Delhi Court September 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.
Eastern Electro Chemical Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2000
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC118
1. Appellant was engaged in the manufacture of calcium carbide. Because of the explosive nature of the substance, it was supplied in steel drums. While clearing the goods for payment of duty value of the steel drums namely the container was not included. This was on the ground that the steel drums are durable and returnable. Calcium carbide supplied persuant to 4 Purchase Orders dated 5-6-89, 8-2-90, 28-1-91 and 15-10-91 were valued by the manufacture for the purpose of payment of duty without adding the value of the container in which goods were packed. If the value of the drums were added to the value of the calcium carbide, during the financial year 1991-92, the cost of the goods manufactured would exceed Rs. 2 Crores and appellant would not be entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 175/86. For getting the benefit of that Notification the value of the goods manufactured were shown without value of the container.2. Show cause notice dated 9-7-93 was issued to the appe...
Northern Plastics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT795TriDel
1. The prayer in the above application is for directions to the Customs Authorities to refund the pre-deposit amount of Rs. one lakh which was the requirement as per the stay order, since the final order setting aside the penalty imposed upon the appellants was passed in favour of the applicants on 27-10-98.2. At the outset we note that this matter has come up earlier when the ld. DR was directed to obtain a report from the Commissioner as to why the pre-deposit amount had not yet been refunded to the importers. Ld.DR Shri S.K. Das brings to our notice report from the Dy. Commissioner of Customs (Refund) to the effect that the reason for delaying granting of refund is non-production by the importers of the original T.R. 6 Challan evidencing pre-deposit of the amount of Rs. one lakh as per Tribunal's directions in the stay order.3. Shri L.P. Asthana ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that the original duplicate T.R. 6 Challan has been filed along with the refund claim and subsequent...
M/S. Raipur Grinding Industries Corporation Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2000
Reported in: 2001(73)ECC677; 2002(144)ELT9(Del)
ORDERArijit Pasayat, CJ.1. Petitioner challenges order passed by the Central Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (in short, CEGAT) in appeal No. E/2951/98-C. Issue before the CEGAT was whether the petitioner was fixing the brand name of another person on the excisable goods manufactured by it, thereby making it ineligible for the benefit of Notification No.1/93. Show cause notice was issued under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short, the Act) read with the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (in short, the Rules). 2. Factual position, as stated by the petitioner, in a nutshell is that it is a small scale industrial unit engaged in the manufacture of cement under its own trade name. The Deputy Collector (T) issued a show cause notice on 28/31.10.1994 to the petitioner to show cause as to why Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 4,31,096 on 1306.350 MT of DCC brand cement manufactured and cleared without payment of proper duty from 1.4.1994 to 19.8.1994 should not be recovered from it un...
St. Andrews Scots Education Society Vs. Dda
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ258
ORDERArijit Pasayat, CJ.1. In this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, judgment of Learned Single Judge dated 19.4.2000 in CWP No. 2532/95 is under challenge. Factual position, which is almost undisputed is as follows: A demand was made by the Delhi Development Authority (in short the DDA) from the petitioner society for an amount of Rs. 3,19,554.35 as addi- tional cost of the land allotted to it. The said demand was challenged and a prayer was made for a direction to the DDA to calculate the cost of land payable in the light of judgment in DDA Vs . Lala Amar Nath Educational & Human Society : AIR1991Delhi96 . Petitioner pleaded in the writ petition that it is a society registered under the Society Registration Act with the object of working for welfare, education and betterment of the children. With the aforesaid objective, it intended to start a middle school for providing education to the weaker sections of the society. It obtained an essentiality certificate from the Dire...
Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. A.P. Gu ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2000
Reported in: [2002]111CompCas344(Delhi); 2000(56)DRJ677
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 21(5) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (in short, the Act) by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (in short, the Institute) alleging that A.P. Gupta, (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) had violated and contravened the provisions of clause (11) of Part I of the First Schedule, Clause (I) of Part III of First Schedule and Clause (i) of part II of the Second Schedule to the Act. 2. 2. Back ground facts are as under : Proceedings were initiated on the basis of information received that while holding a certificate of practice respondent was in full time employ- ment with National Insurance Company Ltd. without obtaining permission of the Institute to be so engaged as required under Regulation 166 of the then Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1964 (hereinafter called the old Regula- tions) correspondence of Regulation 190A of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988 (in short, the Regulations). It wa...
Srf Finance Limited Vs. Friends Globe Travels and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)ARBLR185(Delhi)
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. The question to be determined in the present petition under Section 8 read with Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is whether the Arbitration Clause between the parties stands exhausted and ineffectual, consequent upon the refusal of the named Arbitrator to act in terms thereof. The contract between the parties was for the hire of certain vehicles, the ownership of which vested with the Petitioner. It was only the payment of all the installments by the Respondent to the Petitioner that the former could exercise the option to purchase the vehicle on further payment of its residual price. 2. The agreement inter alia, contains the following term, which both parties agree, is the Arbitration Clause: '15. Any disputes or differences of any nature whatsoever or regarding any rights, liabilities, acts, omissions, or on account of any other parties hereto arising out of or in relation to this agreement shall be referred to the sole arbitration of...
Raipur Grinding Industries Corporation Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ253
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Petitioner challenges order passed by the Central Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (in short, CEGAT) in Appeal No. E/2951/98-C 2000 (124) E.L.T. 1036 (T). Issue before the CEGAT was whether the petitioner was fixing the brand name of another person on the excisable goods manufactured by it, thereby making it ineligible for the benefit of Notification No. 1/93. Show cause notice was issued under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short, the Act) read with the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (in short, the Rules).2. Factual position, as stated by the petitioner, in a nutshell is that it is a small scale industrial unit engaged in the manufacture of cement under its own trade name. The Deputy Collector (T) issued a show cause notice on 28/31-10-1994 28/31-10-1994 to the petitioner to show cause as to why Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 4,31,096 on 1306.350 MT of DCC brand cement manufactured and cleared without payment of proper duty from 1-4-1994 to 19...
Kuber Mutual Benefits Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2000
Reported in: [2001]118TAXMAN40(Delhi)
All these writ petitions involve identical questions relating to the search conducted in the premises of Mr. P.K. Sharma sometime in May, 1997. Though various points have been urged as regards existence of reasons to believe that there was likelihood of concealment or concealment as a matter of fact, on perusal of the records produced before us we are satisfied that reasons did exist for entertaining such a belief. Additionally, it is accepted that the orders of block assessment in terms of section 158BC have been passed and appeals have been filed before the prescribed appellate authority. In that view of the matter, we do not think it necessary to keep these writ petitions pending. We, however, hope that the appellate authority shall dispose of the appeals as expeditiously as practicable taking into account the fact that there may be some genuine investors whose deposits get affected by the action of search and seizure. By making this observation it shall not be taken as if we have e...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Dhar Cements Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-2000
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC336
1. The respondents were engaged in the manufacture of cement, falling under Sub-heading 2502.20 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, in their mini-plant of licensed capacity of 200 TPD (tonnes per day). They filed classification list No. 1/89-90 effective from 27-4-1989 claiming therein the benefit of concessional duty under Notification No. 23/89-C.E., dated 1-3-1989 as amended by Notification No. 123/89-CE., dated 27-4-1989. The classification list was approved by the jurisdictional Assistant Collector provisionally and the party was asked to produce the licensed capacity certificate as required under Notification 23/89-G.E. as amended. The respondents could not produce the certificate at that time. Department, therefore, by show cause notice dated 16-7-1990 proposed to deny the benefit of concessional duty for the period 1-5-1989 to 31-12-1989 and recover the differential duty for the said period under Section 11A of the Central Excises & Salt Act (CESA), 194...
Bee Dee Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT856TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Bee Dee Steel Rolling Mills, the matter relates to the duty liability on the Cold Twisted Bars during the period 20.05.1988 to 15.08.1989.2. Shri Jitendra Singh, Advocate appearing for the appellants, submits that the issue involved in these proceedings has already been decided by the Tribunal in a series of decisions and in particular, referred to the Tribunal's decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Aeron Steel Mills -2000 (118) E.L.T. 712 (Tribunal), wherein following the earlier decision in the case of Apex Steels (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CCE - 1995 (80) E.L.T. 368 (Tribunal), it had been held that the twisted bars and rods were covered by the exemption under Notification No. 202/88-C.E., dated 20.05.1988 as amended by Notification No. 170/89-C.E., dated 16.08.1989.3. Dr. Ravinder Babu, JDR fairly agrees that the matter is covered by the earlier decisions of the Tribunal.4. We have carefully considered the matter. We find that the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »