Delhi Court March 2004 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.
Pragati Metals Pvt. Ltd., Mamta Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-2004
Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC99
1. These seven appeals arises out of six different Order-in-Appeal and filed by Pragati Metals Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Mamta & Company and M/s. Jagat Jyoti Steels Pvt. Ltd., are taken up together for disposal as the issue involved in all the appeals is identical.2. Shri J.S. Agrawal, learned Advocate for all the Appellants, submitted that the Appellants manufacture S.S. utensils which are exempted from payment of duty under Notification No. 4/97-CE dated 1.3.97; that the duty paid stainless steel plates are purchased from market and are cut into small pieces which are hot rolled; that hot rolled pieces are chargeable to nil rate of duty; that after annealing, pickling, hot rolled pieces are subjected to the process of cold rolling; that thereafter, these are cut into circles in untrimmed condition which are trimmed subsequently; that trimmed circles are sold on payment of duty and are also used for captive consumption in the manufacture of utensils; that there is nil rate of duty in respe...
Florida Electrical Industries Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-2004
Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT393TriDel
1. M/s. Florida Electricals Industries Ltd. have filed the present appeal against the dismissal of their refund claim.2. Shri J.S. Agarwal, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture electrical fan, fittings and geysers; that Central Excise officers searched their premises on 22-9-2001 and Anil Kumar Arora on pressurisation by the officers deposited Rs. 15,00,000/-; that show cause notice has been issued to them only on 25-3-2003 after about 17 months of the search; that though they have filed detailed reply to the show cause notice and they have also appeared personally on 15-2-2003, no adjudication order has been passed by the adjudicating authority nor money has been returned to them; that they, therefore, had filed a claim for refunding the amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- paid by them; that Deputy Commissioner has rejected their refund claim on the ground that Anil Kumar Arora has admitted in his statement that the goods had been cleared without payment of duty and the ...
Amc Cookware (P) Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-2004
Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC533
1. The issue raised in this appeal at the instance of the importer is whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in holding that the technical licence fee payable by the appellant is related to the imported goods and whether the technical licence fee which has not yet been paid is addable to the transaction value under rule 9(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules 1988 in respect of import made by the appellant during the period august 2000 to February 2001.2. The appellant is a joint ventrure company and 51% of its shares were held by Alpha BETEILIGUNGESELLSCHAFT Gmbh (hereinafter referred to as Alpha) and the remaining 49% of the shares are held by Ceejay Cookware Investments Ltd., Mauritius (hereinafter referred to as Ceejay). Ceejay had made application in January 2000 to Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) seeking clearance for investment in the appellant company.In the above application, it was indicated that the appellant company would be located at Bangalore, Karnata...
Saraya Distillery Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-2004
Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC162
1. The appellants, during the material period, were engaged in the manufacture of country liquor, Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL), Rectified Ethyl Alcohol and Denatured Ethyl Alcohol, among which only the last mentioned product was excisable. They claimed the benefit of Modvat credit of the duty paid on molasses (input) for the period 1.3.94 to 20.7.94 without filing the necessary declaration under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. They filed the declaration only on 27.8.94, with an application for condonation of delay. The department, in a show-cause notice issued on 21.12.94, alleged that the delay was not condonable and that the Modvat credit claimed was not supported by documentary evidence. The department accordingly proposed to deny the above credit to the appellants under Rule 57-I and to impose a penalty on them under Rule 173Q of the above Rules. The adjudicating authority allowed the claim of Modvat credit to the extent of Rs. 7,19,820, against which the departme...
Rachitech Engineers P. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-2004
Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC651
1. In this appeal filed by Rachitech Engineer P. Ltd., the issues involved are whether the goods exported to Nepal under bond are exempted goods and whether the extended period of limitation for demanding duty under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act is invocable.2. Shri Suresh Agarwal, learned advocate, submitted that the appellants manufactured parts of crane and claimed SSI exemption under Notification No. 9/2000-CE dated 1.3.2000; that during the financial year 1999-2000 they had cleared some goods for export to Nepal under bond without payment of duty; that the value of those clearances was not added in the aggregate value of clearances for home consumption in terms of Clause 3 of the notification for the purpose of determining the aggregate value of goods cleared for home consumption; that during the subsequent financial year 2000-2001, they cleared the excisable goods at the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 9/2000 as their total value of clearances of exci...
Dab Exports and ors. Vs. Cc and Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-2004
Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC221
"Whether, for the period 1.4.1997-31.3.2002, the Policy Circular No. 32 (RE-99)/1999-2000 dated 17.9.99 issued by the DGFT regarding ITC (HS) classification of 'dried garlic' is a valid and binding clarification on such classification in terms of para 4.13 of EXIM Policy, 1997-2002." The appellants had imported various quantities of 'dried garlic' and sought Clearance under ITC (HS) Heading 071290.04 and Customs Tariff Heading 0712.90 under Bill of Entry filed on different dates before 17.9.99, the date of Policy Circular No. 32 (RE-99)/1999-2000 issued by DGFT regarding ITC (HS) classification of 'dried garlic'. The garlic imported by all the appellants has a water content of above 10% WW.Relying on the Circular dated 17.9.99 issued by the Joint Director with the approval of the Director General of Foreign Trade, the adjudicating authorities took the view that the garlic imported are not dried garlic. The circular reads as follows : - "It is hereby clarified that 'Dried Garlic' class...
Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Hindustan Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-2004
Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC268
1. The learned Single Member after noticing the conflicting decision of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Metazinc (India) Ltd., reported in 1991 (53) E.L.T. 402 (Tribunal) and in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta-IV v. Fort William Co.Ltd. reported in 2001 (130) E.L.T. 620 (Tri.-Kolkata) referred the matter to the Larger Bench. The issue before the Larger Bench is in respect of quantum of refund, under Rule 173L of Central Excise Rules, 1944, in respect of goods which were earlier cleared on payment of duty and, thereafter, received in the factory of the manufacturer and the same were cleared after re-processing/re-conditioning at Nil rate of duty under the exemption notification.2. We find that the issue in the case of Collector of Central Excise v.Metazinc (India) Ltd., reported in 1991 (53) E.L.T. 402 (Tribunal) was in respect of the duty paid goods received in the factory of manufacturer for re-processing and, thereafter, the goods were...
Mapsore Advertising Agency Vs. Feedback Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Delhi251; 111(2004)DLT160; 2004(74)DRJ117
Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1.In the race of becoming No.1 newspaper in the country, all norms and expected ethical standards have been thrown to the winds. Unfortunately, fraud is the foundation of this litigation in which court's order has been obtained in a clandestine manner by suppression of material and vital facts from the court.2.In view of the urgency the learned counsel for the parties have agreed that the matter be disposed of finally at this stage itself.3.This appeal is directed against the order dated 19th December, 2003 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of a writ petition filed by one Pravin Kumar Ujjain with the following observations and directions:-1.' With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken for final disposal straightway. 2.The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent National Readership Survey Council brings out the report with regard to the readership of various publications each year. The report of 2003 is now ready and this fact is admi...
Ajanta Offset and Packaging Ltd. Vs. the Regional Provident Fund Commi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-2004
Reported in: 110(2004)DLT757; 2004(74)DRJ293; [2004(101)FLR772]; (2004)IILLJ915Del; 2004(3)SLJ473(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 27th May 1974 communicating coverage of the Petitioner under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Family Pension Funds Act, 1952, now known as the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act') w.e.f. 1st April, 1974. The Petitioner is also aggrieved by a memorandum dated 24th November, 1976 sent by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (for short 'RPFC') demanding a sum of Rs.42,562.40 + Rs.989.25 on account of damages for delayed remittances of provident fund dues from April, 1974 to February 1976.2. The Petitioner carries on business of printing in Delhi. By a letter dated 27th May, 1974, the Petitioner was informed by the RPFC that the provisions of the Act and the Scheme framed there under would be applicable to the Petitioner w.e.f. 1st April, 1974 and that the Petitioner was allotted a code number DL/3480 for this purpose. The Petitioner was requested to...
Smt. Kusum, Wife of Shri R.K. Saxena, Daughter of Shri Daya Shankar Ma ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-2004
Reported in: 110(2004)DLT721; I(2004)DMC654; 2004(74)DRJ24
Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. The Appellant was married to the Respondent on 17th June, 1979. They lived together only for a few months and since March 1980 they have lived together for short periods on a couple of occasions. In March 1980, the Appellant was dropped at her parental home because she was expecting a child. On 15th May 1980 a female child was born and she is now almost 24 years of age.2. According to the Appellant, her husband did not even come to visit her or to even see the child with the result that she was compelled to apply to the matrimonial Court some time in October 1980 for restitution of conjugal rights. She says that during the pendency of the restitution petition, her husband's grandmother was taken ill and so she was called to look after her. She stayed for a few days in the hospital where the grandmother was admitted and thereafter in her matrimonial home. It appears that there was some cooling down of differences between the parties with the result that the restitu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »