Delhi Court August 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.
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Rapid Controls P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT586TriDel
1. These are two applications praying for waiver of following amount of Central Excise Duty confirmed and penalties imposed by the Commissioner of Central Excise under the impugned Order:(1) M/s. Rapid Controls P. Ltd. - Rs. 1,07,39,940.40/- Duty Rs. 1,07,39,940.00/- Penalty(2) Shri Santokh Singh, - Rs. 2,00,000.00/- Penalty Managing Director 2. Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, ld. Advocate, submitted that the applicants manufacture Industrial Control Valves such as Solenoid Valves, Ball Valve etc; that the valves manufactured by them find applications in water lines in industrial installation; that the applicants classified the impugned products under sub-heading 8481.80 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act whereas the Commissioner has classified them as Expansion Valves and Solenoid Valves for refrigerating and Air-Conditioning appliances and machinery under sub-heading 8481.10, holding that the valves manufactured by the applicants are various types of Pressure Reducing Valves a...
Metal Manufacturing Co. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT186TriDel
1. In these three appeals filed by M/s. Metal Manufacturing Company, the issue involved is whether MS elevator buckets manufactured by them is classifiable under Heading 84.37 as claimed by them or under Heading 84.31 as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order.2. Shri Shailesh P. Sheth, learned Advocate, mentioned that as far as the issue regarding classification is concerned, it stands decided by the Tribunal in the case of Simplex Engineering and Foundry Works Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in 2000 (36) RLT 23 and Walchand Nagar Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in 1998 (97) E.L.T. 268 and Buckau Wolf (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in 1997 (96) E.L.T. 172. He further mentioned that in view of these decisions, he is not pressing for the classification of the impugned products under Heading 84.37. He, however, submitted that as the impugned goods were cleared without payment of duty availing exemption ...
Ashok Singh Minhas Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT826TriDel
1. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal whereby his car registration No. DNC-6031, was confiscated under Section 115 of the Customs Act and a personal penalty of Rs. one lakh was imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act.2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the case of the revenue is that the appellant in his car smuggled 49 kgs.of heroin. He submits that so called heroin was recovered by the police and samples were taken and as per the report of Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Jammu, these samples were of DDT. He submits that on the basis of this report, the Session Judge, Jammu vide order dated 11-5-96 discharged the appellant from the criminal case under Section 21 of the NDPS Act. He submits that the whole basis of the revenue case is that 49 kgs. of heroin was smuggled by the appellant in his car, whereas so called heroin, tested by the Chemical Examiner, was proved to be DDT. He submits that there is no evidence against t...
Autopal Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2000
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC397
1. These are two appeals - one filed by M/s. Autopal Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s. Auto-pal'), and the other filed by the Revenue being aggrieved with the same Order-in-Appeal dated 21-11-1994 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. They were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The matter relates to the duty liability in respect of Tungsten Halogen Lamp. M/s. Autopal wanted them to be treated as Gas Filled Bulbs while according to the Revenue, they were separately classifiable as other than Gas Filled Bulbs. Under show cause notice dated 24.04.1994, it was alleged that M/s. Autopal have incorrectly availed of the benefit of exemption under Sl. No. 4 and 5 of the Table annexed to Notification No. 67/83-C.E., dated 01.03.1983 in respect of the Tungsten Halogen Lamps/Bulbs claiming them to be Gas Filled Bulbs. It was proposed in the show cause notice that the goods in question were covered by Sl. No. 10 of the Table...
Amar Dye Chem Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2000
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC847
1. The appeal was filed by M/s. Amar Dye Chem Ltd. when that appeal was taken up by the West Regional Bench at Mumbai, it was felt that issue raised in the appeal has to be decided by a Larger Bench. Accordingly, it was transferred here. The reference made by the West Regional Bench came up before a Bench of three Members on 12-6-2000. That Bench issued notice to the Official Liquidator about the posting of the case to today, because by that time the appellant Company was being wound up as per orders of the High Court of Mumbay. The three Member Bench also directed that the case should be posted before a Larger Bench of five Members because of the controversy involved in the case.2. Notice to official liquidator, High Court Mumbay was sent from this Tribunal on 20-6-2000. In response to that notice liquidator has not cared to enter appearance. The Rule 22 of CEGAT Rules 1982 inter alia states that - in any proceedings the appellant or applicant or a respondent dies or is adjudicated a...
Bharat Seats Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT149TriDel
1. Arguing on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 39,53,730/- confirmed as Additional Excise duty on "man-made fabrics laminated" manufactured by M/s. Sarvpriya Industries Ltd. as job work for the appellants (who are manufacturers of automobile seats) and penalty of equal amount imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, the learned Senior Counsel Shri M. Chandrashekhran submits that the liability to pay Additional Excise duty levied under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 is upon the manufacturers of the man-made fabrics viz. M/s. Sarvpriya Industries and that the undertaking given by the appellants herein in terms of Notification No. 214/86-C.E., dated 25.03.1986 which has been re-lied upon by the Commissioner to confirm the liability against the appellants is in respect of payment of Basic Excise duty only and does not extend to responsibility to discharge liability of payment of Additional Excise duty. He therefore, pra...
Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2000
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC644
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filled by M/s Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. is whether the refund claimed by them is hit by the doctrine of unjust enrichment as provided in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.2. Shri A.S. Sunder Rajan, Ld. Advocate, mentioned that the Appellants manufacture toilet soaps namely "Oasis' and 'Kalpa' falling under Tariff Item 15(1) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff as household and laundry soaps; that the Assistant Collector modified the classification and approved it under Tariff Item 15(2) of the Tariff and were liable to higher rate of duty; that Collector (Appeals), however, reversed the order and consequent to that a refund of Rs. 47,63,226.51 p. was sanctioned to them; that the Tribunal, on appeal filed by the Revenue, restored the Assistant Collector's Order by classifying the soaps under Tariff Item 15(2) as reported in 1984 (18) ELT 434 (T); that when they filed appeal in Supreme Court against the Tribunal's Order alongwith Stay Application,...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. U.P. Steels
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT693TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order-in-original dated 4-11-93 passed by the Collector of Central Excise vide which he had dropped the proceedings drawn against the respondents on the strength of show cause notice dated 18-6-93 for recovery of duty amount of Rs. 72502.69.3. The respondents were served with show cause notice dated 18-6-93 for recovery of the duty amount of Rs. 72502.69 under proviso to Section 11-A of the Central Excises Act, 1944 for having violated the provisions of Rule 9(1), 173-P, 173-F and 173-G(1) of the Central Excise Rules on the allegations that they filed the classification list for the products falling under Chapters 72 and 73 without mentioning the exact description by simply declaring the products as "other cast articles of Steel" under Heading 73.25 of the CETA and they also made misstatement of the facts as the products manufactured by them were found to be specifically made, according to the specifications and drawings of the ...
Union of India Vs. C.K. Saxena and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2000
Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ573
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule. Reply affidavit on behalf of the respondent has not been filed though opportunities for filing the same were given on 24.11.1999 and 29.2.2000. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that he would argue the matter. With the consent of the parties the writ petition is taken up for disposal. 2. Petitioner Union of India has filed this writ petition assailing the order of the learned Additional District Judge, setting aside the order of eviction passed by the Director of Estates. The learned Additional District Judge set aside the order of eviction on the ground that allotment of the residential premises in favor of the respondent had been cancelled vide letter dated 4.3.1997, without giving any show cause notice. The learned Additional District Judge held that proceedings initiated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, pursuant to the said order of cancellation, were illegal and of no effect. 3. Respondent No.1 had r...
Arun Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Prasar Bharati
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2000
Reported in: 2000(55)DRJ88
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent to make available copies of the documents pertaining to the 'ICC Knockout Tournament 1998', as requested by him. Petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondent to abide by its circular dated 25.11.1997, containing instructions for ensuring transparency in the working of Prasar Bharati. 2. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has been heard in support of the writ petition. Petitioner's case in the writ petition is that he had been engaged as a Financial Expert by Prasar Bharati. Petitioner was asked to look into the formation and functioning of the Sports Consortium consisting of private parties as also the buying and marketing of TV rights pertaining to various events. Petitioner claims to have submitted a report, which according to him, highlighted the conspiracy between the offici...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »