Delhi Court December 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 11 of about 128 results (0.019 seconds)Bharat Electronics Ltd. Vs. Chief Labour Commissioner
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)128; 1996(36)DRJ153; (1996)IILLJ193Del
Usha Mehra, J. (1) M/S Bharat Electronics Ltd. is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by respondent No.1, the Appellate Authority as well as by Certifying Officer. By the impugned order they amended Clause 9.1 and 14.1 of the draft standing order submitted by the petitioner for certification.(2) Vide Clause 9.1, petitioner had proposed 18 days annual leave to its workmen. In clause 14.1 it reserved the right to transfer the employees from one unit to another and from one State or town to another. Workmen did not agree to the proposal given in these two clauses and thereforee, made representation before the Certifying Officer. The Appellate Authority as well as the Certifying Officer keeping in view the annual leave granted by the Ghaziabad Unit of the Company amended Clause 9.1 thereby certifying that 30 days annual leave be given to the workmen, by amending modifying Clause 14.1 of the draft standing order they curtailed the powers of the Management, petitioner to effect transfer o...
Tag this Judgment!Qasim Ali Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1996(1)Crimes291; 61(1996)DLT303; 1996(36)DRJ549; 1996RLR90
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J. (1) Rule D.B. The detention order in this case under the Cofeposa is dated 29.3.1995 and several points have been raised by the writ petitioner. In regard to the contention that the reference was not made to the Advisory Board within Five weeks, counter affidavit has been Filed and the record of the Advisory Board has been verified by us and they show that reference was sent and was also received by the Advisory Board on 2.5.95. This point is found against the petitioner.(2) The next contention raised is that the petitioner was brought to the Advisory Board without being informed that he was to be produced before the Advisory Board and thereforee, he did not have any time to engage a lawyer before the Advisory Board. A separate affidavit dated 27.11.95 by the Superintendent Jail No.1 was filed staling that the detenu was informed and that his thumb impression was obtained on the letter No.F-5/7/95 Home-Pt-II dated 28.4.95 received from the Deputy Secretary Home ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. A. Algappan Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT171TriDel
1. Appellant is not present and is not represented before us. He has sent an application seeking adjournment and also transfer of the case to Madras. The request is rejected.2. We have perused the papers and heard the departmental representative.3. Appellant imported a Mercedes Benz 300D 1983 model car. This import is from West Germany. He presented bill of entry on 28-2-1985 showing the consolidated value of the car with Seria 1 equipment, with radio decker and stereo cassette and also air-conditioner. The Assistant Collector did not accept the valuation and adopted the price shown in the manufacturer's price-list for the car and separately valued the accessories which he concluded to be optional. The Asstt. Collector allowed depreciation of 19% and rejected the claim for diplomatic discount. In appeal, the Collector (Appeals) allowed 10% diplomatic discount but rejected the other claims. Hence, this appeal.4. Three contentions are raised in the appeal memorandum. The first is that f...
Tag this Judgment!Neo Pharma (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT49TriDel
1. In both these appeals, common question of law and facts arises, hence they are taken together for disposal as per law. The question which arises for our determination in these appeals is the question of correct classification of the product "Siloderm Ointment". The appellants had sought the classification under sub-heading 3003.10 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 while the department has classified the product under sub-heading 3304.00 attracting duty @ 110% ad valorem.2. Appeal E/871/92-C arises from order-in-appeal dated 13-1-1992 12/821 50 EXCISE LAW TIMES passed by the Collector (Appeals), Bombay, who, allowed the application filed by the Assistant Collector and rejected the appeal of the assessee. The assistant Collector in the order-in-original had accorded approval to classification list No. R.II/H/27/90-91 for the Siloderm Ointment under sub-heading 3003.10 which had been challenged by the Revenue on the ground that the product contains Dimethicone B.P.C., Zinc Oxide I.P....
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Solar Minerals and Chemicals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT240TriDel
1. These are five appeals by the Revenue involving interpretation of Notification No. 222/77-CE., dated 15-7-1977.2. Brief facts of the case are - A. Nos. E/2603 to 2605/89-D : In these appeals M/s. S.N. Synthesis and M/s. Scientific Compounds and Processes are manufacturers of 'Sabena' Scouring Powder. These units availed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 222/77-CE., dated 15-7-1977 declaring that no powder is used for the manufacture of the said scouring powders. However, during 1988 it was noticed that the said two units are cleaning 'Sabena Powder' in 90 Kgs. gunny bags to M/s. Solar Minerals and Chemicals, M/s. Sabena Agencies and M/s. Veera & Veera - all the three respondents herein, and theSe bulk pack of clearing powders are repacked into 300 gms. retail packs and for such packing power is used. Since, according to the Department, repacking of detergent powders/scouring powders in retail packs amount to process incidental and ancillary for completion of manufacturi...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E. Vs. Electronic Calculators and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT109TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal passed by Collector to Central Excise (Appeals), Madras.2. The matter relates to the sale of electronic goods through a Sole Distributor. The Revenue has terms the Sole Distributor as a related person for the purpose of CESA, 1944. The matter was adjudicated by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore who ordered that the price at which the distributors M/s. Devidayal Electronics and Wires Ltd.,. Bangalore sold the goods which have been manufactured by the respondent M/s. Electronic Calculators and Computers Co., should be taken into account for Central Excise assessment purposes. On appeal, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras set aside the order of the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise, Bangalore. He held that M/s.Devidayal Electronics and Wires Ltd. who purchased the electronic desk type calculators from M/s. Electronic Calculators and Computers Co.were not their related perso...
Tag this Judgment!Travancore Titanium Products Vs. Colletor of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT229TriDel
1. These are two appeals, one filed by M/s. Travancore Titanium Ltd., Trivandrum and the other filed by the Revenue against the same order-in-appeal dated 28-2-1984 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras.2. The matter relates to the valuation of the Sulphuric Acid produced by M/s. Travancore Titanium Products Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as TTP) for their captive use in the production of Titanium Dioxide. The two important raw materials for the production of Titanium Dioxide were Sulphur and Illmenite. The sulphur was used for the production of Sulphuric Acid which was subsequently used in the process of manufacture of Titanium Dioxide. Sulphuric Acid was classifiable under Item No. 14G of the old Central Excise Tariff and was dutiable on the basis of the value. For arriving at the value of Sulphuric Acid, TTP declared their direct costs and indirect costs. For arriving at the indirect costs, the total cost was divided by them by their normal production capacity and not...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Asmi Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT313TriDel
1. These are appeals filed by the department with reference to the orders of the Collector (Appeals).2. A notice for today's hearing was duly issued by the Registry to the Respondent by Registered A.D. However, neither they have caused any appearance nor is there any other communication requesting adjournment or otherwise before us.3. In the circumstances, we allowed the ld. D.R. to proceed with his submissions on merits.4. Ld. D.R. stated that the issue relates to the classification of aluminium voil seals of various sizes made from duty paid aluminium coils.5. The assessee had filed the classification list claiming classification under item 27(b) and asking for the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 292/77.6. Initially the A.C. had approved the classification list but subsequently he issued a corrigendum classifying them under T.I. 42.7. The assessees filed appeals before Collector (Appeals) praying for classification of the products under T.I. 68.8. Collector (Appeals) set aside...
Tag this Judgment!Lalit Kumar Wadhwa Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT549TriDel
1. The appellants, herein, imported a consignment declared as spare parts of watches. In the invoice produced from a Singapore supplier the description and value given was 'spare parts of watches total 2103 kgs.at Hongkong $ 130 per kg. c.i.f. Madras.A certificate of the Chinese origin of the goods was produced. The Custom House, Madras, had received intelligence that assembled watch movements were being imported at that port in the guise of parts of watches. The consignment was examined and it was found that the consignment consisted of a large number of assembled watch movements as well as spare parts of watches which was contrary to the declaration. The department conducted enquiries regarding the value of such assembled watch movements and found that for such goods of Chinese origin there were quotations of higher price received by M/s. H.C.L. The department also noted earlier imports of such parts through the Custom House of M/s. Saraswati Time Equipments, Madras. Considering thi...
Tag this Judgment!Orson Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT499TriDel
1. These appeals arise out of a common order dated 5-11-1992 passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay demanding duty of Rs. 76,54,524/- in respect of 41 consignments of kits of components of colour Television Sets imported by the appellants from Japan in 1985-86 under proviso to Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs on appellant Orson Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and of Rs. 5 lakhs on appellant Manohar Rajaram Chhabaria. The Department had recovered certain incriminating documents from the premises of Orson Electronics Pvt. Ltd. indicating under invoicing, besides statements given by appellant M.R. Chhabria and some officers of Orson Electronics.Investigations were also caused to be done by Japanese police who recovered export declarations relating to the consignments along with connected invoices The department's case is that the imported goods have been undervalued based on 10 invoices issued by M/s. Supra (Japan) Ltd. which were submitted to Japanese C...
Tag this Judgment!