Delhi Court February 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.
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Vs. Commr. of C. Ex., Calcutta
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC310
1. The issue for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility of certain products, namely, "cabols", "Univols", "Ecols" and "Osmex -140" to exemption under Notification No. 120/84 of the Central Excise Rules.The Division Bench which heard this appeal has referred it to the Larger Bench with the following observations :Castrol India Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta-1 reported in - 2000 (123) E.L.T. 789 (Tribunal) relied upon by the Revenue. As we are unable to find any definition of the word 'lubricating oil' to have been defined in the Central Excise Tariff as approved by the majority decision in Para 20.1 thereto, we do find ourselves conformable with the Majority decision. The reasoning adopted in the minority judgment for entering the benefit of notification finds favour with this Bench. We would, therefore, refer the matter to the Hon'ble President to constitute a Larger Bench to determine the exact scope of coverage of Notification 120/84. 8. In view of the ...
Uniforge Bearing Company Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., New Delhi
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT124TriDel
1. In these two appeals the appellants have filed applications for waiving pre-deposit of duty and penalty. Arguing the case for the applicants Shri Naveen Mullick, learned Counsel submits that in the instant case the applicants were preparing report called as 'Assembly Production Report'. He submits that this report indicated the production of bearings. He submits that further process as to greasing and packing were undertaken and therefore, the figures shown in the assembly production report did not indicate the goods in marketable condition. That is why on certain days it was found that the figures shown in the 'assembly production report' was less than the one recorded in RG-1 register. He submits that the Department has presumed that all the bearings shown in the assembly production report were over and above the production recorded in RG-1 register. He submits that this presumption of the Department was not based on any record. He submits that the figures shown in the assembly p...
Shiv Kumar Vs. Govt. of National Capital
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ90CAT
1. This is the second round of litigation, as the applicant had earlier filed O. A. 2189/1998 which was disposed of by Tribunal's order dated 2.11.2000. In this order, the impugned appellate authority's order dated 11.6.1998 was quashed and set aside and the case was remitted to the appellate authority to pass a fresh order after affording a personal hearing to the applicant. In pursuance of the Tribunal's order, the appellate authority has passed the order dated 26.3.2001 which has been impugned in the present application.2. The brief relevant facts of the case are that the applicant was dealt with departmen-tally on the grounds that he had submitted a wrong and bogus verification report on a passport enquiry relating to one Shri Tejveer Singh Shergill. It was alleged that he had submitted his report confirming the stay of the applicant for more than two years in R.K. Puram, New Delhi. On re-verification, the respondents have stated that it has been prima facie established that the a...
Gyan Prakash, Ies and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ319CAT
1. This case has been remitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 25.7.2001, setting aside the earlier order passed by the Tribunal dated 5.12.1994 for reconsideration and redisposal of the O.A. on merits.2. The applicants in the present O.A. have impugned the seniority list issued by the respondents dated 20.8.1986 which is the seniority list of Grade-I and Grade-II officers of the Indian Economic Service (IES) as on 1.8.1986. The applicants state that they had made representations against this seniority list to which they received no reply. By Notification dated 16.3.1988, officers of IES were promoted to Non-Functional Selection Grade (NFSG) which, according to the applicants, was based on the impugned seniority list of Grade-I officers issued on 20.8.1986. According to the applicants, the wrong fixation of their seniority in the impugned seniority list had greatly prejudiced their service interests and denied them promotion to higher grades in comparison with direct recru...
Ritika Limited Vs. Pramod Kanodia and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)651; 97(2002)DLT221; 2002(24)PTC572(Del)
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. This is an application under Order 14 Rule 2 Sub-rule (a) and Sub-rule 2(b) read with Section 7 and 10 CPC and Section 151 CPC seeking dismissal of the suit in its present form or in the alternative to return the plaint for filing the same in the appropriate Court on the short ground that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the instant suit. A similar application has also been filed by way of is No. 3455/2000. Both the applications stand decided by this order because of the commonality of the relief.2. The plaintiff is a Fashion Designer and manufacturers and sells Fashion Garments for ladies in the trading style of Ritu's Boutique. The plaintiff's garments are identifiable on account of the originality of the fabric prints. The garments so manufactured have element of exclusivity bearing creative original prints resulting in complex printed textiles and produced in limited editions to certain exclusivity. This involves expensive and time consuming Resea...
