Delhi Court July 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 Central Excise Vs. Bhilai Engg. Corpn.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT197TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the eligibility of the goods oil tanks, sag rods and supporting structures for the benefit of exemption Notification No. 123/81-C.E., dated 02.06.1981. The respondents, M/s. Bhilai Engg. Corpn. (Food Division), were a 100% export oriented unit and received the above named goods from M/s. Bhilai Engg. Corpn. (Project Division) on the strength of CT-3 certificates. The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Bhilai, was of the view that these goods were not covered by the description of capital goods as mentioned in Notification No. 123/81-C.E., they could not be termed as machines and tools and they were not used for manufacture and packaging of articles. In his view, they were building material and fixtures for installation of machinery. He confirmed the demand of Rs. 7,835/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000/-. On appeal, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Indore, took a view that the goods in question were essential ...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Raman Ispat (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT46TriDel
1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-original dated 20-9-1996 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise whereby the ld.Commissioner dropped the proceedings initiated under the show cause notice dated 6-12-1995.2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. ingots classifiable under sub-heading 7206.90 of the Central Excise Tariff. On 3-12-1994, the officers of the Central Excise Department visited the factory of the respondents and five rough note books were recovered from the room adjoining to the security room.The scrutiny of these rough note books reveals the manufacturing of M.S. ingots during the period from July, 1993 to September, 1994 and also shows the net consumption of inputs used in the manufacture of M.S. ingots. On comparison of the entries made in the rough note books with the statutory record, it was found that the respondents did not account for production of 3890.75 MTs. of M.S. ingots. It was, further, ...
Sarla Enterprises and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-2000
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC132
1. These three appeals are at the instance of M/s. Sarla Enterprises, Sunil Kumar and Dinesh Bhalla. When the stay petitions filed by the appellants came up for orders, appellants were directed to deposit the penalty imposed on them within three weeks from the date of the order, namely, 29.6.2000. The said deposit was a condition precedent for entertaining the appeals. Appeals came up today for ascertaining whether earlier order was complied with. Learned counsel representing the appellants submitted that Sarla Enterprises moved the Delhi High Court challenging the correctness of the order dated 29.6.2000. That writ petition was dismissed. According to the learned counsel, while dismissing the writ petition, High Court granted time till 16.8.2000 for depositing the penalty amount by Sarla Enterprises. Counsel further submitted that Shri Dinesh Bhalla did not take up the matter before the High Court. Nor did he deposit the penalty imposed on him as per the impugned order.2. Since time ...
Agricultural Produce Market Committee Vs. Pholu and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-2000
Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1155
ORDERKhan, J.1. It is all about a wall proposed to be constructed by petitioner on the road starting from G.T. Karnal Road up to New Azadpur Railway Station. Petitioner claims it to be part and parcel of Subzi Mandi and invokes powers to regulate ingress and outguess on it. Respondents say it is public pathway which runs through 'Abadideh' of their village and on which some of their houses and shops about. According to them petitioner and also the DDA had proposed to construct a wall on this sometime in 1979 also constraining some of them to file suit against them which ended up into a compromise whereby parties agreed to raise an Iron girder railing in front of shops instead of a brick wall. But ignoring all this, petitioner had renewed its attempt to reconstruct the wall in place of iron railing which would result in demolition of their shops or blocking access to these. 2. Respondents filed CS No. 583/79 to stop this along with an application for ad-interim injunction which was resi...
Ramesh Kumar Vs. Saraswati
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-2000
Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1145; 88(2000)DLT97; 2000(56)DRJ549
ORDERKhan, J.1. Appellant has contracted a second marriage sometime in 1993 and had also a son from this marriage in 1995. And yet he is contesting a decree of divorce obtained by respondent. 2. His appeal, thereforee, represents a harassment proceeding. Even otherwise it is meritless because it is based on a reasoned judgment and there is hardly any scope for interference in the findings returned on appreciation of evidence. This appeal is, accordingly dismissed on preliminary hearing. ...
Tirupati Steel Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2000
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT636TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 2-3-1994 passed by the Collector (Appeals) vide which he had reversed the order-in-original dated 8-12-1990 of the Assistant Collector who allowed the refund of the duty amount of Rs. 32,645.23 to the appellants.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be stated as under : 3. The appellants are manufacturer of bars and rods of iron and steel falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff. They purchased scrap from M/s. Simplex Castings and cleared the final products without payment of duty. Since the Bill did not contain the duty paying particulars they were directed to deposit the duty amount of Rs. 32,645.23 and they paid the same under protest which they lodged vide letter dated 29-4-1989. Since their protest was not legally valid show cause notice dated 10-1-1989 was issued to them. After getting their reply the Assistant Collector through order-in-original allowed them the refund of the duty...
Glaxo India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2000
Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT736TriDel
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 31-10-1994. In the impugned order the formulations manufactured by the appellants Salbutamol inhaler was held to be classifiable under sub-heading 3003.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 Patent or Proprietary medicaments.2. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the product in question is a medicament other than Patent and Proprietary medicaments falling under sub-heading 3003.20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. He submits that the Salbutamol Inhaler is specifically mentioned in the Pharmacopoeia in India and the appellants were manufacturing this product and on the packing of the product only 'house mark' of the appellant printed. He submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Astra Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v.Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, reported in 1995 (75) E.L.T.214 (S.C.) held that 'House mark' and 'Brand name' are two different concepts, and if...
Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT60TriDel
1. These three appeals arose out of three claims of refund made by the appellants, namely, M/s. Na-har Spinning Mills Ltd., Bhopal.Assessments were being made provisionally, when the goods were removed from the factory to the Depot. While effecting sales from the Depot appellants were giving cash discount of 1% to the dealers. Duty was paid without reckoning this 1% cash discount. So they claimed return of the excess duty paid, without noting the cash discount. In the first application? the claim was of Rs. 4,25,753/- in relation to the goods cleared during the period 1-3-94 to 31-7-95. The claim to return the amount of Rs. 4,25,753/- was made by application dated 13-12-95. In the second application the amount claimed was Rs. 69,767.19 in relation to the clearances made during November, 1995 and December 1995.Application for the return of the amount was made on 15-2-96. In the third application dated 23-4-96 claim was made for the return of Rs. 47,325.34 in relatior to clearance effec...
Swastik Fragrances Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT375TriDel
1. Vide the impugned Order-in-Original, Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad upheld the Order-in-Original passed by the Asstt.Commissioner rejecting the claim of the appellants for deduction of certain amounts from the assessable value. Aggrieved, this Appeal has been filed.2. Brief facts are : Appellants are manufacturers of 'Pan Masala' falling under Chapter sub-heading 2106.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. During the relevant period their clearances were assessed on provisional basis under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 pending verification and submission of proof of actual expenses incurred in respect of deductions claimed on account of freight, Luxury Tax, Insurance, Cash discount, Turn over discount, Regional discount, Central Sales Tax, etc. The appellants by their letter dated 5-4-1997 informed Jurisdictional Range Superintendent that excisable goods manufactured by them are cleared after payment of duty to their duty-paid godown and from there the excisable goods ...
Shree Durga Agro Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT422TriDel
1. The order under challenge in the present appeal is the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise at the end of de novo proceedings pursuant to the Tribunal's remand order dated 17-9-1999 passed in appeal No. E/2632/98-NB. As per the remand order, the earlier order passed by the Commissioner on 26-3-1998 determining the annual capacity of production of the appellants at 1040.766 MTs w.e.f. 27-11-1997 was set aside and the Commissioner was directed to take de novo decision in the matter after hearing the party. The adjudicating authority, accordingly, passed order dated 11-2-2000 after hearing the party. It is this order, which is presently under challenge.2. Carefully examined the impugned order and connected records. Heard both sides. Reiterating the grounds of the present appeal, ld. Advocate Shri K.K. Anand for the appellants has formulated three issues as having arisen in the present appeal, and they are as follows : (i) The appellants who were engaged in the manufactur...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »