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.
Escorts Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT576TriDel
1. The present appeal has been filed by M/s. Escorts Ltd. against Order-in-Original No. 51/99, dated 16-12-1999 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, confiscating goods imported by them with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- and penalty of Rs. 5,23,8007- under Section 114A of Customs Act, besides confirming the demand of Customs Duty amounting to Rs. 5,23,800/-.2. The Appellants have also filed an application for production of Additional documents, in the form of photographs of MTS system, technical literature of the system and the items imported by them, purchase order, Bill of Lading, and copy of letter dated 20-12-1999 from their overseas supplier.3. Shri R. Sudhinder, Ld. Advocate, submitted that these documents are necessary for the decision in the appeal filed by them and they may be allowed to be taken on record in the interest of justice. Shri Ashok Kumar, Ld. DR, has no objection in taking these documents on record.Accordingly we al...
indo Tex Prints (Overseas) Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT206TriDel
1. The appellants are the independent processors of textiles. They filed an application dated 15-12-1998 with reference to the Notification No. 42/98-C.E. (N.T.) dated 10-12-1998 for the purpose of fixation of annual capacity under the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-II vide his Order-in-Original dated 3/4-2-2000 fixed the annual capacity of production of the appellants at Rs. 753.84 lakhs. In order to arrive at this annual capacity of production, the Commissioner included the length of the galleries at each end of the five chambers of the Hot Air Stenter used by the appellants in the process of heat setting and drying of the fabrics. Consequently in his order he determined the ACP of the appellants which lead to the liability of differential duty of Rs. 5,67,1687- on the appellants.2. The party filed an appeal and Stay petition against the aforestated order of the Commissioner. The Tri...
innovative Tech Pack Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT94TriDel
1. The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of PET bottles, jars, etc., falling under Chapter Heading 39.23 of the Schedule to the CETA 1985 and availing of the Modvat facility under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. They received 17 consignments of inputs from M/s.Futura Polymers Ltd., Chennai, a 100% EOU during the period from 25.01.1999 to 20.04.1999. The total duty paid under the invoices was segregated into special excise duty, basic excise duty equivalent to basic customs duty, and basic excise duty equivalent to additional customs duty. After receiving the consignments, the appellants took credit of BED equivalent to CVD and subsequently they took further credit which was equivalent to balance of duty as shown in the invoice.A show cause notice was issued proposing recovery of credit taken of special customs duty and BED equivalent to basic customs duty. The Deputy Commissioner held that the appellants were entitled to credit equal to CVD only and hence confirme...
Commr. of Cus., Icd Vs. Shree Balaji Garments Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT569TriDel
1. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent was duly approved as 100% Export Oriented Unit by the Board of Approval and was issued a LOP dated 24.07.1991 for manufacture and export of readymade garments from NEPZ. They imported raw materials availing of the benefit of exemption from duty in terms of Notification 339/85-Cus., dated 21-11-1985, later superseded by Notification 133/94 as per the condition of which goods were allowed clearance into the Zone without payment of duty for utilisation in the manufacture and export of goods within one year. The respondents did not make any export. They reported in their letter dated 03.02.1992 that a fire had broken out in their premises on 29.01.1992 in which most of the goods were destroyed and the probable cause of the fire was rain and electric short circuit. The Superintendent of Customs issued a letter dated 03.03.1992 demanding customs duty of Rs. 50,44,042/- on the goods imported but not utilised in manufacture and export, an...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Toshniwal Cables
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT784TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal preferred by Revenue is whether thermocouple extension cable is classifiable under Sub-heading No.8544.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by the Revenue or classifiable under Heading 90.25 as decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order.2. We heard Shri Ashok Kumar, ld. DR and Shri Manik Chand along with Shri R.K. Choudhary, ld. Consultants for the respondents. Main issue in this appeal regarding classification of impugned goods is no more res integra as the matter stands settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of C. Ex., Bombay v. Fykays Engg. P.Ltd. [2000 (116) E.L.T. 341 (T)]. In this case, the Larger Bench of the Tribunal held that Mineral insulated thermocouple leads are used for connecting thermocouple and pyrometer. Pyrometer measures the temperature at which the thermocouple is placed, namely, the furnace.The principle governing the working of this equipment is that the...
Prem Cashew Industries and ors. Vs. Zen Pareo
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2000
Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1067; 4(2000)CCR288; 88(2000)DLT59; 2000(55)DRJ442; 2000(2)JCC577
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This is a revision petition challenging the order dated 16.1.1999 of the Metropolitan Magistrate whereby the learned Magistrate has rejected the application of the petitioner praying for withdrawal of nonbailable warrants. The revision petition before me, besides challenging the order dated 16.1.1999, also raises question of jurisdiction. 2. It has been argued before me by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Courts below have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint inasmuch as the cause of action which arose on the failure to make payment within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice, necessarily restricts the jurisdiction to the place where notice has been served and from where the amount has not been released. In support of this contention learned senior counsel has drawn my attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sadanandan Bhadran v. Madhavan Sunil Kumar 1988 (6) SCC 514. Learned counsel relies upon the following observations in th...
Paras Ram Sharma Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2000
Reported in: 2000(55)DRJ526
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. This order will dispose of the objections filed by the respondent - Delhi Development Authority, against the Award of respondent No. 2 dated 25.9.1996 deciding some of the claims in favor of the petitioner and rejecting the counter claim of the respondent.2. Brief facts are : that the petitioner (contractor) entered into an agreement with the respondent - (DDA) for execution of the work 'Development of Rohini Project Phase I up to Madhuban Chowk (2a to 2c) SH Outfall Storm water drain No. 2 Along with outer Ring Road.' The work commenced with effect from 27.11.1988 and was required to be completed on 26.11.1989, but was actually completed on 26.6.1990. After completion of the work, the contractor claimed extra payment for the work executed in or under water and the same was sanctioned by the Competent Authority and conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated 16th August, 1990. On 22.3.1995, under clause 25 of the Contract Agreement, the disputes between the petition...
Chhotey Lal Vs. the General Manager and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2000
Reported in: 2000(55)DRJ842
Vijender Jain, J. 1. This petition was filed in the year 1988 by the petitioner who was working with the Delhi Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred as DTC) as Assistant Painter in the pay scale of Rs. 225-5-260-6-290-EB-6-308 per month plus usual allowances. The service of the petitioner was terminated under Clause 14(10)(c) of Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment & Service) Regulations, 1952 vide respondents letter dated 10.12.1985. 2. It is contended before me by Mr. Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the letter dated 10.12.1985 was male fide as the letter date 3rd December, 1985 was posted on 6th December, 1985. The same was received by the father of the petitioner in Delhi on 7th December, 1985 and the father of the petitioner vide letter dated 11th December, 1985, copy of the same is Annexure 'D' of the paper-book informed the respondent that his son Chhotey Lal, i.e. (he petitioner had applied for leave as he had gone to look after his a...
Indian Telephone Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-21-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT120TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. ITI, Naini against the findings of the Id. Collector (Appeals) holding :- "I have carefully examined the points made in the appeal and reiterated at the time of personal hearing and find that the appellant did enter the goods in the RG 1 and cleared the same on Gate Passes after payment of Central Excise Duty due thereon. Now when the goods are no more in existence, the appellant contention that the goods were in the same condition, in which they were imported and no manufacturing activities whatsoever including Branding Marking or testing etc. were carried on in respect of them. The certificate by the Addl. General Manager (Transmission) dated 30.01.1990 has also been issued when the goods have already been cleared and the facts are not verifiable. I also observe from the show cause notice that while the appellants imported 300 items of 12 system under ground repeater housing from Japan, they were alleged to have cleared only 252 number of repeater ...
Spinfed Spinning Unit Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-21-2000
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC112
1. The appeal of the assessee was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) for the reason of failure to make pre-deposit of the amount ordered to be deposited. The appellant's submission is that the amount had been deposited under TR 6 challan and there was a slip in not reporting the same to the Commissioner. Accordingly, they seek restoration of the appeal before the Commissioner.2. In the facts of this case, the appeal got dismissed only on account of the failure of the appellant to report compliance, even as they had complied with the order. Therefore, it is appropriate that the matter be taken back on record by the Commissioner and the appeal disposed of on merits. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and the Commissioner is directed to take the appeal on record at its original number and to dispose it of on merits....
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »