Delhi Court February 2003 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.
Rico Auto Industries Limited Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT170TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Rico Auto Industries Limited is whether the processes undertaken by them amount to manufacture and consequently whether they are eligible to take Modvat credit of the duty.2. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants received Rotor Oil Filter (ROF) in semi-finished form from M/s. Rico Auto Industries Limited (sic); that they had undertaken the process of broaching and drilling operations on the ROF which make them suitable for use by their customers like M/s. Hero Honda Limited; that they also received Gear Shaft Drum (GSD) from M/s. Rico Auto Castings Limited in semi-finished condition; that the processes of Outer turning four-hole drilling and tapping are undertaken by the appellants with a view to make GSD readily usable by the customers; that they take Modvat credit of duty paid on the semi-finished ROF and GSD received by them; that after undergoing the operation on the semi-finished ROF and GSD, the s...
Choudharana Steel (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC220
1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots/billets falling under Chapter Sub-heading 7206.90 of the CET Schedule. In August 1997 he opted for payment of Central Excise duty under the Compounded Levy Scheme under Rule 96ZO (3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On the basis of their declaration dated 11.8.97 and the verification made by Central Excise Officers, the jurisdictional Commissioner determined the Annual Capacity of Production [in short, ACP] of the appellants provisionally under the Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules 1997 [in short, ACD Rules]. Accordingly, the ACP was 8956.80 MTs and the monthly duty liability worked out to Rs. 4,66,500. Subsequently, a team of Central Excise Officers and an independent expert visited the appellant's factory on 15.1.98 and remeasured the parameters of the induction furnace and, on that basis, the Commissioner redetermined ACP as 10,360.32 MTs.'The r...
Friends Wire Industries Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT218TriDel
1. The present appeal relates to confiscation of raw-materials and goods under process, on the ground that they were not accounted in the books and the assessee had kept them out of the accounts with intention to use them for manufacturing finished products for clandestine removal without payment of Central Excise duty. The impugned order has confiscated goods valued at about Rs. 4 lakhs an has given the appellants an option to redeem them on a payment of a fine of Rs. 1 Lakh. A penalty of Rs. 25,000 has also been imposed. Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules has been invoked. The order also mentions Rule 2. The appellant's contention all along has been that the goods in question are not offending in any manner, inasmuch as, they are only raw-materials and goods in process which are not liable to duty in the hands of the appellant, They have also pointed out that the charge of non-accountal of the goods in the raw-material account with intention to evade payment of duty is also not m...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Plaza Cables Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT224TriDel
1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the demand of Rs. 11,16,854/- and Rs. 29,506/- was dropped.2. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. The notice issued to the respondents was received back with the postal remarks 'the factory was closed'. Therefore, the appeal is being taken up in the absence of the respondents.3. Heard the learned SDR. The contention of the Revenue is that the Commissioner(Appeals) had wrongly accepted the explanation given by the respondents in respect of the non-entry of the goods in the statutory record.4. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order had held that the goods were entered in the RG-1 record after being tested or after getting clearance from the buyers and there was some delay in entering the goods in their RG-1 record from the date of production and goods were cleared on payment of duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) after going into the private ...
Psl International Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT229TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. PSL International Limited against rejection of their claim for refund of customs duty paid by them in respect of Galvanised Welded Wire Mesh Reinforcement imported by them.The Appellants have claimed the benefit of Notification No. 53/97-Cus.which provided that the exemption would be available to goods which on importation into India are used for the purpose of articles within 100% Export Oriented Unit. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate, fairly mentioned that the Appellate Tribunal in the case of CCE, Surat-II v.P.S.L Corrosion Control Limited, 2003 (151) E.L.T. 439 (T) has held that the process of coating of steel bars/rebars with epoxy powder does not amount to manufacture as no different commercial commodity comes into existence. In view of this fact, the benefit of Notification No.53/97-Cus. will not be available to the Appellants. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected....
Chhaganlal Sharma and C.H. Herbs Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC554
1. In these two appeals, arising out of two different Orders; the issue involved is whether the goods manufactured by M/s. C.H. Herbs are bearing brand name of another person making them ineligible for the benefit of Small Scale exemption Notification.2. Shri V. Valte, learned Senior Departmental Representative, mentioned that M/s. C.H. Herbs manufacture excisable goods which bear the brand name "An- herb" belonging to M/s. Anzalp Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (ANZALP in short): that the Deputy Commissioner, under Adjudication Order No. 178/98-99 dated 10.3.1999, confirmed the demand of duty in respect of goods removed during the period from 21.9.96 to 29.8.97 and imposed penalty separately under Rule 11 AC of the Central Excise Act and Rule 173 Q of the Central Excise Rules denying the exemption under Notification No. 140/83-CE since the goods were bearing "brand name of another person; that, however, Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 584/2001 dated 7.11.2001 ...
Alfred Dunhill Limited Vs. Mr. Girish Kumar Hatankar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)478; 103(2003)DLT425; 2003(26)PTC469(Del)
R.C. Jain, J.1. The above named plaintiff has filed this suit for permanent injunction, passing of, rendition of accounts of profit and delivery up etc. against the defendants with the averments and allegations that it is a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1909-1917 (U.K.), having its registered office at 30, Duke Street, St. James's, London, SW1Y 6DL, United Kingdom, and Mr.Jenny Hatton, who has signed and verified the plaint and instituted the suit is duly constituted attorney of the plaintiff. It is averred that the plaintiff is highly reputed company engaged in the business inter alia, of manufacturing and selling in different countries, a diversified range of goods including, men's clothing, silk scarves and ties, watches, gift items like wallets, small jewelry and leather goods, leather desk sets, ladies handbags, writing instruments and stationery, grooming products like fragrances, umbrellas, toilrtries, travel accessories, liquor, baggage, ceramics, glassware and a...
Guru Teg Bahadur Sugars Ltd. Vs. Bhagwati Sales Corpn. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)481; 103(2003)DLT457; 2003(68)DRJ404
R.C. Jain, J.1. The above named plaintiff has filed this suit for the recovery of Rs.11,40,374.53/- paisa under Order xxxvII CPC with the averments and allegations that it is a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 and the plaint has been signed and verified and suit instituted by Shri Anurag Sharma, who is authorised to do so by virtue of Resolution dated 15.12.01. Plaintiff is a manufacturer of Sugar and had placed orders for supply of Gunny Bags vide order No.130, dated 30.09.99 with the specification; Size: 44'X 26.5', having lubes 2-5/8, had weight 1190 gms, 3 Blue Strips, Union Sewn I/B 400 pcs. (per bale) as per ISI specifications and pursuant to the said order the defendant No.1 supplied to the plaintiff 2,76,000 Gunny Bags from 15.10.99 to 04.12.99 worth Rs. 76,58,554.00/- as per the details given in para 9 of the plaint. The payment of these supplies was made to the defendant from time to time and on account as demanded by defendant No.1 However, defendant No.1 by...
Smt. Swarn Kaur and ors. Vs. Union Bank of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)446; AIR2003Delhi359; II(2003)BC255; [2004]122CompCas572(Delhi); 103(2003)DLT401
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. R.F.A. 712 of 1999 is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.8.1999 of the learned Additional District Judge in Suit No. 600/1996 whereby the Bank of India-plaintiff sought to recover a sum of Rs. 1,66,844.81 from the appellants-defendants 1 and 2 on account of grant of loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- for purchase of a commercial vehicle.2. The facts of the case, as have been noted by the learned Additional District Judge, are as follows :'This suit has been filed for recovery of Rs. 1,61,844.81 by the plaintiff bank against the defendants. It is the case of the plaintiff bank that the defendant 1 and 2 approached the plaintiff bank for grant of loan of Rs. 2 lac for purchase of Tata truck and plaintiff bank accepted their request and sanctioned loan of Rs. 2 lac under the category of term loan. Defendant No. 1 and 2 executed loan documents on 11.02.86, namely, Promissory Note for sum of Rs. 2 lac, carrying interest @ 2.5% above Reserve Bank rate with minimum of Rs. 1...
Birla Textiles Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)476; 2003(2)ARBLR155(Delhi); 103(2003)DLT449; 2003(67)DRJ534; 2003(2)RAJ140
R.C. Jain, J.1. Mr. Justice S. Joshi (Retd.) a retired Judge of this Court was appointed as Sole Arbitrator vide order dated 29.9.81 in suit No.31-A of 1981 to adjudicate upon the disputes between the Birla Textiles formally knows as the Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd and the petitioner/objector and the MCD in regard to certain surcharge levied by the MCD for alleged misuse of the electrical energy by the petitioner during the periods September to December 1980. The Sole Arbitrator entered the reference and made his award dated 6.9.85. On being noticed about the filing of the award, the petitioner has filed a petition/objection under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act 1940 (in short the 'Act') thereby challenging the award of the Arbitrator and praying that the same be set aside on the ground that there are errors apparent on the face of the record and the Arbitrator has misconducted the proceedings inasmuch as it has failed to consider the true scope of Section 283 of the Mu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »