Delhi Court July 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 15 of about 277 results (0.023 seconds)Heemanshu Traders Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT555TriDel
1. The facts of the case are that on 07.04.1988, the Central Excise officers of Valsad Division intercepted a truck bearing registration No. GRW-2645 on Umbergaon-Sanjan Road and the driver of the truck produced challan No. 862, dated 07.04.1988 for MS scrap issued by M/s.Heemanshu Auto Ltd., Umbergaon. The driver could not produce the Central Excise Gate pass. The Superintendent of Central Excise recorded the statement of the Excise clerk of M/s. Heemanshu Traders in which he stated that he had received oral instructions from Shri Girishbhai Shah to prepare challan for despatch of 12,285 kgs of MS scrap from M/s.Heemanshu Traders and to prepare the challan in the name of M/s.Heemanshu Auto Ltd. The truck was seized under the reasonable belief that it was liable to confiscation. Statutory records of M/s. Heemanshu Traders were examined and they revealed that duty determined under Excise gate pass for the period 4th April 1988 to 7th April, 1988 had not been debited. Certain goods such...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. J.M.P. Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT50TriDel
1. The Revenue has filed the present appeal against the order-in-Appeal No. 305/CE/CHD/2000, dated 7-2-2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh setting aside the demand confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner holding that the central excise duty is required to be paid only at one stage and as the duty had been paid subseuently by the second unit of the Respondents, no duty is chargeable.2. Shri M.P. Singh, learned D.R., submitted that the Respondents M/s.J.M.P. Industries manufacture Iron Castings falling under sub-heading 7325.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that during the month of March 1994 they cleared castings valued at Rs. 7,84,190/- at nil rate of duty that the Assistant Commissioner under adjudicating order No. 43/98 confirmed the demand of central excise duty amounting to Rs. 78,419/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 54,000/- holding that the respondents were required to clear the castings only after payment of appropriate central excise duty; t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Gurind India (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT117TriDel
1. The facts in brief in this appeal are that M/s. Gurind India (P) Ltd., Noida - the respondants herein, manufacture glass products falling under SH No. 70. Their factory premises were visited by the Central Excise officers on 18-10-93. On stock verification of the finished goods, the following discrepancies were noticed: (i) 57.91 Sqmt. of (ascertained) quantity of glass panel equivalent to 400.108 Sqmt. per mm thikness of glass valued at Rs. 29,415/-was found in excess of the recorded balance in their RG 1 Register. (ii) 412.62 Sqmt. of (ascertained) quantity of glass panel involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 21,432.35 was found short.2. The aforestated excess quantity of glass panel was seized. The party was issued show cause notice and after considering the reply of the party, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Division I, Noida ordered for the confiscation of excess quantity of glass panel. He, however, allowed the redemption of the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 8...
Tag this Judgment!Koolex Corporation Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT324TriDel
1. The appellants herein are a small-scale industry. They exported 5 pallets/containers of Dollies to Nepal. The benefit of Notifiction 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 was sought to be denied on the ground that goods cleared to Nepal were not goods cleared for home consumption.Proceedings were initiated for demanding duty on such clearance and Assistant Collector confirmed a duty of Rs. 38,325/- against the appellants. The lower Appellate authority upheld the order of the Assistant Collector; hence this appeal.2. We have heard Shri Jitender Singh, learned Advocate, and Shri R.K.Sharma, learned DR. The issue involved in this case is as to whether duty is to be paid on clearances made for export of goods to Nepal, or in other words, whether clearance to Nepal is clearance for home consumption. This issue stands covered against the appellants by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bishwanath Paper Mills Pvt.Ltd. reported in 1993 (64) E.L.T. 452 (T); Sandeep Industries [1996 (86) E.L....
Tag this Judgment!Advance Forgings Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT33TriDel
1. These are two appeals filed by (1) M/s. Advance Forgings (P) Ltd.; and (2) Jai Forgings and Stampings (P) Ltd., being aggrieved with the common order-in-appeal dated 23-3-1994 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi. Both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Shri R. Santhanam, Advocate, and Shri R.C. Gupta, Advocate, submitted that the matter in both these appeals relates to the classification which the appellants had described as pieces roughly shaped by forging. They had sought classification under Heading No.72.08 of the Central Excise Tariff, while the Revenue had sought to classify them as machinery parts in different Chapters 84, 85, 86 or 87 as the case may be. It was their submission that the products in dispute were similar to the products which were before the Tribunal in the group of appeals disposed of by the common Final Order No. E/232 to 242/93-B1. It is submitted that M/s. Jay Forgings and Stampings (P)...
Tag this Judgment!Kamla Castings Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC130
1. These are two appeals filed by (1) M/s. Kamla Castings; and (2) M/s.Pyare Lal Rameshwar Prashad, being aggrieved with the common order-in-appeal dated 1-9-1994 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad. Both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had upheld the order passed by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise dated 22-4-1994 and had confirmed the demands of Rs. 44,853.70 and Rs. 80,144.07 against the two appellants, as above. No penalty was imposed. The matter relates to the demand of duty which the appellants have claimed that they are not consistent with the approved classification lists under Notification No. 54/93-C.E., dated 1-3-1994. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of pump parts and had availed exemption during the period March 1993 to August 1993 under Notification No.54/93. It was noticed that the said notification was not applicable to the product ...
Tag this Judgment!R.K. Texcon (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT485TriDel
1. M/s. R.K. Texcon (India) Ltd. and 12 others feeling aggrieved with the common Order-in-Original dated 11.06.99 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II had filed separate appeals with the Tribunal, which were received in the Registry on 10.09.99. Alongwith the appeals, they also filed 13 separate stay applications for waiving the requirement of pre-deposit of duty and penalty amounts adjudged against them, till the disposal of their appeals.2. The stay applications came-up for hearing on 14-10-1999 when on request made by the applicants the same were adjourned to 11-11-1999.On 11-11-1999, when the matter was called, no one appeared for the applicants. The Bench noted that the matter had come-up earlier on 14-10-1999 when on request made by the applicants in the presence of one Shri Ved Prakash, the matter was adjourned for 11-11-99. As there was no reason for any adjournment, the matter was proceeded with and was dealt with on merits after hearing the Departmental Re...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv NaraIn Karmendra NaraIn Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)74ITD145(Delhi)
1. Under s. 254(3) of the IT Act, 1961, Special Bench, was constituted to consider the following questions : "(a) Whether, a firm is assessable to tax in respect of capital gains on the distribution of assets between the partners on the dissolution of the firm in view of s. 45(4) without there being a corresponding amendment in the definition of transfer given in s. 2(47) of IT Act, 1961 ?" "(b) Whether for computing the income under the head 'Capital gains' under s. 45(4), the fair market value of the assets as may be estimated by the AO has to be treated as the full value of consideration received or accrued or the capital gains should be computed on the basis of book value on which the assets were transferred in favour of the partners upon dissolution of the firm ?" "(c) Whether, for computing the short term capital gains on depreciable assets under s. 50 of IT Act, 1961, upon such dissolution of the firm, the fair market value of the assets should be treated as full consideration ...
Tag this Judgment!income Tax Officer Vs. Hatsu Takayanagi and ors.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)74ITD143(Delhi)
1. Under s. 254(3) of the IT Act, 1961, Special Bench was constituted to consider the following question : "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in accordance with the provisions of law the living allowance was exempt under s. 10(14) of the IT Act, 1961 ?" 2. The learned counsel for the assessees, Shri Ajay Vohra submitted that to resolve the dispute assessee resorted to the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme. Certified copy of form of certificate for full and final settlement of tax arrears under s. 90(2) r/w s. 91 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 1998, in respect of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 on Form No.3 was submitted in respect of all the assessees.3. Shri Ajay Vohra stated that in view of the settlement of the cases under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, the appeals filed by the assessees do not survive for consideration.4. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative on the point.Taking into consideration the entire conspectus of the case in the light of th...
Tag this Judgment!Dharam Chand Gambhir Vs. Milan Confectionary and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ561
C.K. Mahajan, J.1. The plaintiff has claimed to be proprietor of the trade mark 'GP' logo/label since 1988 for their goods, i.e. confectionery (non-medicated), sweetmeats and chewing gum balls. The application of the plaintiff for registration of the trade mark 'GP' is pending in the office of Trade Marks Registry, New Delhi since April, 1996. thereforee, the plaintiff claims to be the copyright holder of the trade mark GP, logo or label on account of its long, continuous, extensive and exclusive user. It has built up a valuable trade under the said trade mark and spent a sizable amount on the publicity of the sale trade mark which has become distinctive in the trade. The goods of the plaintiff are being recognised by the public by the trade mark 'GP'.2. The defendant is also a manufacturer of confectionery goods, sweetmeats and chewing gum bails under the trade mark 'CP' which is identical with or deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff in its getup, makeup and manner of writing....
Tag this Judgment!