Commr. of C. Ex., Chandigarh-i Vs. Supreme Fabrics (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT753TriDel
1. Commissioner, C. Excise, Chandigarh-I has filed this appeal assailing the order dated 21-9-2001 passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Commissioner (Appeals) had decided the issue regarding the additional consideration of cum-duty price by following the decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Srichakra Tyres Ltd. and others v. CCE reported in 1999 (108) E.L.T.361 explaining the ambit and scope of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. The facts of the case are that the respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of polyester filament yarn. Scrutiny of RT-12 returns revealed that the respondents had excluded the twisting charges from the assessable value while computing duty liability at the time of clearance of polyester filament yarn. It was alleged that the respondents had short-paid duty amounting to Rs. 4,86,200/- on the said twisting charges amounting to Rs. 8,45,965/-. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued aski...
Pahwa Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Delhi-ii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT106TriDel
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the impugned order-in-original dated 27-7-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise vide which he had affirmed duty demand of Rs. 38,43,473/- with equal amount of penalty for the period April, 93 to March, 98.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of textile printing adhesive falling under Chapter Heading 3402 of CETA. On 24-6-98, the preventive staff of the Central Excise, visited their premises. On checking the goods lying in the bonded warehouse; it revealed that the textile printing adhesive packed in plastic jars was being sold by them to the customers after affixing of paper labels. The perusal of those labels also showed that they were clearing the goods after affixing of foreign brand name ATR and had technical collaboration with M/s. TR St.Moritz Ag. Switzerland. The statement of Jasbir Singh, Manager of the appellants was also recorded wherein he admitted that they were sticking paper labels on the...
Tarun Castings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT400TriDel
1. The captioned five appeals were heard together as the issue is the same and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts of the cases are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Ingots. Central Excise Duty on Ingots became payable under Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 issued under Section 3A(2) of the Central Excise Act. The appellants declared parameters of their mills. The ld. Commissioner first determined the annual capacity of the furnaces provisionally and subsequently after verification of data, the final capacity of the furnaces was determined. SCNs were issued to the appellants asking them to explain as to why the Annual Capacity of the Induction Furnace should not be re-determined, and why Central Excise Duty on the re-determined capacity should not be collected and why penalty should not be imposed. Ld. commissioner re-determined the capacity of the furnaces. Being aggrieved by this re-determination of the capacity of t...
Prabhat Zarda Factory Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Delhi
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT347TriDel
1. In this appeal at the instance of the assessee challenging the Order-in-Original No. 25/2001, dated 17-2-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi, the only issue involved is whether the assessee is liable to pay interest under Section 11AA for delayed payment of duty.2. Appellant was found not discharging Central Excise duty on un-branded chewing tobacco at intermediary stage in the manufacture of branded chewing tobacco during the period 20-5-94 to 10-8-94. Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 3,41,94,463/- was demanded. That demand was finally upheld by this Tribunal in an appeal filed by the party.The duty was subsequently paid by the appellant. Thereafter under letter dated 20-9-99 the appellant was directed to pay interest of an amount of Rs. 71,95,331 under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act on account of delay in making payment. After protracted proceedings before the departmental authorities the appellant moved the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by fili...
Triveni Engineering and Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT492TriDel
1. Both of these ROM petitions are filed in respect of the identical orders both dated 30-4-2001 passed by the Tribunal in the respect of the present petitioners. Both petitioners manufacture V.P. Sugar and had availed the Modvat credit during the year 1996 on the capital goods and the inputs under Rule 57Q and Rule 57A respectively. The proceedings were initiated against them and the Central Excise Authority disallowed the Modvat credit availed by the petitioners. They filed the appeals but the same stood rejected by the respective orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), Allahabad. They filed the second stage appeals before the CEGAT. Their appeals were called on 30-4-2001 but none of the appellants were present despite the notice. The appellants in their appeals had advanced identical argument that the Apex Court in the case of Kolhapur Cane Sugar v. Union of India - 2000 (119) E.L.T.257 (T) had held that if the rules are repealed without having any saving clause, all the proceedings ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »