Delhi Court July 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 18 of about 277 results (0.020 seconds)Collector of Central Excise Vs. Elektromag Methods
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT396TriDel
1. In these four appeals 3 preferred by Revenue and one filed by M/s.Elektromag Methods - arising out of three Orders-in-Appeal passed by the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, the issue involved is the classification of various products under the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. Accordingly, all these appeals are being disposed of by one Common Order.2. We heard Shri M.P. Singh, learned DR, and Shri Gopal Prasad, learned Advocate. Their submissions on the question of classification of each product involved and our findings are as under : 3.1 M/s. Elektromag methods have classified Cable drag chain under Heading 84.66 of CETA whereas the Assistant Collector classified the same under Heading No. 73.15 of the Tariff. The Collector (Appeals) under Order dt. 31-1-1992 had classified the same under Heading 84.66 since they were parts suitable for use solely or principally with the machines of Heading Nos. 84.56 to 84.65 holding that these chains were used in computerise...
Tag this Judgment!Ashish Gupta Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT372TriDel
1. The Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh vide his Order-in-Original dated 26-2-1999 inter alia has imposed a penalty of Rs. 1.5 lacs on the appellant Shri Ashish Gupta. The facts in brief are that one M/s. A.B. Tools Ltd., Parwanoo were found to be availing the Modvat credit on the gate passes endorsed in their favour fraudulantly inasmuch as no goods were received by them under such endorsed gate passes. On verification, the gate passes were found to be fictitious and the firms who purported to have issued the gate passes were also found to be non-existent. During the investigations Shri Vijay Sachdeva, authorised representative of M/s. A.B. Tools, Branch Office at Mandi Gobindgarh in his statement dated 18-12-1990 stated that such fake firms were being managed by Shri Ashish Gupta - the appellant herein, along with some other persons. Shri Ashish Gupta in his statements dated 24-1-1991, 25-1-1991 and 29-1-1991, admitted to have supplied the fictitious gate passes...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Jammu Woodplast
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT777TriDel
1. The respondents had taken modvat credit of Rs. 21,088/- on the invoices issued in their name but C/o Modern Cotton Industry, H-17, Udyog Nagar, Peeragarhi, Rohtak Road, Delhi. They were put on notice by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Jammu calling upon them to show cause why the aforesaid Modvat credit availed on the strength of impugned invoices should not be denied to them as the factory of the party was at Jammu and the address in the invoices was that of Delhi.The party explained that in the past the consignments were sent and consigned direct to their factory at Samba/Jammu but during the period January-May, 1996, they were unable to get direct truck for transporting the material to Jammu. Therefore, the consignors had sent the goods to Delhi C/o Modern Cottage Industry, Delhi where from the same could be re-booked to them at Samba/Jammu. They further explained that the staff of the consignor misunderstood their instructions and by mistake in the column meant fo...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Berry Anand Lighting (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT783TriDel
1. The respondents are the manufacturers of Vacuum and Gas filled bulbs. They cleared about 98% of their total production in branded goods in the name of Mysore, ECE, Laxman Sylvania etc. paying normal rate of duty. They also manufactured bulbs in their own name and availed benefit of SSI Notification No. 9/98, dated 26-6-1998 on consessional rate of duty. They cleared aluminuim scrap generated during the course of manufacture of branded goods, during the month of March, 1998 after availing the benefit of Notification No. 38/97-C.E., dated 27-6-1997 which was sought to be denied on the ground that the scrap bore the brand name/trade name of another person and was hence not eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 38/97. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed a demand of Rs. 1034/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1500/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of Adjudicating Authority holding that scrap cleared by the respondents does not bear a brand name or trade name of anothe...
Tag this Judgment!Anchor Engineering Works Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT671TriDel
1. The captioned appeal is against the Order-in-Appeal No.68/CE/CHD/99, dated 15-01-1999 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).The appellants had received the order on 27-1-1999. Under a bona fide belief that a remedy against the said order was a revision application to the Central Government, the appellants filed such an application to the Government. Government found that they had no jurisdiction to entertain such an application in the matter and therefore passed Order No. 73/99, dated 27-8-1999 advising the party to file appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeal's) before the CEGAT.Subsequently, the appellants filed the present appeal before the Tribunal on 18-11-1999. There is a delay on over six months in the filing of the appeal. The present application (E/COD/320/99) is for condonation of this delay. The applicants have requested in writing for allowing the COD application and, in support thereof, they have brought on record a copy of Government's Order No. 73/99, dat...
Tag this Judgment!Jaspal Singh Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 86(2000)DLT633; 2000(54)DRJ817; 2000LC259(Delhi); 2002(143)ELT57(Del)
ORDERArijit Pasayat, CJ. 1. Order of confiscation passed by Additional Commissioner of Customs, IGI Airport, New Delhi, directing absolute confiscation of gold bars, collectively weighing 466.400 gms., Along with black colour adhesive tape used to wrap the seized gold which was confirmed in appeal and revision under the provisions of Customs Act 1962 (in short the 'Act'), is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. 2. Factual aspects as noticed by the Customs Authorities and the Revisional Authority, in brief are as follows: 3. Petitioner a holder of Indian Passport coming from Hong Kong reported at red Channel and declared 200 mtrs. of textile and 50 pieces of wrist watches but on detailed examination 470 metrs of textile, 330 watches collectively valued at Rs. 64,200/- were found. At the exit gate petitioner was intercepted by a plain clothes Customs Officer. His personal search was conducted and four bars of gold weighing collectively 466.400 gms were recovered from hi...
Tag this Judgment!Dental Council of India Vs. Integrated Education Development Organisat ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ283
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J. 1. Admit. 2. The first respondent filed a writ petition seeking direction to the Dental Council of India and the Central Government to grant Statutory permission to the first respondent to start a new Dental College and Hospital at Ghaziabad under the name of Bhagwan Mahavir Dental College and Hospital. The learned Single Judge before whom the matter came up directed the appellant, Dental Council of India, to allow the first respondent to admit sixty students for the academic year 2000 and grant permission to start the college within a period of six weeks. The Dental Council of India aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge has filed the instant letters patent appeal. 3. There is no dispute that after the scheme by the first respondent to open a new dental college was referred to the Dental Council of India, inspectors were deputed by it to inspect the college and pursuant thereto a report was submitted by the Inspectors. As per the report, the college...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-ii and anr. Vs. Vijay Fertilizers P. ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2000)162CTR(Del)264; [2000]246ITR541(Delhi)
ORDERArijit Pasayat C.J.1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) is in respect of order dated 7th June, 1999 passed by the Incometax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-D (for short the Tribunal) in ITA No. 5264/Del./91 for the assessment year 1989-90. 2. Dispute relates to the question whether subsidies shown as receivable for the months of February and March, 1989 were correctly reflected. Assessing Officer during the course of assessment found that the assessed had shown subsidy receipts at Rs. 95,14,044/- which was inclusive of Rs. 8,34,765/-, receivable for the months of February and March, 1989. He noticed that subsequent to the closure of the accounting period ending on 31st March, 1989, on 5th April, 1989, assessed had submitted a supplementary bill for an amount of Rs. 3,43,765/- on account of subsidy for the month of February, 1989 and on 7th April, 1989 another bill for Rs. 4,11,705/- for the month of March, 1989. Assessing Officer conclu...
Tag this Judgment!Roshan Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)693
ORDERCrl. Rev. 180/2000 & Crl. 1299/20001. Heard learned counsel for both the parties, it is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Court which has framed the charge has no jurisdiction to do so since the marriage was solemnised in Bihar and the girl has her marital home in Gorakpur. He however, submits that at the time when the complaint was filed the father of the girl was residing in Delhi and so the girl was also residing in Delhi. He further submits that merely because the girl residing in Delhi it does not given the Delhi Court, jurisdiction to try the case. Learned counsel for the State submits that offences u/Ss. 406 and 498A are continuous offences, and thereforee, the Delhi Court will have jurisdiction since the complainant before lodging a complaint was a resident of Delhi and at that time she had not received her dowry items back. I am in agreement with learned counsel for the State and having gone through the judgment of M.M. Mahila Court, Shahdara, Delhi. I...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Motor and General Finance Lt ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2000]246ITR471(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. Pursuant to the directions given by this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), in ITCs Nos. 31 of 1973 and 19 of 1974, the following questions have been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-E (in short 'the Tribunal') :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theTribunal was correct in upholding the order of the Appellate AssistantCommissioner cancelling the order of the Income-tax Officer passed underSection 104 of the Income-tax Act ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that all the persons counted as one by the Income-tax Officer are not relatives of one another in terms of Section 2(41) and, thereforee, such persons cannot be grouped as one person under Clause (ii) of Explanationn 1 to Section 2(18) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the...
Tag this Judgment!