Delhi Court March 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 13 of about 221 results (0.019 seconds)Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. B.H.P. Engineers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT599TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal preferred by Revenue is whether central excise duty is chargeable on the goods manufactured and cleared by the respondents M/s. B.H.P. Engineers as parts of conveyor or as conveyor itself.2. Shri Jagdish Singh, learned D.R., submitted that the respondents had cleared various parts of conveyors during the period August, 1992 to March, 1994 under various gate passes over a period of time showing the goods as part-shipment of the conveyor and the duty liability was discharged at the rate applicable to conveyors instead of paying higher duty applicable to parts of conveyors; that the parts of conveyors are specifically covered under Heading 84.31 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that the respondent did not follow the procedure as prescribed in Ministry's instruction No. 261/26AA/16/82 CEX-8, dated 25-2-1983 wherein it was provided that when the machinery unit consisting of several consignments which cannot be transported in assembled s...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Engineering Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT530TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order in appeal dated 2-9-1994 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) who upheld the order in original of the Assistant Collector dated 7-4-1994 confirming duty demand of Rs. 22,008.68 under Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be stated as under : 3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicle parts falling under sub-heading 8714.00 of the CETA. They were not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986, as when they applied for the Central Excise L-4 licence they declared their firm as partnership concern, whereas SSI certificate was taken in the name of sole proprietorship concern and as such the certificate was not valid for the partnership firm and they were liable to pay the duty.They were served with the show cause notice dated 4-4-1991 on the basis of their monthly R.T.12s of February, 1991 and duty demand ...
Tag this Judgment!Surgichem Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT564TriDel
1. The issue involved in these appeals is the correct classification under the old Central Excise Tariff of adhesive plaster described as Porofix Adhesive Plaster BPC/USP, plaster of paris bandages, Johnson plast adhesive type USP (all sizes) and economy pack etc. The matter has come before this Larger Bench upon reference by Division Benches vide Misc. Orders No. 86 to 91/91-C dated 5/2/91 and misc. order No.161/99. The reference is in view of the conflict between two decisions of the Tribunal, i.e., in the case of J.L. Morison, Son & Jones (India) Ltd. Bombay v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay reported in 1984 (15) E.L.T. 251 (T) and in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Rajkot v. Surgichem reported in 1987 (27) E.L.T. 548 (T). The first decision held that zinc Oxide adhesive plasters B.P.C.are classifiable under tariff item 14E while the second decision held that adhesive plaster B.P.C. tapes are classifiable under tariff item 68 of Central Excise Tariff and not under...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Siddarth Vashisth and Manu Sharma and Others and Raja Chopra ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)829; 2001CriLJ2404; 90(2001)DLT548
ORDERR.C.Chopra, J.1. This order shall dispose of Crl.Revision Petitions Nos.596/2000, 619/2000, 46/2001 and 47/2001, which are directed against order dated 23.11.2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in case FIR No.287/99 registered with P.S. Mehrauli, commonly known as 'Jessica Lal Murder Case'.2. In Crl.R.596/2000, the State prays to set aside the discharge of accused No.1 Manu Sharma, accused No.2 Vikas Yadav, accused No.3 Amardeep Singh Gill, accused No.4 Alok Khanna and accused No.5 Amit Jhingan under Section 120-B read with Section 302 IPC as well as the discharge of A-2 to A-5 for offence under Section 302/34 IPC. A further prayer is to set aside the discharge of accused A-4, A-5 and A-6 Shyam Sunder Sharma, who have not been charged for commission of any of the offences. Crl.R.47/2001 has been filed by accused No.2 Vikas Yadav with a prayer to discharge him of the offences under Sections 201, 120-B and 34 IPC. Revision petition No.46/2001 has been filed by (SIC) & T...
Tag this Judgment!A.R. Neelayadakshni Vs. University of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)489; 86(2000)DLT327
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy. J.1. The petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :- '(a) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the pay-scale granted to respondents 3 to 6 to the petitioners herein also who are doing the same and identical work; (b) Issue a writ of Mandamus restraining the respondents No. 1 from re-designating respondents 3 to 6 or any other person amongst professional Assistants though all the professional Assistants including the petitioners herein and the said respondents are functioning in identical and inter changeable posts, doing identical work, merely on the basis of qualifications.' 2. The petitioners and the respondents 3 to 6 on the date of the writ petition were working as Professional Assistant Juniors (Assistant Librarians). From the post of professional Assistant Junior the next avenue of promotion is Professional Assistant Senior (Dy. Librarian) and thereafter the incumbents can claim to be considered for the post of Librarian. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Pradeep Anand Vs. I.T.C. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)965
ORDERS.K. Mahajan, J.1. The Appellant has challenged the Order dated April 23, 1999 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby further proceedings before the Arbitrator appointed by the International Chamber of Commerce in Arbitration Case No. 8080/BGD have been stayed till decision AO (OS) No. 134/99 of the objections to the Award dated April 28, 1998 rendered by the Arbitrator in the aforesaid matter. The facts in short are : -2. That on September 11, 1990 a Cooperation Agreement was executed between late Shri C L Anand, father of the Appellant representing his family and associate Companies (hereinafter referred to as 'Anands'), ITC Limited, Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba Battery Company and Toshiba Anand Battery Limited. The Agreement on behalf of ITC Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'ITC Limited') was signed by Mr D P Barua. In terms of the Agreement, ITC was to arrange for the purchase of 48% of the share holdings in Toshiba Anand Battery Limited in two lots of 24% e...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Tikitar Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT468TriDel
1. The Common issue involved in these nine appeals is whether the process of conversion of straight grade bitumen into air blown grade bitumen amounts to manufacture.2.1 The facts in brief in appeal No. E/4498/93-C are that M/s. Tiki Felt Industries, appellants (TFI), manufactured Bitumen Coated felt.They purchased duty paid hessain cloth, straight grade bitumen, fillers and mica as raw materials. The straight grade bitumen was converted into blown grade bitumen through oxidation, known as blowing process.Such blown grade bitumen was applied on both sides of the hessian cloth. A show cause notice dated 24-1-1992 was issued to them for demanding duty in respect of Blown Grade Bitumen (BG Bitumen) falling under sub-heading 2713.20 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act for the period from February, 1987 to September, 1991. The Collector, Central Excise, in impugned Order dated 10-3-1993, confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 2,84,981.23, imposed a penalt...
Tag this Judgment!Mangala Textiles Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT705TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Mangala Textiles, the matter relates to the classification of the product "leno gauze cloth". The assessee had classified the said cloth as bleached cotton fabrics under sub-heading No. 5206.11 of the Central Excise Tariff (CET), and had paid the Central Excise duty (CED) as applicable to the goods classifiable under sub-heading No. 5206.11 CET. At the un-processed stage, the fabric had been woven on powerlooms with a dobby of cross woven. In the show cause notice dated 20-9-1991, it was alleged that the said processed leno gauze cloth was classifiable under Heading No. 58.03 of the CET as 'gauze'. Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,29,895.38 was demanded for the period September, 1986 to March, 1991. Central Excise duty on the goods seized-was also demanded. Penal provisions were invoked. The Collector of Central Excise, Pune, who adjudicated the matter, confirmed the classification of the processed leno gauze cloth under Heading No.58.03 and confirmed the d...
Tag this Judgment!Adonis India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT68TriDel
1. Appellants herein are M/s. Onida Savak Ltd. and M/s. Adonis India Limited. M/s. Onida Savak Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of Colour Television Sets (CTVs) and Washing Machines. Upto 1st April, 1994, the CTVs and washing machines manufactured by them were being sold directly to. dealers. Duty on those goods was paid by M/s. Onida Savak Ltd. on the wholesale price charged from those dealers. After April, 1994, they changed the marketing pattern. Entire CTVs and washing machines manufactured were sold to M/s. Adonis India Ltd. who, in turn, sold the sets in wholesale to the dealers. M/s. Onida Savak Ltd. paid excise duty on the sale price charged by them from M/s. Adonis India Ltd. The price realised from M/s. Adonis India Ltd. was less compared to the prices realised by M/s. Onida Savak Ltd. prior to April, 1994 when they sold the goods to the dealers. Consequently, show cause notice was issued demanding differential duty of Rs. 1,76,79,378/- in relation to colour television se...
Tag this Judgment!Cce Vs. Senior Rubber Factory
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC682
1. Revenue has filed this appeal assailing the order of the Ld.Collector (Appeals) holding: I observe that the adjudicating authority has decided the issue on the grounds that since the appellants are working under Modvat scheme, they should pay the Central Excise duty at concessional rate from the very beginning on all the excisable goods under Notification No. 175/86 dated 1.3.86 and also held that if they satisfy all the conditions as required for availing the SSI exemption benefit, the classification lists shall be approved accordingly. The appellants have relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of M/s. Swaraj Paints Industries v. Collector of Central Excise (MAD-CEGAT) wherein it was held that small scale concession cannot be whittled down if Modvat credit is availed on a few items but not on other items because Para (a)(i) of Notification No. 175/86 ibid page down the benefit to concessional rate of duty instead of full exemption in case where the assessee a...
Tag this Judgment!