Delhi Court October 1988 Judgments

Kapoor Chand and ors. Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 37(1989)DLT43; 1989(16)DRJ83

D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) The principal question that arises for decision in this writ petition is if a driver and a conductor of a school bus are employees within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act') and, if so, whether they are entitled to salaries, allowances and other prescribed benefits, if any, as required under Section 10 of the Act. Under Section 2(h) of the Act, an 'employee' means a teacher and includes every other employee working in a recognised school. Section 10 of the Act reads as under :- '(1)The scales of pay and allowances, medical facilities, pension, gratuity, provident fund and other prescribed benefits of the employees of a recognised private school shall not be less than those of the employees of the corresponding status in schools run by the appropriate authority : Provided that where the scales of pay and allowances, medical facilities, pension, gratuity, provident fund and other prescribed benefits of the employees...

Mangalam Paints Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1989)(19)ECC79

1. By the impugned order, the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Cochin has demanded Central Excise duty at the appropriate rate on cement paint valued at Rs. 2,56,521.30 for the year 1980-81 and Rs. 3,16,310.70 for the year 1981-82 as indicated in the show cause notice under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Additional Collector has held that cement paint indicated above was manufactured by M/s.Mangalam Paints and not by M/s. Super Paints and Chemicals of which Dr.M.I. Itty was the proprietor. Additional Collector has also directed that value of clearances shown in the name of M/s. Super Paints and Chemicals during the year 1982-83 should be taken into account for computing the value of clearances of M/s. Mangalam Paints under Notification No. 80/80-C.E., dated 19.6.1980 as amended and duty, if liable, demanded appropriately. By the impugned order he has also confiscated 25 bags of cement paints with the ad...

Roussel Pharmaceuticals (India) Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1989)(19)ECC318

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 1103/85 BCH dated 28.2.1985 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.By this order, the Collector confirmed the order dated 3.3.1984 passed by the Assistant Collector confirming the classification of Methyl Cellulose imported by the appellants under Heading No. 39.01/06 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Schedule') and rejected the appellants' claim for classification of the goods under heading No. 29.01/45 (13) of the Schedule.2. The appellants were not represented at the hearing but they had made written submissions and stated that they would not be appearing at the hearing. We have read the record and heard Shri A.S. Sunder Rajan, DR, for the respondent Collector. (i) Chapter 39 of the Schedule covers only products having the characteristic of plasticity. Methyl Cellulose does not have that character. It is neither a plastic nor an artificial resin. (ii) Methyl Cel...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Trigan Metal Sections

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1989)(19)ECC282

1. Question involved in the subject appeal is classification of steel panels, partitioned plates and shelves. The department contends that these are parts of steel furniture since these have been given a special shape so as to make them identifiable as an essential component of steel furniture and from which in conjunction with other parts, an article of steel furniture can be .assembled with bolts or nuts and as such these are classifiable, according to the department, under Tariff Item 40 and are not covered by the exemption Notification 52/70 dated 1.3.1970.1.1 The assessee (respondent herein), on the other hand, had filed the classification list of the said products under Tariff Item 68 of the CET as it stood before 22.8.1986.2. The'original authority, namely the Assistant Collector of Central Excise in coming to his conclusion in his order dated 2.1.1984 has given the following findings : "I have gone through the records of the case carefully. For principle of natural justice als...

Andhra Sugar Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1989)(19)ECC316

1. This is a Revision Application filed under Section 131 of the Customs Act, 1962 against order-in-appeal passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Madras. On the setting up of this Tribunal, this has been transferred here and is being treated as an appeal before us.2. Appellants have imported certain items, broadly described as "spares for Be-ckman Instruments". They claimed that the goods, being parts of the photometer, were assessable under Heading 90.25 of Customs Tariff.The Custom House took a view that Beckman instruments, being electrical, would fall under Heading 90.28(4). The parts, being printed circuits, complete with electronic components such as thermionic valves and transistors, were held to be classifiable under Heading 90.29(2).The resistances which were imported by appellants held to be classifiable under Heading 85.18/27(1).3. When the appellant went up in appeal, the Appellate Collector of Customs, Madras held that except for one item, namely, resistance, the r...

Laxmi Industrial Corporation Vs. Collector of C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1988)(19)LC557Tri(Delhi)

1. We heard Shri B.B. Gujral, the learned Advocate. He submitted that the impugned order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) is not prima facie, sustainable as he dismissed the appeal without passing orders on the Stay Application which was made on 28.10.1987 alongwith the appeal. He pointed out that not only the Stay Application was made but also a number of reminders were sent to the Collector in spite of which no order was passed on the request for stay. He argued that in view of this, order is not sustainable.2. Shri L.C. Chakraborty, the learned JDR stated that there is no mention of the Stay Application in the impugned order and this indicates that most probably the Collector lost sight of the Stay Application. He submitted that it would be fair to set aside the order and remand the matter to the Collector, as suggested by the learned Advocate, for consideration of the Stay Application and passing fresh orders.3. We have perused the documents and considered the argument...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Laminated Packings (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Guntur against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras dated 6-2-1985. The short question that arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the duty paid kraft paper laminated with Polyethylene resulting in 'Polyethylene laminated kraft paper' would amount to 'manufacture' and excisable under Law or not. The Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order following his earlier order in respect of the same respondent herein has taken the view that polyethylene laminated or coated kraft paper obtained from duty paid kraft paper is reliable to duty again. The lower Appellate authority has followed the Division Bench Ruling of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Standard Packaging, Nellore v. Union of India, reported in 1985 (20) ELT 314 for reaching the aforesaid finding and has held that the respondent herein would be eligible to claim refund of duty paid by them 'under protest' in t...

Cable House Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1988)(18)ECC121

1. In this Misc. Application the applicants M/s. Cable House, Hyderabad has prayed for grant of permission to include the following grounds in the appeal filed by them : "(a) It is most respectfully submitted that the process of coating PVC on steel wires by the appellant does not amount to manufacture within the meaning of the definition of manufacture in Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. It is submitted that the coating of the steel wire is done merely for the purpose of preventing the said steel wire from deteriorating in quality. The said process does not in any way change the name, character or use of the steel wire which establishes that there is no manufactures involved as it is settled that unless by a process the name, character or use of an article is changed there is no "manufacture" within the meaning of the aforesaid Section 2(f) involved. The Bombay High Court in its judgment in the case of Shakti Insulated Wires Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Vikrama Engineering Company

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1989)(20)LC184Tri(Delhi)

1. The Respondent is not represented today. He had sent a letter dated 31.8.1988 to the Registry in which he noted the date of hearing fixed for today and stated that he would take further action ori receipt of a copy of the "Revision Application". By "Revision Application" perhaps he meant the reference letter sent by the Appellate Collector to the Central Government for initiating revision proceedings under the then Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Appellate Collector sent him a copy of his said letter-dated 14/15.4.1980 on 29:8.1988. However, the Respondent is still not represented even though he was duly notified of the date of hearing and he was well aware of it. There is no request for adjournment on record. In the circumstances, the Bench decided to take up the hearing and disposal of this appeal on merits.2. We have heard the Ld. Representative of the Department and have perused the record, particularly the written submissions made by the Respondent...

Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. Ram Piari Sethi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 36(1988)DLT424; 1989(16)DRJ373

P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This review application has been moved against the judgment dated 1/6/1984, of M.L. Jain, J. (as His Lordship then was) by which he had dismissed the civil revision filed under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short 'the Act') against the eviction order passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Shri Brajesh Kumar, on 13/10/1980, on the ground of bonafide requirement for residence covered by Clause (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act.(2) I have heard the arguments in detail in order to first decide whether the review petition should be admitted for hearing or not. M.L. Jain, J. had retired in July 1984 and this review petition was moved after His Lordship's retirement. Many grounds were mentioned in the review petition but at the stage of arguments Mr. Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate, who appeared for the petitioner, confined his arguments only on one point i.e. that the court has committed an error apparent on the face of the record in not ...