Delhi Court May 2000 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Collector of Customs Vs. Kamani Oil Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT521TriDel
1. Revenue has preferred this appeal praying for enhancement in the redemption fine ordered by the Collector under the impugned order and also to impose deterrent penalty on the respondents under Section 112 of the Customs Act.2. Shri K. Srivastava, learned SDR, submitted that M/s. Kamani Oil Industries imported a quantity of 491.803 tonnes of Top White Tallow from Newzealand and sought their clearnaces against export house licence issued in the name of Nagesh Housing Export and transferred to Arvind Export Pvt. Ltd. A show cause notice dated 14-6-1983 was issued to the respondents as Beef Tallow was neither covered by the description of goods in import licence nor by the list attached to the licences, that the Collector Customs, Bombay under the impugned order held that two licences were not valid for import of Beef Tallow and accordingly the goods were held to be liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act; that the Collector, however, allowed the redemption of t...
Setech Electronics Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2000
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT577TriDel
1. At the outset, learned Counsel, Ms. Reena Khair seeks leave to withdraw appeal No. E/1582/95-B. Leave granted - appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.In this case, a duty demand of Rs. 8,47,382.90 has been confirmed on duty paid loudspeakers purchased by the appellants and mounted on wooden/plastic cabinets, holding them to be classifiable under Chapter Heading 85.18 of the Schedule to the CETA 1985, while the assessees' contention is that fitting of duty paid loudspeakers in cabinet does not result any new commercial commodity and, therefore, no duty liability is attracted.3. The appellants filed a classification list No. 81/93, dated 13-5-1993 claiming that speakers falling under Sub-heading 8518 are purchased on payment of duty and simply fitted inside plastic/wooden cabinet. After fitting, the product is again a speaker. Since no new commodity is coming into existence, the loudspeakers mounted in enclosure would not be dutiable. Vide Memorandum No.6/VC/Final/93/4849-50, dated 30-9-1...
Paam Pharmaceuticals (Delhi) Ltd. (M/S.) Vs. State and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2000
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)15; [2003]115CompCas275(Delhi)
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. This batch of petitions under Section 482 Cr. P.C. raises the follow-ing questions for determination; 2. Whether a company can be proceeded against for having committed an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short the 'Act') after the company has been declared sick under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions Act) 1985 before the expiry of the period of payment of the cheque amount? Since a common question of law is involved in the Petitions before me, they are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The factual position about which there is no dispute may be stated thus: M/s. Paam Pharmaceutical (Delhi) Limited is a Public Limited company. Five complaints under Section 138 of the Act were filed against the petitioner company before the Metropolitan Magistrate New Delhi. The complaints contained the allegations that cheques were issued on behalf of the petitioner company in favor of the respondents....
Viresh Kumar Vs. M.C.D.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ127; [2001(89)FLR123]
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Rule. 2. With the consent of parties, the matter is heard and disposed at this stage. 3. Single Bench of this Court in a Writ Petition filed against MCD by certain casual workers claiming regularisation, passed the directions directing the MCD to prepare a seniority list of all casual workers and prepare a seniority list of all casual workers and prepare the scheme for their regularisation. Pursuant thereto a list was prepared in the year 1988 and objections were invited to the said list. The name of the petitioner as per that list, is shown at S. No.1969 treating his year of treating his year of joining as 1985. This petition was filed in March 1998 claiming that the petitioner joined on 18.4.1984 and as per this, his name in the seniority list should have been at S.No.1677. It is pointed out by Ms. Madhu Tewatia, learned counsel appearing for MCD that when the list was prepared in the year 1988, petitioner should have filed the objection to said list and he cann...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. J.K. Marwah
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2000
Reported in: [2001]247ITR302(Delhi)
1. By this petition under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act. 1961 (for short 'the Act'), the Revenue seeks a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for short) to state the case and refer the following questions arising out of I. T. A. No. 7479/Delhi of 1991, in respect of the assessment year 1985-86, for our opinion : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 63,000 on the ground that once the assessment is set aside in appeal, the Assessing Officer would not be justified in making an addition which had not been made in the original assessment (2) Whether there is evidence for the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the bank drafts totalling Rs. 63,000 formed part of the assessor's business of discounting of upcountry drafts (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was j...
Rajasthan Pigments and Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-02-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT486TriDel
1. The appellants are manufacturers of excisable goods falling under Chapters 28 and 38 of the Central Excise Tariff. During August, 1995, they took Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 40,464/- on certain inputs on the strength of a photostate copy of "duplicate for transporter" copy of invoice No. 144, dated 21-8-1995 issued by the input-manufacturers.They could not produce the original "duplicate for transporter" copy of the invoice even on requisition by the Department. The Department, therefore, proposed to disallow the above credit and to impose a penalty on the appellant under Rule 173Q for the alleged contravention of Modvat Rules. The party contested the proposed action. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, by relying on Trade Notice No.39/94-C.E., dated 2-6-1994 and Trade Notice No. 74/94-C.E., dated 7-12-1994, found that the assessee had failed to observe the procedure prescribed under the Trade Notices for availing the credit, on the strength of original invoice issued und...
Utkal Asbestos Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-02-2000
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC98
1. This case has come up before this Larger Bench pursuant to an order of reference by a Two-Member Bench of the Tribunal. The issue before that Bench was as to whether the limitation of six months prescribed under Section 11A of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was applicable to a demand under Rule 57E of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') for variation of Modvat credit (by way of adjustment in the credit account or, in the event of such adjustment being impossible, by way of payment in cash) consequent to variation of the duty paid on inputs.The Bench considered the Tribunal's earlier decisions in the cases of Bakeman's Home Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise 1990 (48) E.L.T. 518 and Arvind Detergents Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise 1987 (10) ECR 44 and observed that these decisions needed to be reviewed in the light of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Government of Indi...
Rajiv Mardia Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-02-2000
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC128
1. This matter came up before us on a reference where the referring Bench had passed the following order :-In Samrat International Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise 1992 (58) E.L.T. 561, Supreme Court was dealing with a case where a classification list was filed by the manufacturer but was not approved for a long period. During the interregnum, how the payment of duty has to be dealt with, was considered by their Lordships. It was taken that the amount of duty paid was obviously provisional and subject to the result of the final approval by the authorities concerned. Their Lordship took the view that "clearance of the goods made by the appellants between the date of filing the classification lists and the date of approval by the Departmental authorities were in accordance with the procedure for provisional assessment." Consequently, it was observed that in such a situation, provisions contained in Section 11B of the Act apply, where a claim for refund of the excess amount of du...
Eddy Current Control (India) Ltd Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-02-2000
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC246
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Eddy Current Control (India) Ltd. is whether Variable Speed Motors known as dynodrives are classifiable under Tariff Item No. 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff as claimed by the appellants or under Tariff Item No. 30 as Electric Motor as confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) under the impugned order.2. Shri Sanjeev Sen, learned Advocate submitted that the appellant was promoted with the object of manufacturing what are known as Eddy Current Clutches or dynodrive in technical collaboration with a Japanese firm; that their product is used in a variety of industries essentially as variable speed drive and the purpose of impugned product is to convert a constant speed mechanical input into a variable speed mechanical output with constant torque; that accordingly the product has to be used alongwith a source of motive mechanical power or prime mover; that such prime mover could be electric motor or appliances capable of giving rotat...
Rohit Pulp and Paper Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-02-2000
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC441
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Rohit Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd. is whether they are aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act for filing an appeal before the Collector (Appeals)? 2. Shri R. Parthasarthy, learned Advocate submitted that the appellants had purchased centrifuge machine from M/s. Penwalt India Ltd. for the purpose of pollution control on payment of central excise duty @ 15.75%; that in terms of Notification No. 78/90 duty payable was only 5% as it was intended for use in pollution control plant; that the Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim filed by M/s. Penwalt India Ltd., under adjudication order dated 14-7-1992, as the condition of possessing of a certificate from a specified officer to the effect that the goods were intended for pollution control purpose was not satisfied. The certificate was produced much after clearance of the goods. The learned Advocate further submitted that M/s. Penwalt India Ltd. di...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »