duty had been demanded for the period subsequent to the issue of the amending notification and no demand has been made for the earlier period earlier than 16.3.95 when amending Notification No. 22/95-CE was issued. It is the settled position that amending notifications are in force from the date of their issue. In the case of I.T.C. Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. 1994 (52) ECR 331 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the effective date of the amending notification has to be the date...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. Ayub Ali Vs. Union of India and anr
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)489; 91(2001)DLT366; 2001(58)DRJ245; 2001(2)RAJ185
ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J. 1. This is a petition u/s 11(2) and (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointing a sole arbitrator with regard to the disputes mentioned in the petition in para 9 (1-8) as the respondent has failed to appoint an Arbitrator inspire of a notice and reminder. 2. The sole defense of the respondent is that the petitioner's demand for arbitration is hopelessly time-barred. The reliance is placed upon clause 25 of the Arbitration agreement. The relevant extracts of the clause are as under: 'It is also a term of the contract that the contractor(s) do/does not make any demand for arbitration in respect of any claim(s) in writing within 90 days of receiving the intimation from the Government that the final bill is ready for payment the claim of the contractor(s) will be deemed to have seen waived and a barred and the Government shall be discharged and released of all liabilities under the contract in respect of these claims.' 3. The Counsel for the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Regal theatre
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2001]116TAXMAN831(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.At the instance of the revenue, the 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-D :'Whether, on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the amounts of Rs. 28,474 and Rs. 2,738 aggregating Rs. 31,212 did not represent the entertainment expenditure contemplated under section 37(2B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. Factual position in a nutshell is as follows :The assessed incurred an expenditure of Rs. 42,040 on different items for the assessment year 1974-75 for which the relevant previous year ended on 31-10-1973. The Income Tax Officer disallowed the entire amount holding it to be of entertainment nature. Disallowance was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The assessed carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal was of the view that a sum of Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bharat Prasad Anshu Kumar
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2001]249ITR755(Delhi); [2002]120TAXMAN212(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Heard. On being moved by the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-B (in short 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following question, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for opinion of this court :'Whether, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the making of the gifts of Rs. 75,000 was not void in law and hence the income of Rs. 11,250 (Rs. 7,500 as dividend and Rs, 3,750 as interest) is not includible in the assessment of the assessed (HUF) ?'2. As the question itself shows, the basic issue is whether the gift by the Karta to his minor sons is voidable or void. This issue was considered by the apex court in CWT/IT v. K.N. Shanmughasundaram : [1998]232ITR354(SC) and held that the transaction is voidable and not void. In view of the decision of the apex court, the question referred is answered in the affirmative, in favor of the assessed and against the Revenue. We may clarify that though in the case before the apex court it...
Tag this Judgment!