Delhi Court March 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.
Burman Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Indore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT352TriDel
1. The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 78,815.00.3. The issue involved in the present case is in respect of classification of a product 'Keshraj Oil'. The applicants claimed the classification as 'Ayurvedic Drugs' under Chapter Heading 3303.30 of Central Excise Tariff whereas the Revenue wants to classify as 'perfumed hair oil' under Chapter Heading 3305.10. The case of the applicants is arguable, which requires detailed examination of evidence in respect of ingredients used in the manufacture of Keshraj oil to show that it falls under medicament classifiable under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff. Taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie, it is not a fit case for waiver of duty. The applicants are directed to deposit the whole of duty of Rs. 78,815.00 within a period of two weeks and report compliance on 1-4-2002....
Escorts Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT379TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Escorts Ltd., the issue involved is whether the hydraulic distribution assembly is classifiable under heading 87.08 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order or under heading 84.79 as claimed by them.2. Shri Lakshmi Kumaran, ld. Advocate, submitted that the appellants besides manufacturing tractors manufacture hydraulic distribution assembly for oil having individual function and parts thereof; that the impugned goods are classifiable under Heading 84.79 as appliances having individual function and not elsewhere specified; that the basic function of the hydraulic distribution assembly is to distribute the oil in any hydraulic circuit; that they may perform functions associated with the equipments like excavators, loaders, cranes, automobiles, earth movers etc.; that the Hydraulic distribution assembly can operate through an internal or external circuit; that the distribution for ...
Commissioner of Customs (Acu), Vs. Ranutrol Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT377TriDel
1. In these two appeals, preferred by Revenue, the common issue involved is whether the "shower cabins" imported by M/s. Ranutrol Ltd. are classifiable as 'pre-fabricated building' under Heading No. 94.06 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act as upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) or under sub-Heading 7615.20 of the Tariff as claimed by the Revenue.2.1 Shri M.P. Singh, learned DR submitted that Heading 94.06 applies to "Pre-fabricated buildings" which expression means building, which are finished in the factory or put up as elements presented together to be assembled on site. He referred to the Explanatory Notes of HSN below Heading 94.06, according to which "these buildings, which can be designed for a variety of uses, such as housing, work sites accommodation, office, schools, shops, sheds, garages and greenhouses, are generally presented in the form of: Incomplete buildings, whether or not assembled, having the essential character of pre-fabricated buildings." 2.2 He, fu...
Shri Satyabir Singh Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)1028; 97(2002)DLT434; 2002(62)DRJ327; 2003(1)SLJ101(Delhi)
Vijender Jain, J.1. Rule.2. This case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in CWP No. 382/2000 decided by learned SingleJudge on 10.5.2000 as well as Rajbir Singh v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Ors. CWP 5700/2000 decided byanother learned Single Judge of this court on 24.1.2002.3. Mr. Sabharwal, learned counsel for the respondents wants to persuade me to take a contrary view to what hasbeen held in aforesaid two authorities. Mr. Sabharwal has contended that the words 'during his service' occurringunder Section 47 under the Persons with Disabilities Act,1995 which came into operation w.e.f. 1.1.1996 has t be interpreted 'during the course of his employment'.Section 47 of the aforesaid Act is as follows :'Non discrimination in Governmentemployment :- (1) No establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service.' 4. If I agree to the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that 'during his service' has...
Lalit Sharma and ors. Vs. State of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2002
Reported in: 98(2002)DLT75; II(2002)DMC125
ORDER1. Petitioners are praying for quashing of FIR No. 500/97 registered at PS Shakarpur under Sections 498A/406, IPC registered on the complaint of petitioner No. 2 his wife. It is submitted that petitioner No. 1 and his wife (P2) had resolved their disputes and started living together and that petitioner No. 2 did not want to pursue her complaint now against any of the accused mentioned in this FIR. 2. Petitioner No. 2 (wife) was examined by the Court. She stated that she wanted to live happily with her husband (petitioner No. 1) and that she had lodged the complaint registered in FIR out of matrimonial disputes between them and had also arrayed relations of her husband (petitioners 3 to 8) as accused in that FIR. She further stated that she was withdrawing all allegations made against them. Her statement was also recorded separately. 3. Considering all this and the no objection conveyed by respondent's Counsel, FIR No. 500/97 under Sections 498A/406, IPC registered at PS Shakarpur ...
Cc Vs. Dilip Kumar and Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC210
2. Revenue filed this appeal with an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Revenue filed a list of dates explaining the delay. The list of dates, from the receipt of the order i.e. from 29.8.2001 to 8.1.2002, the date on which the appeal was filed, only show the movement of file from one officer to another officer of the revenue department. The hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Tata Yodogawa limited 1988 (38) ELT 739 (SC) held that delay due to inter-departmental correspondence and processing is not sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filling the appeal under Section 35-C of the Central Excise Act.3. In view of the above decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court, we find no merit in the application and the same is rejected. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed....
Karan Engineers (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)(104)LC215Tri(Delhi)
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of automobile parts and they were availing the benefit of MODVAT Credit in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of their final product. Appellants are also getting their semi-finished goods job-work done from their job workers under Rule 57F(4) of Central Excise Rules. Show cause notice was issued to the appellants demanding duty in respect of scrap of iron and steel generated at job workers' place which was not received back by the appellants. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 65,081.25 and imposed a penalty of Rs. one lakh.3. The appellants filed appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals), in the impugned order, upheld the demand of duty and reduced the penalty amount to Rs. 65,081.00.5. Appellants are not contesting the demand of duty. They are only requesting for reduction in pena...
Venus Gems and Jewellery Vs. Commissioner of Customs, (Acu),
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT388TriDel
1. These are two appeals, one filed by M/s. Venus Gems & Jewellery and the other preferred by the Revenue, arising out of a common Order No.HKS(865)Cargo/2001, dated 12-10-2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi.2. Briefly stated the facts are that M/s. Venus Gems & Jewellery (Venus in short) placed an order for import of gold jewellery in March, 2001.The foreign supplier sent the jewellery under Invoice No. 0062, dated 21-4-2001. They filed Bill of Entry No. 151677, dated 31-5-2001 and claimed benefit under Notification No. 117/94-Cus. and produced Special Import Licence. The Customs Department informed them that Special Lmport Licence was not valid for import of gold with effect from 1-4-2001 and the gold jewellery could be imported against a specific import licence only. The importer requested the Department permission for re-exporting the jewellery. The Additional Commissioner, under Adjudication Order No. 24/2001, dated 25-8-2001 denied the permission to re-e...
Radha Govind Lashkari Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC85Tri(Delhi)
1. The brief facts in this case are that on 30-5-89 the headquarters Customs Preventive Officers of Jaipur Commissionerate intercepted a Maruti Gypsy No. RNX-1917 on Jaipur-Delhi Highway at Achrol. The vehicle was occupied by Shri Badri Narain Mandal, Driver and Shri Sarwan Lal Sharma. Both of these persons informed the Customs authorities that they were the employees of M/s. Jamna Lal Lashkari, Jewellers, Jaipur. The vehicle was searched and it resulted in the recovery of Indian currency of Rs. 12 lakhs from the secret cavities in the vehicle. The above said two persons deposed that the currency was brought by them from Delhi and it represented the sale proceeds of smuggled gold biscuits brought by Shri Radha Govind Lashkari alias Shri Govind Lashkari from Bombay and sold in Delhi. They further disclosed that the currency belonged to S/Shri Kishore Lashkari and Govind Lashkari of the aforesaid jewellers firm. The customs authorities seized the Indian currency and the vehicle under Se...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Surya Roshni
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)(143)ELT124TriDel
1. Revenue has filed this appeal assailing the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) held that the nature of the manufacturing activity is such that a large portion of the inputs are rendered as scraps and waste and this fact has been recognised by specifying them as final products in the table annexed to Notification No. 5/94-CE. (N.T.) dt. 1-3-94; that this aspect has not been commented upon either because it has been overlooked and the appellants did not want to contest it because it forms part of a Govt.of India Notification; that since these goods have been specified as final products and arc cleared on payment of duty, there is no reason why the appellants cannot take Mod vat credit on inputs which have gone into their manufacture.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of Fluorescent Tube Light, Tungsten Halogen Lamps and Class Bulbs. The appellants also opted for availing Modvat cre...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »