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 : Delhi
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:23. 05.2017 CS(COMM) 1124/2016 INDURE PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate and Mr Prashant Mehta and Mr Gaurav Malik, Advs. versus HEIDELBERG CEMENT LIMITED AND ANR. ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Soli J.Sorabjee, Sr. Advocate with Mr Krishnendu Datta, Mr Ajay Goyal, Mr Bikash Mohanty, Mr Amit K. Singh and Mr Shantanu, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA JUDGMENT IA Nos. 16649/2013 (O. 39 R. 1 and 2 CPC) 1. This order shall dispose of the IA No.16649/2013 (O. 39 R. 1 and 2 CPC) of the plaintiff. The defendants filed the reply and sought vacation of the interim stay dated 19.102013.2. In this application, the plaintiff has prayed for the stay of invocation of the bank guarantee. CS (COMM) 1124/2016 Page 1 3. The admitted facts of the case are that the plaintiff and the defendant had executed a Letter of Intent (LoI) dated 25.01.2013. Subsequently, an agreement dated 20.02.2013 was enter...
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 : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1991)LC301Tri(Delhi)
1. The Misc. application is for seeking to amplify and to amend certain grounds of appeal, and on a consideration of the proposed amplification and amendment, and on hearing both the parties in the matter, the Misc.application was allowed.2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30-9-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi by which he demanded duty of Rs. 10,93,638.60 in respect of steel tabular poles/electric poles for the period 1-4-1985 to 30-9-1985. The appellants herein manufacture steel tabular poles falling under Item 68 of Central Excise Tariff. The goods were considered to be falling under Item 26AA(iv) of Central Excise Tariff and are exempted from duty under Notification 69/73 till 1982 when doubt was expressed about the classification of the item and the department initiated adjudication proceedings by issue of show cause notice dated 18-12-1982 seeking to classify the item under Tariff Item 68 and raising a demand for short levy for the period ...
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 : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2000)LC387Tri(Delhi)
1. The above appeals have been referred to this Larger Bench vide separate reference orders. In all the cases, the issue involved is eligibility or otherwise to the benefit of Modvat credit in terms of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules.2. The stand of the revenue is that the items in dispute namely welding electrodes, wires and cables etc. are not capital goods within the meaning of the explanation to Rule 57Q which covers goods used only in production, processing or bringing about any change in substance for manufacture of the final product and that the goods in question are not such goods. The Revenue is also of the view that the amendment in Rule 57Q which was made on 16-3-1995 is prospective and not retrospective in operation.3. In the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd., Modvat credit has been denied on power cables and capacitors; the period of dispute is March 1994 to October 1994. This case has been referred to the Larger Bench by Misc.Order No. 52/98, dated 27-1-1998 1998 (100) E.L...
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!