Delhi Court July 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 20 of about 277 results (0.022 seconds)D.C.M. Textiles Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT424TriDel
1. The dispute raised in this appeal relates to deduction of commission paid to the dealers for purposes of computing the assessable value of cotton yarn manufactured by the appellants. The Department maintains that the deducation in respect of commission paid to the dealers by the appellants is not permissible deduction as the dealers appointed by the appellants were only selling agents and not independent dealers who had bought the yarn for further sale.2. We have heard ld. Consultant Shri R.K. Krishnan for the appellants and Shri P.K. Jain, ld. JDR for the respondent Commissioner.3. Ld. Consultant submitted that the appellants who were engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn falling under Chapter 52 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 were effecting sale of their product through their sales depots as well as from their premises and through appointed dealers. Since the price of the cotton yarn fluctuated frequently even in the course of a single day, the sale pr...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Azo Dye Chem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT201TriDel
1. This application for condonation of delay in filing appeals E/2520 to 2538/99-C is before this larger Bench on a reference made as per order dated 11-5-2000.2. Circumstances under which this application happened to be filed are as follows.3. Show cause notices dated 4-11-1990 were issued against M/s. Highland Dye Works and twenty others proposing action for violation of various provisions contained in the Central Excise Act, 1944. Noticees objected to the proposed action. After considering their objections, Collector of Central Excise, Mumbai-III dropped the proceedings by order No.18/92, dated 31-3-1992. In exercise of the powers conferred on the Central Board of Excise and Customs under Section 35E(1) of the Act, the Board gave direction to the Collector of Central Excise, Mumbai-III, to apply to this Tribunal for correct determination of the points found by the Board in its order No. 65-R/93, dated 30-3-1993. In compliance with the order passed by the Board, appeal E/2131/93-C w...
Tag this Judgment!Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)78ITD16(Delhi)
1. This appeal, preferred by the assessee, is directed against CWT (Appeals) order dated 31-12-1996 relating to the assessment year 1993-94, whereby valuation of the guest house owned by the assessee in Roopam Building, 18 Worli Estate Scheme No. 32, Abdul Gaffar Road, Worli, Bombay, assessed by the Assessing Officer ('AO' in short) at Rs. 2,60,73,000 has been confirmed.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, are that assessee, a widely held public limited company, filed its return of wealth for assessment year 1993-94 on 30-12-1993 declaring net wealth of Rs. 1,31,76,000 against which the assessment had been completed by the Assessing Officer under section 16(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') at net wealth of Rs. 3,90,93,800. The difference between the net wealth returned by the assessee and as assessed by the Assessing Officer represented primarily because of difference in valuation of property situated in residential flat of Roopam Building, 18 Worl...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Sawhney Brothers Vs. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corpn. Ltd. a ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 86(2000)DLT663
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. The present application has been filed by the Plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 for the amendment of the plaint. It has been averred and argued that the entire transaction out of which the suit arises was in US dollars and that consequent upon the decline of the Indian Rupee against the US dollar 'it is necessary to amend the plaint to include the value of amounts to be recovered in US dollars'. It is further submitted that the amendment is necessary because of the time being taken by this Court for the trial of the suit and that no prejudice would be caused to the Defendant by permit-ting the proposed amendment. 2. The application has been vehemently opposed by Mr. V.P. Singh, learned Senior counsel for Defendant No. 1. Apart from various objections including that the relief which is now sought to be introduced by way of amendment is palpably beyond the period prescribed under the Limitation Act, he has submitted that the entire controversy has been laid to re...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Wire Rope Manufacturing Co. Vs. Uoi (Dgsandd)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(3)ARBLR152(Delhi); 86(2000)DLT777; 2000(54)DRJ801
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. The facts relevant for the disposal of the applications are that on 22.7.1980 a contract was placed on the Petitioner by the Respondents for the supply of two commodities/stores. One was duly supplied. But in respect of the other, that is Tube Copper Nickel Iron Alloy, for the quantity of 3627 kgs, supply was not effected. It is not in dispute that five extensions were granted for effecting supply and that thereafter the Tender was cancelled. In respect of the supply of this commodity a Limited Enquiry Tender was floated. The Petitioner was given notice thereof, and it had again submitted its offer, which was of the same value as previously given, that is at Rs. 98.86 per kg. Two other offers were received for a sum of Rs. 160/- per kg from M/s. Shanti Lal Shah & Co. and Rs. 225/- per kg from M/s. Super Trade Enterprises. It was an essential stipulation of the Limited Enquiry Tender undertaken on Risk Purchase basis that the tenderer should furnish a security,...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan Breweries Ltd. Vs. the Stroh Brewery Company
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2000Delhi450; 2000(3)ARBLR509(Delhi); 2000(55)DRJ68
ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. This appeal is against the order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court on 23.3.1999 dismissing the application (IA.1291/99) filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') seeking ad interim temporary injunction staying the two notices of termination dated 19.1.1999 issued by the respondent terminating the Technical Know-how Agreement as well as Technical Assistance Agreement, both dated 22.7.1994 executed between the appellant and the respond ent and also restraining the respondent from executing any fresh contract of similar nature with any third party. 2. Learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant's application on the ground that injunction prayed for was statutorily prohibited on conjoint reading of Section 41 and Section 14(i)(c) of the Specific Relief Act since the contracts in question were determinable in nature. 3. The appellant's case is that the contracts in question are not determi...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Lohotwo Tools (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT362TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the classification of the product which the respondents, M/s. Lohotwo Tools (P) Ltd. had described as screw driver special with neon bulb, and had sought classification under sub-heading No. 8205.00 of the Central Excise Tariff as hand tools. The Department was of the view that the said goods were classifiable under sub-heading No. 8543.00 of the said Tariff as electrical apparatus having individual functions. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune took a view that the goods in question were electric line tester in the form of screw driver, were a hand tool and were correctly classifiable under sub-heading No.8205.00 of the Tariff and that it could not be called electrical machine or appliance for classification under Heading No. 85.43, sub-heading No. 8543.00 of the Tariff. In the grounds of appeal, the Revenue had pleaded that the goods in question were line tester, an electrically operated apparatus. It was used...
Tag this Judgment!Suraj Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT353TriDel
1. This order will dispose of two appeals, namely E/1752/94-B and E/1696/94-B filed by the appellants against common order in original dated 31-3-1994 issued on 26-5-1994 passed by the Collector of Central Excise vide which he had denied the benefit of the Notification No.208/83-C.E., dated 1-8-1983 to them and directed the Assistant Collector to requantify the duty demand.2. The facts giving rise to these appeals may briefly be stated as under.3. The appellants are manufacturer of iron and steel products i.e. C.T.Bars, Round Bars and flat bars exceeding 5mm. in thickness and falling under Chapter Heading 72.09 of the CETA. They purchased ship breaking scrap of iron and steel as raw material (inputs) falling under Chapter Heading 72.15 of the CETA for their final products. They could not claim exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 208/83-C.E.as ship breaking scrap as input was not mentioned at S. No. 2 in column 2 of the Table annexed thereto but they wrongly availed t...
Tag this Judgment!T.D.T. Copper Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT265TriDel
1. The appellants, in the year 1994, entered into an agreement with M/s. Southwire Company, USA for purchase of machinery and equipments (hereinafter referred to as the capital goods) for manufacture of electrolytic copper rods and, accordingly, imported the capital goods in 1995. They had already entered into a Technical Assistance Agreement on 18-9-1993 with M/s. Taihan Electric Wire Co. Ltd., Korea. The various items of the capital goods were covered by invoices Nos. 1599-A and 1599-B issued by the foreign suppliers, An amount of US $ 15 lakhs was charged on the appellants by M/s. Southwire towards "engineering and service charges" as per invoice No. 1599-C. The imported capital goods were intended for use for a process of manufacture termed "SCR-2000 copper system". As per the contract between the appellants and M/s. Southwire Company, the latter would provide engineering services (Item-P under agreement dated 11-1-1994), operational training in USA (Item-Q), user licence (Item-R)...
Tag this Judgment!Kishan Chand Steel Re-rolling Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT551TriDel
1. M/s. Kishan Chand Steel Re-Rolling Mills have the present appeal against letter dated 1-9-1999 signed by the Superintendent Central Excise informing that their request dated 31-3-1999, regarding discharge of duty liability on hot re-rolling products on the basis of actual production has been examined at the Hqrs. Office Chandigarh and since the Appellants have opted to discharge duty liability under Rule 96ZP(3) on re-rolling mills capacity installed in their factory, the benefit under sub Section (4) of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act shall not be admissible.2. Shri Sudhir Malhotra, ld. Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture M.S. Rounds and Bars which were brought under Compounded Levy Scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act; that the Commissioner Chandigarh under Letter dated 17-11-1997 determined the annual capacity of production of their unit as 2077.440 MT under Hot Re-Rolling Steels Mills (Annual Capacity Determination) Rules, 1977; that they had s...
Tag this Judgment!