Delhi Court April 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.
M.D. Kedia Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-2003
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT909TriDel
1. In these twelve appeals, filed against Order-in-Original No. 25/90, dated 6-6-1990 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Order-in-Appeal Nos. 431 to 434, dated 22-4-91 and Order-in-Appeal Nos.1166-1167/91, dated 29-11-91, the common issues involved are whether the value of clearances of excisable goods cleared by M/s. Dujodwala Industries, M/s. Dujodwala Udyog Ltd. and M/s. Rosin & Terpene Industries are to be clubbed for the purpose of extending the benefit of Small Scale Exemption, whether the goods are chargeable to Central Excise duty, whether the assessable value of the goods has to be determined on the basis of Depot Sale prices, whether the demand is time-barred and whether demand of duty can be confirmed against the units held to be dummy units.2.1 Shri A.K. Jain, learned Advocate, submitted that M/s. Dujodwala Industries (DI in short) is a partnership firm manufacturing rosin products, terpene chemicals, camphor and sodium acetate; that they came into existence i...
Malhotra Impex Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-2003
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT394TriDel
2. It is the complaint of the appellant that after rejecting transaction value declared by the importer the value was once enhanced and the goods were cleared. Thereafter, it was not open to the Customs Authorities to issue a fresh show cause notice for enhancing the value further. Other contention relating to the applicability of the different Rules and Customs Valuation Rules are also raised in this appeal.3. There is no explanation forthcoming as to how the second show cause notice can be justified in the facts of this case. Since appellant has made out a prima facie case, we exempt the condition for pre-deposit....
General Mechanical Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-2003
Reported in: (2002)LC413Tri(Delhi)
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The Commissioner of Central Excise, in the impugned order, held that bending, cutting, grinding, punching holes, bolting, welding, etc., on M.S. Rounds, channels, joists, angles, plates, resulting into emergence of altogether different and distinct finished goods and are liable for central excise duty.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants entered into the contract of Punjab State Electricity Board and undertook the activity of fabricating steel structures like columns, beams, etc. Show cause notice was issued to the appellants on the ground that the appellants manufactured structural of iron and steel classifiable under Heading 7508.90 of Central Excise Tariff and chargeable to duty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. Appellants filed appeal before CEGAT and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication. The impugned o...
Ashok Karnavat Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-2003
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT821TriDel
3. In this case, the appellant filed the appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise whereby penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- was imposed under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules.Tribunal vide stay order dated 24-1-2002 directed the applicant to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for hearing of the appeal. Appellant failed to comply with the stay order. Thereafter, the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance to the stay order.4. The contention of the applicant is that penalty under Rule 209A was imposed on the appellant as he was Director of Tamilnadu Tobacco Co.Ltd. and he facilitated Tamilnadu Tobacco Company to produce unaccounted cigarettes which were cleared without payment of duty. On appeal filed by the Tamilnadu Tobacco Company Ltd., Tribunal vide final order dated 12-12-2002 without asking for any pre-deposit, remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority on the ground that the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The reques...
Salora International Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-2003
Reported in: (2002)LC418Tri(Delhi)
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellants were manufacturing television sets.3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants filed classification list in respect of the goods manufactured by them and claimed classification under Heading 8529 of the Central Excise Tariff as parts of television sets. The adjudicating authority approved the classification list. Revenue reviewed the order and the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue.4. The contention of the appellants is that they were manufacturing parts of television sets and were clearing the goods as such to other unit where the parts were assembled and television sets came into existence. As the appellants cleared the T.V. parts from their factory, they were liable to be assessed as parts. The contention of the appellants is also that the goods were to be assessed as presented for assessment...
Jct Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-2003
Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC410
1. The appellants are manufacturers of Polyester/Nylon Filament Yarn and Polyester Staple Fibre of Headings 54.02 and 55.03 respectively of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. They were availing the benefit of Modvat credit on inputs under Rule 57A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 during the period of dispute. They used to manufacture polyester staple (P.S.) fibre and send the same to job workers for conversion into spun yarn under the provisions of Rule 57F. When they sent the P.S. fibre to job worker under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 57F, they debited 10% of the value of the goods under Sub-rule (6) and when they received the spun yarn made out of the P.S. fibre, from the job worker, they took re-credit of the amount under Sub-rule (7). This was the modus operandi of the appellants insofar as the manufacture of polyester yarn was concerned. During the period Jan. to July 1997, they had sent out certain quantities of P.S fibre, under challans, to their job workers. The spun yarns...
Poddar Pigments Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-2003
Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT484TriDel
2. After examining the records and hearing both sides, I am of the view that the appeal not only merits to be admitted but also requires to be disposed of instantly. After granting waiver of pre-deposit of the interest and penalty amounts involved in this case, I proceed to deal with the appeal.3. The appellants had taken Modvat credit to the tune of Rs. 5,19,262/- on High Speed Diesel Oil (input) during the period December, 1997 to March, 1998. As is seen from the copy of the RT-12 return available on record, the department by letter dated 4-8-2000 asked the appellants to 'reverse the credit and, accordingly, the appellants reversed the credit on 28-8-2000. But, at that time, proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice issued by the jurisdictional Supdt. of Central Excise on 7-5-98 was under way. The show cause notice had proposed to recover with interest the amount of duty taken credit of, under the provisions of Rule 57-I as also to impose a penalty on the party under Rules 57-I ...
M.G.F. (India) Ltd. Vs. Daily Pratap and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-2003
Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)31; 2003(2)ARBLR309(Delhi); 104(2003)DLT119; 2003(67)DRJ715
R.C. Jain, J. 1. This is an application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC moved on behalf of the respondent/judgment debtor seeking review of the judgment/order dated 17.9.98 whereby the objections filed by the respondent against the Award of the Sole Arbitrator dated 10.10.94 have been dismissed as time barred and the Award of the Sole Arbitrator has been made a rule of the Court.2. On 17.4.94, Mr. Inder Jit Gulati, Sole Arbitrator filed his Award dated 10.10.94 in the Court and the parties were issued notice of filing of the Award returnable for 18.9.95. Counsel for the petitioner had accepted the notice on the same day but did not choose to file any objections within the stipulated period. It is alleged in the application that objections to the Award were filed on 23.8.95 and not on 18.1.96 as has been noted by the Court in the order dated 17.9.98. This is stated to be an error apparent on the face of the record and it is pleaded that had the true facts that the respon...
Jitendra Mohan Gupta Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-2003
Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)441; 104(2003)DLT719; 2003(71)DRJ478
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1.The DDA came out with the registration scheme of new pattern, 1979 and the petitioner registered himself under the said scheme on 1st September 1979. The relevant clauses of the said scheme, in so far as the present dispute is concerned, are as under: '2. The Registration Scheme will open on 1st September, 1979 and will close on 30th September, 1979.' '9. The allotment of flats under this registration scheme will be by seniority. The allotment of specific flat will be by draw of lots. Seniority will be decided on the basis of the payment through Challan or the date of receipt of Bank Draft.' '26. The above terms and conditions will be followed generally but the DDA reserves its right to alter any of them in its discretion as and when considered necessary. 2.The respondent thereafter published an advertisement in terms whereof it is alleged that clause 9 aforesaid was sought to be altered inasmuch as all the registrants within a period of one month were sought...
Modern School and Shashi Pal Sharma Vs. Govt. of Nct Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-2003
Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)689; 105(2003)DLT662; 2003(71)DRJ710; 2004(1)SLJ130(Delhi)
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1.By this common judgment and order I propose to dispose of the two writ petitions, namely, CWP No.5304/1997 and CWP No.1869/1998 as the facts and the issues arising in the said petitions are similar and interconnected.2.Shri Shashi Pal Sharma, the respondent No.4 in CWP No.5304/1997 and the petitioner in CWP No.1869/1998 (hereinafter called `the respondent No.4') was appointed as Sanskrit Teacher in the Modern School (hereinafter called `the school') on 2.6.1978 and since then he was working in the school, which is the petitioner in CWP No.5304/1997 and respondent No.4 in CWP No.1869/1998 filed by the respondent No.4. 3.There was some family discord in between the respondent No.4 and his wife for which a complaint was filed by the wife of the teacher before the school authority. The school also made certain inquiries with regard to certain documents filed by the respondent No.4 with the authority to claim income tax benefits. On the inquiries made by the school it...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »