Delhi Court November 2002 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.
Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: (2003)(152)ELT148TriDel
1. These two appeals are directed against a common order-in-original i.e. 14/CE/JP-II/2001 dated 10-9-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II. Accordingly both the appeals were heard together and are disposed of under this common order.2. The appellant M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. has a plant at Chittorgarh where they manufacture Zinc and lead. Both these metals are liable to Central Excise duty. For the manufacture of zinc and lead the appellants' plant required oxygen gas, nitrogen gas and liquid nitrogen. These are produced in a separate plant located in the premises of the zinc and lead manufacturing plant. The gases produced are fully consumed in the manufacture of zinc and lead. These gases were being consumed by M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. without payment of Central Excise duty on the basis that they were exempt under Notification No. 217/86-C.E., dated 2-4-86 and subsequently under Notification No. 67/95-C.E., dated 16-3-95. In the order impugned in the present a...
Grasim Industries Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC141
1. Challenge in this appeal at the instance of the assessee is against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Jaipur dated 7.2.2001.The main contention raised by the appellant is that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the appeal be merits and dismissed the same as not maintainable on the ground that the appellant had not filed any appeal against order dated 9.12.96 and 5.5.98.2. The learned Counsel points out that the communication dated 9.12.96 cannot be treated as an order since it was issued in connection with the declaration filed by the appellant under Rule 57-G and that no such order is contemplated under the above rule. Sub-rule (1) of Rules 57G indicated that "every manufacturer intending to take credit of the duty paid on capital goods under Rule 57A or Rule 57B shall file a declaration with the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction over has factory indicating the description of products manufactured in his factory and the inputs intend...
Ghaziabad Ship Breakers Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (Prev.)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC307
1. In these five appeals -three filed by M/s. J.M. Industries and two appeals filed by M/s. Ghaziabad Ship Breakers - arising out of different orders in Appeals, the common issues involved are whether the Special Additional Duty of Customs is leviable on ships imported for breaking and whether fuel and oil are to be classified along with the ship and not chargeable to Customs duty separately and whether the Customs duty is leviable on foodstuff.2. Shri A.D. Maru, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants imported old ships for breaking, falling under Heading 89.08 of the first Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act; that Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD in short) was imposed by the Finance Act, 1988 in lieu of Sales Tax; that Notification No. 56/98-Cus., dated 1-8-98 exempts SAD in respect of goods which are imported for sale as such, subject to the condition that they are imported at the time of clearance for home consumption, importer makes a specified declaration to that e...
Alcobex Metals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC97
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 11.4.2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed them modvat credit by reversing the Order-in-Original, but had upheld the imposition of penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on them under Rule 173Q of the Rules. The appellants availed modvat credit of Rs. 5,18,138 on the capital goods during the period 97-98 and 98-99. They also claimed depreciation of the said amount under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act in their Income Tax Returns filed for the relevant years. They thereby contravened the provisions of Rule 57R(8) of the Central Excise Rules which prohibits the taking of credit as well as depreciation of the credit amount, under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act. They were issued show cause notice for having wrongly taken modvat credit. The imposition of penalty was also proposed in that notice.2. The adjudicating authority disallowed the credit by holding that by claiming depreciation of the modv...
Amrit Foods Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT190TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 7-8-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut. The issue involved is regarding the classification of the products manufactured by the appellants.2. Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellants and he submitted that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of milk based products viz. milk shake mix, soft serve mix, skimmed milk, toned milk, double toned milk and cream. The contention of the learned Counsel is that the said products are classifiable under Heading 04.04 of the CETA attracting nil rate of duty and as such, the impugned order of the Commissioner holding that the products are classifiable under subheading No. 1901.19 of the CETA is apparently incorrect. He contended that the Chapter Note 4 of Chapter IV provides as under : "Heading No. 04.04 applies, inter alia, to butter milk, curdled milk, cream, yogurt, whey, curd and products consisting of natural milk constituents, w...
Ram Nath Singh Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT451TriDel
1. In this appeal, the grievance of the appellant is that a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- has been imposed on him by the lower authorities under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 illegally.3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant refers to the allegation as contained in the show-cause notice as also to the finding records by the original in its order, and submits that there was neither any allegation nor any finding by the original authority that the appellant had dealt with any excisable goods in any such manner as specified under Rule 209A.Counsel submits that, in such circumstances, a penalty under Rule 209A was not warranted. It is his further submission that the lower Appellate authority has not recorded any independent finding on the question whether the appellant was liable to be penalised under any of the rules mentioned in the show cause notice. He prays for vacating the penalty. Ld. JDR, on the other hand, submits that there is conclusive evidence on record to show that the appe...
Hira Cement Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC467
1. M/s. Hira Cement have filed the present appeal being aggrieved with the Adjudication Order No. 432/2001 dated 21.9.2001 under which Commissioner, Central Excise has confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 5,45,412,36 P and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50.000 on them.2. Shri R. Santhanam, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellant manufactures cement; that the Commissioner, under Adjudication Order No. 55/93 dated 10.12.93 had demanded the duty of excise on the ground that the Appellant had indulged in undervaluation of cement cleared by them to M/s. Hira Industries; that the Appellate Tribunal, vide Final Order No. 1077-78/99-A dated 5.8.99 had set aside the said order and directed the case to be decided afresh in accordance with law in the light of the specific directions given to allow the deduction legitimately due under Section 4(4)(d) (i) and 4(2) of the Central Excise Act; that the Appellant and Hira Industries are not related persons and the impugned ord...
Dcm Shriram Consolidated Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC91
1. The issue involved in this Appeal, filed by M/s. DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd., is whether they are eligible to get furnace oil at concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 75/84-CE dated 1.3,84 and subsequent notifications.2. Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, learned Advocate submitted that the Appellants manufacture various excisable goods; that in one of the Divisions, they manufacture fertilizer; that they have installed captive power plant as under catering to the power requirement of their factory: 2.2 He further, mentioned that all the boilers are essentially coal fired and furnace oil is used as a supportive oil for boilers of 35 MW Power Plant; that the design of boilers of other power plant does not accommodate oil firing; that 35 MW Power Plant is to meet the exclusive requirement of fertilizer plant; that as advised by M/s. Tata Consulting Engineers, who were entrusted with the task of preparing a System Study Report on Power Plants, a common grid was installed in 1994 to ...
Surender Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)SLJ98(Delhi)
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Petitioner joined the service of R-2 CISF as a Constable on 3rd January, 1985. Some time in 1991 he was awarded punishment of censure on the allegation that at the time of duty he was found sleeping. In or about the end of February or beginning of March, 1991 the office of R-2 took out the notice that personnel already working as Constable CISF would appear in any of the recruitment camps, scheduled to be held on 25th March, 1991 at different places in the country for recruitment to the post of the Head Constable/Driver-cum-Pump Operator (Fire). There was advertisement for open selection from the public in general also. The petitioner was one of the successful candidates and joined his duties as Head Constable on 16th November, 1991 and was sent to a training camp at Fire Service Training Institute, Deoli, Rajasthan. Incidentally, he received second censure when he was posted as HC on account of his having lost Identity Card though he took the plea that the said Card...
India Waste Energy Development Ltd. and anr. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ224
D.K. Jain, J.1. In this third round of litigation with the Sales Tax authorities, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order, dated 20 March 2001, passed by the Deputy Collector (Recovery)/Collector, Sales Tax, New Delhi, holding the petitioner company to be the transferee company, liable to pay the outstanding sales tax dues of the transferor company, namely M/s. Byford Leasing Limited, hereinafter referred as the Byford, in terms of Section 32 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (for short the Act) and having defaulted in discharging the said liability, liable to be proceeded against under Section 139 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (for short the Land Reforms Act).2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved, we shall briefly notice the material facts, which are as follows:The first petitioner is a company incorporated on 9 March 1998 with the main object of carrying on the business of collection, processing an...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »