Delhi Court March 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 14 of about 221 results (0.019 seconds)Neesha Plast Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT255TriDel
1. The following question has been referred for decision by the Larger Bench : "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the REP licence produced by the appellants should be held as valid to cover import of Sodium Saccharine as held by this Bench, in the case of Ashish & Co. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, in his Order No. 209/96-WRB, dated 29-1-1996. If the licence is held to be not valid to cover the import, whether fine and penalty needs to be modified 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein imported a consignment of Sodium Saccharine for which they filed a bill of entry in February, 1996 claiming clearance in terms of REP licence against the description of the goods 'Electroplating Salts and Brightener'. The Customs authorities took the view that Sodium Saccharine is mentioned at SI. No. 83 Appx. 2 Part B of the Import Policy 1985-88 under the list of restricted items, and that Paragraph 5 of Appx. 17 of the Policy lays down that import of ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Madhya Pradesh Iron and Steel Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC696
1. This Reference Application is filed by Revenue with a request to refer the following point of law to the Hon'ble High Court which has arisen out of the Tribunal's final order No. A/460/98-NB dated 8.6.98. i. Whether refractories & refractory materials used for lining of the furnace can be treated as "inputs' within the meaning of Rule 57A for availing Modvat credit? ii. Whether refractories falling under Chapter 69 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, received in the factory prior to 16.3.95 can be treated as eligible capital goods for availing credit under Rule 57Q, when the same were brought under the purview of capital goods vide Notification No. 11/95-CE(NT) dated 16.3.95. iii. Whether refractory materials falling under Chapters 38 and 68 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, received in the factory prior to 23.7.96 can be treated as eligible capital goods for availment of credit under Rule 57Q, when the said goods were brought under the...
Tag this Judgment!Dogma Auto Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT996TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) who had confirmed the order-in-original dated 25-11-1993 of the Assistant Collector passed against them disallowing the benefit of exemption Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-86.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be stated as under : 3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of gears and shafts falling under sub-heading 8483 of the CETA. They initially got the licence in the year 1995 and thereafter also got themselves registered with the Central Excise department under Registration No. 57/R-23/92 when the licensing system was replaced by the registration system under Central Excise Act. They were registered as small-scale unit with the Directorate of Industries on 6-2-80 and on the basis of that certificate they had been availing the benefit of Notification No.175/86, dated 1-3-86. However, on 28-8-92 the firm M/s. Dogma Auto Industries (...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Pawan Alloys and Castings (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT378TriDel
1. This is a reference application filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut for referring the following question of law to Hon'ble High Court arising out of Tribunal's Final Order No. A/583/98-NB, dated 3-6-1998: "Whether Modvat credit under Rule 57Q can be allowed on PCB Cards with BOD (parts of control panel) within the definition of capital goods as provided under Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944, when control panel are themselves not capital goods?" 2. Shri A.K. Jain, learned DR, submitted that the Tribunal vide Final Order No. A/583/98-NB, dated 3-6-1998 has held that PCB cards are capital goods as the same are used in control panel which controls supply of electricity to the furnace in which metal is melted for manufacture of finished goods; that Panel Board itself has been considered by the Revenue to be not capital goods in view of the definition of capital goods as given in Explanation to Rule 57Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules; that in case of CCE, Meerut v....
Tag this Judgment!L.M.L. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT615TriDel
1. The issue for decision in this case relates to the eligibility of goods described as "advanced designer/mould designer package III" imported by the appellants herein to the benefit of exemption from duty in terms of Sl. No. 173 of the Table annexed to Notification 11/97-Cus., dated 1-3-1997 as amended by Notification 3/98-Cus., dated 11-2-1998. Under Sl. No. 173, exemption is available to computer software falling under Chapter 49 or Chapter 85.24 of the First Schedule to the CTA, 1975. The amendment adds an explanation defining computer software as "any representation of instructions, data, sound or image, including source code and object code, recorded in a machine readable form and capable of being manipulated or providing interactivity to a user, by means of an automatic data processing machine falling under Heading No. 84.71, but does not include software required for operation of any machine performing a specific function other than data processing and incorporating or workin...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. A.C.C. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT82TriDel
1. The revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 14-5-1999 whereby the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of switch gear panel, protection chain for tyre and logic controller, was allowed as capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. Ld. DR, appearing on behalf of the revenue, submits that these goods are not capital goods as provided under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules.He submits that switch gear panels is a part of generator set of 66 KV and at the relevant time, the Modvat credit is admissible only on generator sets, exceeding 75 KV. In respect of protection chain for tyre, he submits that these chains are used with the dumpers which is a handling and unloading machinery and logic controller is an instrument used for controlling the operation timing for proper evacuation of material and is an electric equipment which is essential for electric power control or distribution of electricity only. He, therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed.2...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Pace Marketing Specialities Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT77TriDel
1. This is an appeal by the Revenue, as directed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs in its Order No. 198-R/96, dated 4-10-1996. By this order, Order-in-Original No. 61/Commr./95, dated 17-10-1995 has been directed to be challanged in appeal before this Tribunal. For knowing whether the stand taken by the Central Board of Excise & Customs in this case is legally tenable or not, it is necessary to refer to the actual facts of the case. They are as follows.2. Respondents herein, M/s. Pace Marketing Specialities Ltd. were manufacturing 'adhesives1. These adhesives were packed in the packing materials supplied by the buyer, namely, M/s. Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd. The agreement entered into between M/s. Pace Marketing Specialities Ltd., manufacturers of adhesives and their purchaser provided for the supply of packing materials. That agreement was made available to the Department. After understanding the full implication of that agreement, a show cause notice, dated 31-3-1993 w...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Equipment Corporation Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT599TriDel
1. In this case the appellants claimed the benefit of the Notification No. 69/90-C.E. in terms of Sl. No. 2 of the Table annexed thereto, for Centrifuge falling under Sub-Heading 8421.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and the benefit of Notification No.155/86 to "Baths other than cryostat" falling under Heading 8419.00.The lower appellate authority has denied the benefit of Notification No. 69/90 even though Sl. No. 2 of the Notification exempts goods under sub-heading 8421.00 from duty in excess of that specified in Col. No.4; the ground for denial of benefit of Notification No. 155/86 to "other baths" is that they have cleared cooling system which have the possibility of being provided with condensers/compressors and refrigerating machinery and since refrigeration and air-conditioning machinery and parts thereof are excluded from the ambit of Notification No. 155/86 benefit under the Notification is not available.2. The appellants have asked for a decision on...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanvir and Others Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)1012; 2(2000)CCR413; 85(2000)DLT711; 2000(53)DRJ632
ORDERUsha Mehra, J.1. Sessions case No.88/99 culminated into the conviction of three accused namely S/Shri Dhanvir s/o Bhagwana, Chander pal s/o Babu Ram and Sita Ram s/o Har Deo by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his judgment dated 27th February,1998. They have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each. In case of default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for another three months. Chander Pal and Sita Ram have been found guilty under Section 392/34, I.P.C. as well as under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Whereas Dhanvir has also been found guilty under Section 392/397/34, IPC and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act. They are to get benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C. in regard to substantial sentence awarded under Section 392/34 and 397 IPC as well as under Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. These sentences are to run concurrently and in default one after th...
Tag this Judgment!O.P. Sharma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VIAD(Delhi)114
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.8.1990 retiring the petitioner from service of the first respondent/Corporation. A few facts necessary to be noticed are these.2. The petitioner, who is physically handicapped with a deformity in his left leg was appointed as conductor in the first respondent/Corporation. Before appointing as conductor, he had acquired BA Degree.In the year 1985, the petitioner had a severe paralytic attack and that aggravated his situation and had increased his disability. That made him sick for more than five months. On the 18th of March, 1987, the petitioner was subjected to a medical examination. The Medical Board in its report dated 25.3.1987/30.03.1987 found the petitioner unfit to perform the duty as a conductor and expressed the view that he could be assigned some other duty. 3. On the 6th of April, 1987, the petitioner made a representation to the first respondent/Corporation that he could be assigned duty as an Assista...
Tag this Judgment!