Delhi Court June 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.
Manjit Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-2000
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)837; 2000CriLJ2887; 86(2000)DLT479; 2000(54)DRJ388; 2000(72)ECC69
ORDERUsha Mehra, J.1. Manjit Singh, petitioner has challenged his detention order dated 28th February,1990 passed by Shri Mahendra Prasad, Joint Secretary to the Government of India under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (as amended), 1974 (hereinafter called COFEPOSA). 2. Petitioner has assailed the impugned order of detention passed on 28th February,1990, primarily on three counts namely: (1) That the detention order passed on 28th February, 1990 remained unexecuted for a period of more than 10 years, thus the basis of preventive detention has been defeated by not serving the order of detention for such a long time; (2) The Foreign Exchange Regulatory Authorities (in short FERA) failed to file the challan till date which shows that there was no material available involving the petitioner; and finally (3) Whether the grounds which were available as on 28th February,1990, are still available to the Government of India when ...
Commissioner of Cus. Vs. Jaya S. Shetty and Noor Mohd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT337TriDel
1. These are two appeals filed by the Revenue against the common impugned order dated 21-6-1999 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chandigarh.2. Facts of the case in brief are that appellant Shri Noor Mohd. during gulf war came to India from Kuwait on 30-12-1990. He imported one car Model No. Toyota Clessida and crossed to India via Land Customs Station Attari Road (LCS). The car was exempt from Customs duty as per Notification No. 258/90-Cus., dated 23-10-1990 subject to fulfilment of conditions laid down therein. He executed a bond at LCS. The condition of the bond was that he will produce the Customs clearance permit for legal import of the car within two weeks. According to the department the appellant could not produce Customs clearance permit (CCP). On a specific information special investigation and intelligence branch of Customs Ballard Estate, Bombay seized the car from the premises of appellant No. 2, on a reasonable belief that the appellant No. 1 had not comp...
Assotex Engineering Indus. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner. C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2000
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT742TriDel
1. In this appeal M/s. Assotex Engineering Industries Ltd. have challenged the demand of Central Excise duty for the six months period prior to the date of issuance of show cause notice.2. Shri M.S. Jagesha, learned Advocate submitted that the appellant M/s. Assotex Engineering Industries Ltd. are manufacturing certain products which were classified by them under heading 7308.90 and 7413.90 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Their classification list was approved and subsequently a show cause notice was issued for classifying the product under Heading 84.83 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and demanding differential duty. He placed the reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Baroda v. Cotspun Limited, reported in 1999 (113) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.) in which it was held that the demand for differential duty can be made only from the date of issuance of show cause notice.3. Shri Ashok Kumar, learne...
Commr. of C. Ex. and Customs Vs. Tarun Castings (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT377TriDel
1. This reference application is filed by the Collector of Central Excise with regard to the final order No.A/688 & S/268/98-NB (SM), dated 12-6-1998 of the Tribunal. The issue involved in the appeal was whether transformers were eligible to modvat credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules as 'capital goods' prior to 16-3-1995. It was decided by the Tribunal that transformers were so eligible even prior to 16-3-1995.2. It has been contended in the reference application that prior to 16-3-1995, transformers were not eligible for modvat credit under Rule 57Q, Transformers were included as eligible 'capital goods' vide notification No. 11/95-C.E.(NT), dated 16-3-1995 and that this amendment did not have retrospective effect. Therefore, duty paid on transformers could not be allowed as modvat credit on capital goods prior to 16-3-1995. It has also been submitted that prior to 16-3-1995 in terms of Rule 57Q, only items used for producing processing or bringing about any change ...
Garson Metal Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT376TriDel
1. In this appeal the appellants have prayed for decision on merits by making written submissions. We have heard Shri Satnam Singh, SDR.2. In this appeal filed by the appellants the issue is as to whether the cold rolling and trimming undertaken by them on duty paid hot rolled un-trimmed sheets received by them from the job workers amounted to manufacture giving rise to liability to the payment of duty or not already stands decided in their favour in their own earlier case by the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 327-331/2000-B dated 29-2-2000 by following the ratio of the law laid down by the Apex Court in CCE v.Steel Strips Ltd. 3. In that case also the Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh who took the view that the process of cold rolling and trimming undertaken by the present appellants who were respondents in that appeal, did not amount to manufacture and that the appeal of the Revenue was rejected by the Trib...
Bajaj Tempo Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT472TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Bajaj Tempo Ltd., against the Order-in-Appeal No. P/83/92 dated 30-3-1992 passed by the Collector (Appeals) Pune, is whether the three wheeler motor vehicles and chassis therefor manufactured by them and described as "Tempo, three wheeler autorickshaw classifiable under Subheadings 8703.00 and 8706.30 respectively of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 162/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 or the product is not an autorickshaw and consequently not eligible for benefit of the said Notification, as held by the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned Order.2. Briefly stated the facts are that M/s. Bajaj Tempo Ltd., manufacture, inter alia, Tempo three wheeler Autorickshaw and chasis therefor, which were classified by them under Sub-headings 8703.00 and 8706.30 respectively and they claimed concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 162/86, dated 1-3-1986; that the classification lists e...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›