Delhi Court March 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 16 of about 221 results (0.009 seconds)Plastix Kar Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT462TriDel
1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay who has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 2,90,387/- on Plastic components of Diesel Engines namely Slide Rail Assembly, Slide Rail and Regulator components falling under Chapter headings 84.09 and 90.33 manufactured by the appellants herein, which were seized from a tempo on 10-1-1992 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- upon the appellants.2. The appellants have asked for a decision on merits; hence we heard the learned DR and perused the records.3. We find that parts of Diesel engines were marked with monogram of M/s. Bajaj Tempo Ltd. who is not eligible for exemption from Notification No. 175/86 claimed by the appellants. The plea that benefit of notification is available in terms of para 7 is not acceptable since the seized goods manufactured were found consigned to M/s. Hira Plastics and hence are not component parts of machinery or equipment or appliances cleared from a factory for use as origi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Trinitron Conktrol Systems Pvt.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT720TriDel
1. Whether the 'Bus Trunking', manufactured and cleared by the assessee, is classifiable under subheading 8538.00, as claimed by the party or under sub-heading 8544.00 as per the Department, is an issue to be considered in this case.2. The Respondents are engaged in the manufacture of 'Bus Trunking and claimed under Chapter sub-heading 8538.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Asst. Collector did not accept the contention of the party and held that this item is classifiable under sub-heading 8544.00. On an appeal filed by the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals), following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vikas Engineering Associates v. CCE, Allahabad reported in 1995 (78) E.L.T. 219, classified the item under sub-heading 8538.00, as claimed by the party.3. The Department has filed an appeal on the ground that the view taken by the Tribunal was not acceptable and filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.4. Since the issue involved herein has already been considered ...
Tag this Judgment!Vee Gee Electronics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT473TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Vee Gee Electronics, the matter relates to the classification of the Shell Housing for audio/video cassettes.2. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had classified the same under Heading No. 85.23 under which the audio/video cassettes are classifiable.3. In the grounds of appeal, the appellants have referred to the Board's Circular issued under No. 33/9/94-CX., dated 29-7-1994 in which it has been clarified that the cassettes housings/casings, hubs, rollers and stoppers shall be classifiable under Heading No. 39.26 of the Central Excise Tariff.4. As the Board's Circular was issued in exercise of the powers under Section STB of the Central Excises Act such Circulars issued by the Board are binding on the Departmental authorities and are to be followed by the Department as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Ranaday Micronutrients v. CCE, 1996 (87) E.L.T. 19 (S.C.).5. We modify the impugned order-in-appeal and hold that the correct classificatio...
Tag this Judgment!Citurgia Biochemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT172TriDel
1. The dispute is in respect of Precipitated Calcium Carbonate and Uncoated Calcium Carbonate.2. We find that Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) has classified Uncoated Calcium Carbonate/Coated Calcium Carbonate under headings 2836.90 and 3823.00 respectively.4. Shri H.K. Jain, ld. DR, appearing for the Revenue, submitted that the issue involved in this case has already been concluded by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Gulshan Sugar Chemicals as per the Final Order No. 1242/98, dated 12-10-1998. By majority, it was held that Precipitated Calcium Carbonate (Uncoated) was classifiable under sub-heading 3823.00 and Precipitated Calcium Carbonate (Coated) was classifiable under 2836.90.5. Since the issue involved, herein has already been considered and concluded by the Tribunal in the aforesaid case, following the ratio, we hold that Precipitated Calcium Carbonate (Uncoated variety) is classifiable under Heading 2836.90 and the Coated variety is classifiable under Heading 3823.00 r...
Tag this Judgment!Puneet Steel and Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC693
1. Shri J.S. Agarwal, Ld. Advocate arguing the miscellaneous petition submits that inspite of the best effort the appellants have not been able to collect sufficient fund to make the payment as directed in the stay order. He submits that the time for deposit may be extended further.2. Shri Sumit K. Das, Ld. JDR opposes the request and submits that the appellants have already been given sufficient time and extention thereof for depositing amount and that further extention may not be given.3. We have heard the rival submissions. From the records, we find that in the instant case, sufficient time was given to the appellants to deposit the amount and the time was extended also. We do not see any reason to extend the time further. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. 1944....
Tag this Judgment!K.R. Engg. Works Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC221
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s K.R. Engineering Works is whether the exemption under Notification No. 144/88-CE., dated 18-4-1988 is available to the goods manufactured by them and whether duty of excise is payable by them on the goods manufactured by them on job work basis.2. Briefly stated facts are that on the basis of intelligence that the appellants were engaged in manufacturing goods on job basis out of raw materials supplied by their customers without maintaining proper records and were clearing the same without payment of excise duty, the Central Excise Officers visited their factory premises and seized certain records. A show-cause notice dated 27-5-92 was issued to them for demanding Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 5,72,686.77 P. for the period 1988-89 and 1990-91 & for imposing penalty. The Collector, under the impugned Order dated 23.3.1993, confirmed tho demand of duty Rs. 3,00,94.43 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 30,000, holding that the benefi...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E. Vs. Binny Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC698
1. Shri R.D. Negi, Ld. SDR submits that the following points of law arise out of the Tribunal's order No. A/1116/97-NB dated 28.11.97: (a) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in holding that "Boiler House Plant" fabricated and erected by M/s. Binny Limited in the premises of M/s. Bhagpat (Baghpat) Sugar Co-operative Mills, Bhagpat (Baghpat) were not goods, therefore, not chargeable to duty, and (b) Whether Tribunal was correct in holding that the three subcontractors are manufacturers instead of M/s. Binny Limited, Madras.2. The Ld. SDR submits that everything which is embedded to the earth is not to be treated as immovable property. He cites and relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sirpur Paper Mills Limited 1998 (97) ELT 3. He submits that sometimes supporting structures are provided in the plant and machinery to prevent wobbling.He submits that if something is embedded to the earth alone will not disqualify the items to be treated as goods. He submits that...
Tag this Judgment!AustIn Circuits Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT610TriDel
1. When the petition praying for waiving the condition of pre-deposit of the amount under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act came up, I heard the Learned Counsel representing the appellant and the Learned Departmental Representative. Since the appellate authority disposed of the appeal on the ground of non-compliance with pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Act, I examined the order passed by the appellate authority to see whether application to waive pre-deposit was properly considered by that authority.2. By order, dated 21-9-1999 Commissioner (Appeals) directed the appellant to deposit the entire amount within three weeks therefrom. On getting that order appellant moved appellate authority for dispensing with pre-deposit highlighting financial difficulties. Thereupon the appellant was informed by letter, dated 20-10-1999 that earlier order has been modified by requiring the appellant to deposit 40% of the amount demanded. On such deposit, it was intimated that pre-deposit of th...
Tag this Judgment!Rakesh Kumar Dedha and Others Vs. Jawahar Lal Nehru University and Oth ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)242; 2000(54)DRJ107
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. All these writ petitions are filed by various employees against the same employer, namely. Jawahar Lal Nehru University (hereinafter to be referred as 'University' for short). Petitioners in all these petitions are working on daily wage basis and they are claiming the same relief, namely: (1) regularisation of their services on the ground that they have worked for 240 days or more and (2) payment of wages/salary at par with regular employees w.e.f. the dates of their initial appointment. All these writ petitions are, thereforee, taken up and disposed of together by common judgment. 2. For sake of convenience, facts of CWP. No. 5589-98 are taken. 3. This writ petition is filed by 8 petitioners. They were engaged on different dates in April, May and August,1996 as Junior Assistant-cum- Typist on daily wage basis Admittedly, the names were not requisitioned from Employment Exchange and the petitioners did not undergo any selection process as per the Recruitment Rules...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Bagga Vs. Kasturi Lal
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(54)DRJ478; (2000)125PLR30
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. Plaintiff filed this suit, inter alia, alleging that defendant is a lessee of the land measuring 100 sq. yds., bearing No.8A/1 situated at Jheel Kuranja, Geeta Colony. He is also the owner of superstructure built over the said land comprising of two rooms, one store, kitchen, bath, latrine, stairs and courtyard. The defendant who is in possession of said property, agreed to sell it to plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- under an agreement of sale dated 24th August, 1986. Out of the agreed sale consideration, defendant received Rs. 25,000/- at the time of execution of said agreement of sale and the balance amount was to be received by him on delivering the vacant possession of the property until 10th December, 1986. Defendant was to obtain sale permission from L & DO, Nirman Bhavan and to execute sale deed in favor of the plaintiff or his nominee within the said period. It is further alleged that an additional amount of Rs. 25,000/- was paid to the defendant on 4...
Tag this Judgment!