Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1987)(32)ELT131TriDel
1. This is a revision application filed before the Government of India, which has been transferred to the Tribunal, and is being treated as an appeal.2. The appellants are a partnership concern in the small scale sector engaged in the printing of pure silk sarees falling under Item 20 of the Central Excise Tariff. They were exempt from payment of duty.During the later half of 1980 they started on experimental basis hand printing of viscose sarees without the aid of any machine operated by power of steam. Man-made fabrics fall under Item 22. The appellants submit that they were not using any machine in the printing of these sarees and they were not liable to pay the additional duty of excise in terms of Notification No 179/72, dated 24-4-1972 as amended by Notification No. 298/79, dated 24-11-1979. On 28-11-1980 the Central Excise officers visited the premises of the appellants and seized 107 art silk sarees valued at Rs. 8,560.00. The appellants explained to the Assistant Collector an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1996)(84)ELT127TriDel
1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal dated 17-7-1985 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. The respondents are M/s. Thermax Pvt. Ltd., Pune.2. The matter relates to the eligibility of the goods for Captive Power Plant of M/s. Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Ltd. ('GHC' for short), under exemption Notification No. 71/85-Cus., dated 17-3-1985. The GHC were engaged in the manufacture of soda ash. For their energy requirements, they wanted to instal a Captive Power Plant. The Respondents - M/s.Thermax Pvt. Ltd. has imported boilers and accessories for use in the Captive Power Plant of GHC. Under exemption Notification No.71/85-Cus., dated 17-3-1985, the goods falling under Heading No. 84.66 of the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred as the Tariff) when imported for the Power Projects attracted nil rate of customs duty. The respondents had applied for registration of Contract under Heading No. 84.66 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2001)(130)ELT500TriDel
1. In these five appeals, arising out of a common Order No.32/92-Collr., dated 30-6-1992 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Mumbai, the issue involved is whether the exemption under Notification No. 175/86-CE., dated 1-3-1986 is available to the excisable goods manufactured by M/s. Swicon Micro System Pvt. Ltd. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that M/s. Swicon Micro System Pvt. Ltd. manufacture electronic testing and measuring instruments, electrical machinery, mechanical appliances, etc. On 26-2-1989, Central Excise Officers intercepted a vehicle No. MTF 2936 carrying electronic testing and welding instruments and temperature controllers valued at Rs. 1,78,337.50. The goods were affixed with brand name 'APLAB' which was concealed with stickers of 'Swicon'. The Officers also found 5 meters and 6 power supply valued at Rs. 22,000/- unaccounted in their factory premises. All the goods were seized by the Officers. A show cause notice dated 24-8-1989 was issued to them alleging tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:12. 10.2018 Pronounced on:22. 04.2019 LPA No.359/2017, CM Nos.17922/2017, 20160/2017, 33383- 84/2017, 47167/2017 & 660/2018 BAYER CORPORATION ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sudhir Chandra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Ms. Arpita Sawhney and Mr. Arun Kumar Jana, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. T.P. Singh and Mr. Shashwat Jain, Advs. for R-1 & 6. Ms. Rajeshwari, Adv. for R-2 & 5. Ms. Saya Choudhary Kapur, Mr. Vivek Ranjan and Mr. Devanshu Khanna, Advocates for Interveners. RFA(OS)(COMM) 6/2017, CM Nos.17508/2017 & 32128- 29/2017 BAYER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GMBH & ANR ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Nishchal Anand and Mr. Sanchith Shivakumar, Advs. versus ALEMBIC PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Saya Choudhary Kapur, Mr. Vivek Ranjan and Mr. Devanshu Khanna, Advs. FAO (OS) (COMM) 169/20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 146(2008)DLT455
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. In Petition No. I (CW 24105/2005) Star India Pvt. Ltd. has prayed for a certiorari quashing the proviso to Section 2(1)(k) of the TRAI Act; a certiorari for quashing Tariff Orders dated 15.1.2004, 1.10.2004, 1.12.2004 and 29.11.2005 and the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection Regulation, 2004 It has further been prayed that the Court should declare that TRAI is not competent to regulate broadcasting services as also another declaration to the effect that these impugned Orders and impugned Interconnect Regulations are vocative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(a) and (g) as also Articles 301 to 307 of the Constitution. In Petition No. II (CW 5332/2006) Star India Private Limited has prayed for the setting aside an order of the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 12(C) of 2005 titled Grahak Hitvardhani Sarvajanik Sanstha v. TRAI and (b) issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the Telecommunication (Broadcasting an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2004)89ITD235(Delhi)
1. This Special Bench has been constituted under section 255 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to decide the following question arising out of the assessee's appeal in ITA No. 6177/Del/96 for assessment year 1993-94 : "Whether on facts and in law, the gains earned on cancellation of the Foreign Exchange Forward Contract are capital receipt or revenue receipt? If it is capital receipt, whether the same should be reduced from the cost of plant & machinery in connection with which the forward contract was entered into?" 2. At the outset, relevant facts having bearing on the point in issue may briefly be set out. The assessee company is a limited company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of automobile tyres, tubes etc. The assessee imported certain plant and machinery for setting up a new tyre manufacturing plant near Baroda in Gujarat state during the year 1991. For financing the project, the assessee borrowed funds in US Dollars and Pound Sterling from US Exim Bank and C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2002VAD(Delhi)225; 98(2002)DLT764; 2002(64)DRJ68; (2002)IIILLJ447Del
K.S. Gupta, J. 1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashment of the complaint filed on 29th October 1997 by the State (through Inspector of Factories), respondent No. 2 and the summons dated 18th November 1997 issued by a Metropolitan Magistrate, respondent No. 4. 2. Complaint (copy at pages 69 to 70 on the file) was filed by respondent No. 2 against N.K. Chaubey alleging that Container Corporation of India Ltd is a factory under section 2 of the Factories Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') and N.K. Chaubey, accused being proprietor/ partner/director thereof is an occupier within the meaning of section 2(n) of the Act. Factory situated at Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, New Delhi was inspected by the Inspector of Factories on 29th September 1997 at 12 noon and breaches as detailed in para 4 of the complaint were noticed. Accused was, thus, guilty of contravening Rule 11-A of Delhi Factories Rules, 1950 read with Sections 6 and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1983(12)ELT258(Del)
Sachar, J. 1. This group of petitioners was heard together as common points arose in all these petitions. The arguments were addressed in C.W. 2131/1982. A part from details as to the quantity to be imported and the dates there is no difference and the judgment in this case will govern the other writ petitions also. 2. The petitioners import defective/secondary grade stainless steel circles. The said material is broadly used in the consumption of industries engaged in the manufacture of the utensils in the country. By Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter to be called the 1962 Act) duty of Customs shall be levied at such rates as may be specified under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (hereinafter to be called the 1975 Act). Goods having been received the petitioner presented their bill of entry for clearance to the Customs Authorities. The petitioners claim that they were entitled to clear the goods by paying rate of duty under entry No. 73.15(1) in the schedule to 1975 Act, wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1995)(80)ELT680TriDel
1. This appeal arises from order-in-Appeal No. 5/93, dated 31-3-1994 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Hyderabad. The Revenue is aggrieved with the order-in-original passed by the Assistant Collector, who by his order dropped the proceedings initiated by the issue of L.C. Demand Notice dated 28-1-1987. The Asstt. Collector has held that Bill of Entry 280/31-10-1986 was correctly assessed to nil rate of duty by the Customs Department in terms of Notification No. 262/58, dated 11-10-1958 in respect of imported one bulk-carrier vessel M.V. MARATHA DEEP in Oct., 19"86 by the importer appellants herein. The facts of the case are that the said bulk carrier was imported by the appellants having been purchased from M/s. Bravo Enterprises Ind. Ltd., Liberia.The said vessel arrived in Visakhapatnam from Australia carrying a bulk consignment of 27,000 M.Ts. of Cocking Coal. The vessel discharged part of cargo (15,000 M.Ts.) at Visakhapatnam and left for Haldia to discharge the balance cargo of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. The present appeal, under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereafter the Act ?) is directed against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge, dated 17.02.2010 in OMP 40/2000. The impugned judgment dismissed the objections of the appellant (hereafter MMTC ?) to the majority award of a three member Arbitral tribunal (hereafter the Tribunal ?) dated 23.08.1999. The award had directed payments to the claimant/respondent (hereafter Belcom ?) by MMTC. 2. The facts relevant for this case are that on 14.10.1991, Contract No.35 was executed between MMTC and Belcom for sale of 50,000 metric tonnes of Muriate of Potash (MOP) at a price of Rs. 2,766.50 per metric ton. This was an F.O.B. contract.. The said contract contained a payment clause by which MMTC was to open a Letter of Credit with the Bank for Foreign Trade of USSR, Minsk “ Bank of Foreign Economic Affairs [hereafter BFEA ?], valid for a period of 90 days. The relevant portion of t...
Tag this Judgment!