Delhi Court March 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Columbia Electronics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Indore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC50Tri(Delhi)
1. The present appeal has been filed by M/s. Columbia Electronics Ltd. being aggrieved with the Adjudication Order No. 22/99, dated 25-5-1999 under which the Commissioner has demanded Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 68,93,847.47 paise and imposed equal amount of penalty on the ground that they had suppressed the manufacture of Video Magnetic Tapes and Cassettes and cleared the same without payment of duty.2. Shri Gopal Prasad, learned Advocate, submitted that the process of manufacture consists of coating the Polyester film with a slurry made of several chemicals and solvent; the coated film is calendared and slit to make tapes which are wound to form Pan-cakes for sale as such and for captive use for making cassettes; that rejection occurs at every stage of processing namely coating, calendaring, slitting and quality control stage; that they were clearing their goods from the factory directly to customers as also to different selling centers throughout the country known as Diagn...
Kinjal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT642TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Kinjal Electronics Pvt. Ltd., is whether they can avail of S.S.I. exemption under Notification No. 8/99-CE., dated 28-2-99 in respect of some specified goods and discharge duty liability at normal tariff rate by availing Modvat credit in respect of some other goods manufactured by them.2. Shri K.L. Rekhi, learned Consultant, submitted that the Appellants manufacture nine electrical goods; that in their Classification Declaration effective from 1-4-99, they opted for benefit of Notification No. 8/99-CE. in respect of 4 goods and in respect of remaining 5 goods they preferred to pay central excise duty at tariff rate and avail of Modvat credit of duty paid on inputs used in or in relation to manufacture of the said 5 items; that the Commissioner (Appeals), under the Impugned Order, has rejected their appeal holding that Notification No. 8/99 does not permit to split the specified goods manufactured by them and clear some goods under va...
Eximpo International Vs. Collector of Customs, Madras
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC351Tri(Delhi)
1. The eligibility of "stamping foils" imported by the appellants herein against a transferable advance licence dated 20-10-92 - DEEC Book dated 20-10-92 (export product -gents shoe uppers) to the benefit of Notification 203/92-Cus., dated 19-5-92, arises for decision in this appeal. The advance licence and DEEC Book were originally issued in favour of M/s. P.A. Footwear (P) Ltd., Gummidipoondi, and according to the endorsement in the advance licence, the export obligation was for gents shoe uppers which had been fulfilled and hence the LUT condition had been waived and the licence had become transferable. The stamping foils imported by the transferee (the appellant herein), were found on test to be transfer foils and, from the sample, it was seen that it was in the form of plastic sheet with floral design made of polyester pigment. Since the Department was of the view that the imported goods had no nexus between the imported materials and the export products covered by the advance li...
Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex., Allahabad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC594Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants manufacture P.D. Pumps and parts thereof falling under Tariff Item 30A of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. They entered into a contract to supply the P.D. Pumps to M/s. ONGC through M/s. Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Limited, South Korea (hereinafter referred to as H.H.I). In terms of this contract, some P.D. Pumps involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 4,90,949.35 were cleared under bond without payment of duty to M/s. H.H.I. These P.D. Pumps were exported under bond on AR 4, dated 6-8-84. The goods were shipped to Korea from Bombay Port on 7-9-84 and the proof of shipment as provided under rules was sent directly to the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad by the Maritime Collector. The aforesaid AR 4 was duly endorsed by the Maritime Collector, Bombay and sent directly to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise having jurisdiction on the appellants' factory. After receipt of proof of export, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad release...
Union of India (Uoi) (Central Government) Vs. Students Islamic Movemen ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT147; 2002(63)DRJ563
ORDERThis order will answer the reference under Section 4(1) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').1. The Central Government vide notification No.S.O.960 (E) dated 27.9.2001, in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, declared Students Islamic Movement of India (hereinafter for short referred to as 'SIMI') to be an unlawful association. Under proviso to Sub-section (3) of the Act, the Central Government also declared the said association to be unlawful with immediate effect, as in its opinion the circumstances so warranted. The Central Government by another notification No.S.O.961 (E) dated 8.10.2001, under Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act, constituted this Tribunal, and made the reference under Section 4(1) of the Act for adjudicating whether or not there is sufficient cause for declaring the said association unlawful. The notification was accompanied by a resume of facts and grounds on t...
Commissioner of C. Ex., Jaipur Vs. K.E.C. International Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC76Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal of the Revenue is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.233 (KDT) CE/JPR-I (129) 2001, dated 24-4-2001 of the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Jaipur. The Commissioner quashed the order of the lower authority demanding interest of over Rs. 12 lakhs from the respondent assessee M/s. K.E.C. International Ltd., Jaipur. The ground for setting aside the order was that a demand of in terest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act is maintainable only if duty had not been paid for reasons of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts or contravention of the provisions of the Act or Rules with intent to evade payment of (duty and that in the present case such in gredients did not exist.2. The appeal of the Revenue submits that in terms of Central Board of Excise and Customs Circular dated 4-10-1980 goods should be assessed provisionally in the case of clearances under running contracts where there is a price variation claxise and final assessment shou...
Surya Pharmaceuticals Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)(103)LC356Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s Surya Pharmaceuticals have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner, Central Excise confirming demand of Rs. 20,20,069/- and a penalty of equal amount.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of drugs. A dispute arose as to whether the benefit of exemption in terms of Serial No. 6 of the Table annexed to Notification No. 6/94-CE dated 1.3.1994 was available to bulk drug manufacturers during the period from 6.1.1995 to 8.2.1995. In terms of Serial No. 6 of the notification cited above the effective rate of duty payable on bulk drugs specified under first schedule to Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1987 as amended from time to time was 10% ad valorem.The appellant filed C/List claiming concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 6/94. However this Notification was amended by Notification No. 7/95-CE dated 9.2.1995 whereby Serial No. 6 and the entries relating thereto under Not...
JaIn Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)841; 2002(144)ELT527(Del)
Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1. In these aforesaid petitions, common questions of law arise and we deem it appropriate to dispose of these petitions by a common judgment.2. The petitioners have challenged the legality and constitutionality of Notification No. 205 dated 16.10.1980 issued by the respondents purporting to nullify or supercede the earlier notification dated 15.3.1979 by virtue of which Polyvinyl Chloride resin (PVC) was exempted from the whole of the customs duty livable on import into India and the said notification was in force till 31.8.1979. The said exemption was extended from 31.8.1979 to 31.8.1980 and thereafter again extended up to 31.3.1981 by another Notification No. 37 of 25.3.1980.3. In the writ petitions it is prayed that imposition of the said duty is without the authority of law and such levy is vocative of the petitioners' rights as conferred under Article 19(1)(a), 301 and 301A of the constitution. It is mentioned in these petitions that imposition of the Customs ...
Mideast India Ltd. Vs. Shri K.M. Unni and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: [2003]115CompCas184(Delhi); 2002(62)DRJ537; [2002(94)FLR1059]; (2002)IIILLJ971Del
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. C.M. No. 2644/2000 is an application moved by the workman under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). An award was passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court X, directing reinstatement of the workman. It was held that the services of the workman were terminated by the Management without compliance with Section 25F of the Act. The petitioner has challenged this award in the present writ petition filed on 26.5.1999.2. Notice to show cause was issued in the writ petition on 26.5.1999. Petitioner was required to deposit 50 per cent arrears of back wages as per order dated 11.12.1998 of Labour Court. The Labour Court had ordered the ex parte award to be set aside, subject to the deposit as aforesaid. It is not disputed before me that the said amount was not deposited as a consequence the ex parte award was not set aside and is subsisting.3. Coming to the application under Section 17-B of the Act, it is not disputed before...
Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. R.S. Makkar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)469; 2002(2)ARBLR143(Delhi); 97(2002)DLT740
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. The award of the Arbitrator has been made the rule of the Court by the learned Single Judge and consequently the Union of India was directed to pay Rs. 2,87,028 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The appellant aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge has approached this Court in appeal.2. It is mentioned in the appeal that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the Arbitrator held that the slads were not made as per specification. He further erroneously held that contractually and legally the respondents were right when they asked the claimant to cast the slab only after removing the defects and even the slabs were not cast after filling the cubes rating the concrete tests. It is urged in appeal that the learned Single Judge was wrong in making the award a rule of the Court when there are innumerable infirmities in the award. The Arbitrator mentioned that the respondents were justified in asking the claimant to dismantle a slab b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »