Delhi Court May 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 19 of about 254 results (0.019 seconds)Shankar Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC309
1. This appeal has come up before us in view of Reference Order No.M-127 Cal/97 dated 20.3.97. Reference was necessitated on account of conflicting views taken by two benches of co-ordinate jurisdication in Kwality Containers (P) Ltd. Bombay v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay U.P. Laminations v. Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur . The question that arises for consideration is whether prior to the amendment of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, introduced with effect from 22.12.85, Commissioner could adjudicate a dispute raised under the proviso to Section 11 A(1).2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant. Issue referred to, way back on 20.3.97, has been answered by a Larger Bench of 5 Members in the case Balaji Paper Boards (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Tiruchirapalli reported in 1999 (30) RLT 701. No argument has been advanced either on behalf of the appellant or by the Revenue questioning the correctness of the decision rendered by the above-mentioned Larger Bench.3. Since the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Custom Vs. National Trading Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT190TriDel
1. The issue involved in these appeals filed by Revenue is whether the respondents M/s. National Trading Co. has imported watch case in complete condition so as to attract requirement of special licence for its import? 2. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned SDR, submitted that watch cases fall under negative list for the purpose of import. However, parts, of watch cases are allowed free import. The respondents had imported, watch cases with bracelet and without back' under 5 Bills of Entries and, 'back' for watch case under another Bill of Entry which were all filed on the same day which shows that both watch cases without back and back were imported on the same day just to defeat the requirement of special licence. Shri Sharma further submitted that ring, which is required to fasten the watch case was not imported by the respondents and ring does not constitute a component part of the watch case. He finally submitted that as the respondents have imported watch case with back, though under diff...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Flex Laminators
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT114TriDel
1. These are two Revenue appeals against the Order-in-Original No.220-CE/MRT/99, dated 31-3-1999 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise Ghaziabad rejecting the Revenue Appeal against the Order-in-Original passed by the Asistant Commissioner.2. Arguing the appeal Shri Sumit K. Das, ld. JDR contends that the claim of the respondents that there was only one manufacturing unit, which had been upheld by the authorities below was not correct. The allegation against respondents herein was that they had availed of Modvat credit without having proper duty paying documents inasmuch as the documents were not in the name of M/s. Flex Laminators, the manufacturers of excisable goods viz., articles of plastic falling under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff 1985. The Department's case was that the duty paying documents contain no endorsement by the original consignee of the inputs, viz. M/s. Flex Industries, in favour of the manufacturing unit and therefore Modvat credit claimed b...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Eastman Cast and Forge Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT113TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the impugned order dated 4-6-1998.2. The issue relates to Modvat Credit on capital goods. Whether Alo-ric Belts, Shaka Hearth and Grinding Wheel are capital goods or not to eligible for availing Modvat Credit as capital goods in terms of explanation to Rule 57 Q is an issue to be considered herein.3. I find that this issue has, been properly considered by the Commissioner as can be seen from para 3 of his order is as under:- "3.1 have gone through the case records as well as submissions made at the time of personal hearing very carefully and observed that all the items under dispute viz. Aloric Belt, Grinding Wheel and Shaka Hearth are being used in the integral manufacturing process of final product of the appellant. Grinding wheel and parts thereof has already been held eligible Capital goods for the availment of modvat credit by the Hon'ble CEGAT in the Case of CCE Meerut v. Bhushan Steels & Strips Ltd. reported as 1998 (101) E....
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Chauhan Associates Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(3)ARBLR484(Delhi); 86(2000)DLT477; 2000(55)DRJ33
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule. 2. This is a petition filed by the petitioner, challenging the ban imposed on it for tendering for carrying on the contracts with the Union of India. Petitioner's case is that the respondents, without issuing a show cause notice, have desisted the petitioner from the list of approved contractors with the C.W.E., Air Force, Palam, Delhi. 3. Petitioner claims that the respondents, as a result of this ban, are neither issuing any tenders nor accepting the bids for tenders already issued to the petitioner. Petitioner asserts that tender documents, bearing No. CWE(U)D-19/98-99 was refused to be accepted by the respondents on 23.3.99. Similarly, tenders bearing Nos. CWE(U)D-31/98-99 and GE/AC/D-30/98-99 were refused to be accepted. 4. Respondents have filed their counter affidavit, wherein it is claimed that action was taken against the petitioner after issuing a show cause notice, to which no reply was given by the petitioner. 5. Respondents claim that the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash Mathur Vs. M/S. Panjon Ltd. and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 86(2000)DLT593; [2001(88)FLR349]; (2000)IILLJ1663Del
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Rule. Since short question is involved in the matter, with the consent of the parties the matter is taken up today and disposed of at this stage. 2. Petitioner filed petition u/s. 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 being LCA No. 39/96 before the Labour Court in which he claimed minimum wages as fixed by the Government under the Minimum Wages Act on the ground that he is not being paid the minimum wages as prescribed. He also claimed earned wages. The details of claim are as under:- a. Less than the minimum rate of wages paid between 01-05-1989 to 31-05-1994. Rs. 17,920.00 b. Earned wages for June & July 1994. Rs.3,612.00 c. Earned wages for the month of August, 1994 to Dec.20th, 94. Rs. 8,605.00 ------------ Rs.30,137.00 ------------3. Labour Court vide impugned order dated 15.5.98 rejected the application of the petitioner as not maintainable. The order of the Labour Court is not sustainable. The entitlement to claim minimum wage arises because o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2001]247ITR34(Delhi)
1. By this petition under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Revenue seeks a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question, stated to be one of law, arising out of I. T. A. No. 9623/D of 1990, for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 11,68,964 despite the fact that expenses incurred in raising equity share capital are capital in nature and are thereforee inadmissible, whether they are incurred in advance or in the year of conversion from debenture to equity share ?' 2. In our opinion a question of law does arise out of the order of the Tribunal. We accordingly, direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing 25 per cent, of the amount of total expend...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M. Tax
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT134TriDel
1. In this appeal, the Revenue has challenged the validity of the impugned order of Commissioner vide which he has reversed the Order-in-Original of the Additional Commissioner who confirmed the demand of Rs. 3,11/831.33 on the respondents.2. The respondents are job-workers and they are engaged in the carrying out process of heat setting and stentering of fabrics, falling under Chapter 55 of the Schedule appended to the CETA. They received the fabrics for this job under Rule 57F(3) of the Central Excise Rules and returned the same to the manufacturers who supplied them. They were served with the show cause notice dated 3-9-1996 for having cleared the goods without payment of duty. The Additional Commissioner confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 3,11,831.33 on them after rejecting their version that they were not liable to pay duty being the job-workers.This order of the Additional Commissioner was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) through impugned order by following the ratio of the...
Tag this Judgment!Fitpack Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT759TriDel
1. The appellants herein are aggrieved by the denial of the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification 35/95-C.E., dated 16-3-1995 on doubled cotton yarn, on the ground that they have not established that this is meant for use in the manufacture of fabrics, which is a condition incorporated in the Notification.2. We have heard Shri Sameer Jain, learned Counsel and Shri V.M.Udhoji, learned DR.3. We find that the yarn was supplied to traders and not to fabric manufacturers. Although the assessees contend that sale of yarn both to traders as well as fabric manufacturers took place during the relevant period (July 95 to July 96), they have not substantiated their claim with reference to any documentary evidence. We also find that the same yarn was cleared on payment of duty which would clearly show that it was meant for other uses also, other than for the manufacture of fabrics. Learned Counsel produced certificates from manufacturers of furnishing fabrics regarding purchase of cotton ...
Tag this Judgment!Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT211TriDel
1. These appeals have come up before this Larger Bench, on a reference made by a Bench of two Members. Appellants imported drawings, designs, plans, etc. from M/s. Zimmer AG, Germany, under an agreement for transfer of technology for the purpose of setting up a plant to manufacture polyester, polyester filament yarn and polyester staple fibre. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, found the goods as classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 4911.99 "other printed matters not elsewhere specified 'or included under Chapter 49." In this view, the goods imported were valued at DM 32,66,900.00 equivalent to Rs. 7,50,61,438.00 and imposed duty thereon. The Commissioner took the view that the goods are liable to be confiscated, but they are not available for confiscation in the case. Consequently, he imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on the importer under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. Invoking the provisions of the same Section, he imposed a penalty amounting to Rs. 5 lakhs each on thr...
Tag this Judgment!