Delhi Court May 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.
Puspa Industrial Corporation Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC215
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals), whereby the benefit of Notification No.202/88-CE was denied and a demand of duty had been confirmed. The appellants were manufacturing iron & Steel products and were clearing the same without payment of duty claiming the benefit of Notification No. 202/88-CE.2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, fairly submitted that the issue involved in this appeal is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vivek Re-Rolling Mills v. CCE in favour of the revenue. The contention of the appellants is that the appellants be allowed to avail the benefit of MODVAT Credit in respect of inputs used in their final product.3. In view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vivek Re-Rolling Mills (supra), the appellants are not entitled to avail the benefit of Notification No. 202/88-CE. However, the appellants are entitled for the benefit of MODVAT Credit in respect of ...
Bharat Agri. Implements and Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur-ii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC53Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Bharat Agriculture Implements & Re-rolling Mills, is whether the benefit of Notification No. 208/83-C.E., is available to the iron & steel products manufacture by them.2.1. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture iron & steel products like MS. Rounds, Bars, Rats, Angles, etc. out of various re-rollable inputs, including ship breaking scrap; that the demand of Central Excise duty was confirmed against them by the Adjudicating Authority under Adjudication Order No. 30/88-C.E., dated 12-12-1988 besides imposing penalty on the ground that as ship breaking scrap had not suffered excise duty, the final products manufactured by them were liable to duty; that the Tribunal, vide Final Order No. E/49/94-B1 remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for determination of duty in the light of the findings of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Tigrania Metal & Steel Ltd. v. CCE, Auran...
Bhupendra Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Delhi-i
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC464Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Bhupendra Steels (P) Ltd., is whether the final products manufactured by them are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 208/83-C.E., dated 1-8-83.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, mentioned that the Appellants manufacture Iron, and Steel products and claim benefit of Notification No. 208/83-C.E.; that the Central Excise duty has been demanded from them on the ground that the inputs used by them are not covered by the Headings/sub-headings mentioned in the notification and that the inputs were not 'pieces roughly shaped'. The learned Advocate submitted that off cuts of flats, bars, rods, angles, sheets, punched sheets or cuttings or end cuttings of these products whether roughly shaped or not are not waste and scrap falling under Heading 72.03 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act but are pieces roughly shaped falling under Heading 72.08 or alternatively angles, shapes and section falling under sub-heading 7210....
Shivani Locks Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT383TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 16-10-2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of door lock assembly of motor vehicles and are also availing Modvat credit facility. They received purchase orders from M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra for the supply of 2/00,000 pieces of door lock assembly and received an amount of Rs. 3,25,000/- towards tooling cost, advance. Likewise, they also received purchase orders from M/s. Tata Engg. and Locomotive Co. Ltd., Pune (TELCO) for the supply of 49,000 pcs. of door lock assembly and received tooling cost advance of Rs. 10,00,000/-. According to the terms and conditions settled with the purchasers, they had to absorb 25% of the tooling cost i.e. Rs. 2,50,000/- and amortise 25% of the tooling cost i.e. Rs. 12,50,000/- over 10,000 pcs. and the balance 50% i.e. Rs. 5,00,000/- was to be paid by M/s. TELCO. They were issued show cause notice by the Excise...
Commissioner of Cus., Jaipur Vs. Ramdhan Mohanlal and Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)(143)ELT539TriDel
1. In these eight appeals, preferred by the Revenue, the issue involved is whether the goods imported by all the respondents are marble as held by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned common order or are limestone as claimed by the Revenue.2. Shri Jagdish Singh, learned Departmental Representative, submitted that all the respondents filed bills of entry declaring the imported goods to be rough marble block of Italian origin and claimed duty free clearances against DEEC Licence; that the representative samples were drawn and sent to Geological Survey of India (GSI) for conducting the tests; that the test report received from GSI revealed that the goods were Limestone sufficiently hard to take good polish and therefore can be used as commercial marble; that the Adjudicating Authority relied upon the test report received from GSI and came to the conclusion that the Special Import Licence was required for the import of impugned goods as per Exim Policy 1997-2002; that the Adjudicati...
Cce Vs. Neer Shree Cement Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC214
Revenue filed these appeals against the order-in-appeal whereby the benefit of MODVAT Credit was allowed in respect of electrodes.2. The contention of the revenue is that welding electrodes were neither used as inputs in the manufacture of final product nor were used in the manufacture of capital goods. The contention of the revenue is also that the decision of the Tribunal, in earlier cases, where the benefit on electrodes was allowed are not accepted by the revenue and a reference application had been filed.3. The Commissioner (Appeals), after relying upon the decisions of the Tribunal in the cases of (i) KL Steel Ltd. v. CCE 1999 (106) ELT 343 (T); (ii) CCE.Jaipur v. Shree Cement Ltd. (Order dated 13.5.97), held that welding electrodes are entitled for the benefit of MODVAT Credit.4. Mere filing of reference application is not a ground to interfere with the impugned order, which followed the earlier decisions of the Tribunal. The appeal, filed by the revenue, is rejected....
Cmi Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC538Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. CMI Ltd., is whether the end cutting of wires and cables are classifiable under Heading 74.04 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.2. Shri Ramesh Sharma, learned Consultant, submitted that the Appellants manufacture insulated wires and cables falling under sub-heading 8544.90 of the Tariff; that during the course of manufacture of the insulated wires and cables, waste and scrap arises which is non-marketable as wires and scrap; that the Assistant Commissioner has, under the Adjudication Order No. 111/99, dated 2-9-99 classified the end cutting of PVC wires and cables under sub-heading 7404.90 and long cut pieces under sub-heading 8544.90 of the Tariff and confirmed the demand of duty on the ground that the impugned goods are sold to various Metal traders and in terms of Note 5 to Section XV of the Tariff, the principle of predominance by weight would apply; that on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Ord...
Expo Globe India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2002
Reported in: (2003)(152)ELT216TriDel
1. The appellants filed four Shipping Bills all dated 15-3-2000 at the ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi for the export of items declared as "Multi-Coloured Printed Books with jacket and Cover" claiming DEPB benefit as per the relevant Group Code and the DEPB Schedule @ 16% of FOB value. The consignments were declared at the FOB value Rs. 3,80,92,071/-and involved DEPB credit of Rs. 60,94,731/-. The exports were meant to M/s. American Expo Ltd. Houston, Texas, USA. On examination, the goods were not found to be the Multi Coloured Printed Books as declared by the exporters and they were further found to be printed in USA. In a statement dated 24-3-2000 recorded from Shri Arvind Srivastava, Head International Business of the exporters, he submitted that the books sought to be exported were purchased from the market and they were not eligible for DEPB benefit. Consequently, the export consignments were seized under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the proceedings were initiated against...
Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Mr. Ravi Bhandari
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)78; [2002]111CompCas544(Delhi); 98(2002)DLT289; 2002(63)DRJ502
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 9th December, 1997 passed by the Court of Ms. Indermeet Kaur Kochhar, Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi dismissing revision of the petitioner and the order dated 15th March, 1997 passed by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'NI Act').2. Facts in brief are that Ravi Bhandari, respondent No. 1 issued a cheque dated 29th September, 1995 of Rs. 15,300/- drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, defense Colony, New Delhi in favor of Standard Chartered Bank towards discharge of debts and other liabilities; on presentation of the same, the cheque was dishonoured; the payment was not made despite service of notice; petitioner filed a complaint through one of its employees against the respondent under Section 138 of NI Act. The complaint was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that the same was not filed by the duly au...
Mrs. Rashmi Malhotra Vs. Sho and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)182; 98(2002)DLT283
S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. The petitioner initially filed a writ petition under Section 226 & 227 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of a writ of mandamus etc. and by orders dated 8th February, 2002 passed by the Division Bench, the Registry was directed to register the same as a Criminal Revision Petition. Thereafter the matter has been listed before this court.2. I have heard the leaned counsel for the parties and have been taken through the record.3. Facts in brief are that petitioner filed a complaint under Sections 190/156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') on 20th September, 2001 praying therein:'In view of the facts disclosed above and in the circumstances, it is thereforee, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble and conscientious court may kindly and graciously be pleased to take cognizance of the offence under Section 406/498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and direct the S.H.O. Police Station Vikas Puri, to register and...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »