Delhi Court December 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 4 of about 128 results (0.021 seconds)Oswal Vanaspati and Allied Vs. Coll. of C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT341TriDel
1. The appellants manufacture Vegetable Products using certain raw materials viz. minor oils like Rice Bran oil which were covered by two Notifications 22/87, dated 1-3-1987 and 45/89-C.E. (N.T.), dated 11-10-1989 which granted the facility of Money Credit as provided for in Rule 57K of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The former notification was rescinded on 25-8-1989. The appellants had originally filed a declaration on 10-3-1988 during the currency of the former Notification and started availing of the benefit thereunder. When the latter Notification was issued on 11-10-1989 after some gap following the rescission of the earlier Notification,, they filed a fresh declaration and obtained dated acknowledgement thereof on 11-10-1989. They, however, availed money credit for the receipts of specified Mineral Oils from 20-10-1989 itself which was prior to their filing the declaration. This was objected to and the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh passed the impugned order disallowing un...
Tag this Judgment!Kamal Plywood and Allied Inds. P. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT323TriDel
1. These are appeals against the order dated 16-12-1993 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of blockboard, plywood and flushdoors falling under Chapter 44 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Central Excise officers, Ghaziabad visited the appellants factory on 1-2-1988 and carried out certain checks of stocks of finished goods with reference to R.G. 1 register. They also found mixed stock of 1300 pcs. of plywood and blockboard in the finishing room of the factory which was not entered in the R.G. 1 register. Further verification of stocks was carried out on 2-2-1988 and the central excise officers estimated that 34 pcs. of plywood measuring 94.13 sq.mtrs. were in excess in the bonded store room and 1356 pcs. measuring 2456.80 sq. mtrs. were excess in the finishing room. During investigation, statements of Shri Kamal Kumar, Managing Director of the company and...
Tag this Judgment!Avinash Chander Anil Kumar JaIn Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT285TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the order, dated 1-1-1987 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi. Briefly facts of the case are that the Central Excise Officers visited factory of the appellants on 18-9-1984 and found that they were engaged in the manufacture of grey cotton/polyester (52 : 48) blended fabrics on powerloom falling under Tariff Item 19(I)(a) of the Central Excise Tariff. The Officers found that the appellants had not obtained Central Excise Licence for the manufacture of grey cotton/polyester blended fabrics and had also no permission from the Textile Commissioner for installation and working of the powerlooms. Shri Anil Kumar Jain, partner of M/s. Avinash Chander Anil Kumar gave a statement on 18-9-1984 saying that they were sending grey cotton/polyester blended fabrics manufactured by them for processing to M/s. Sunflag Textile Ltd., Faridabad and after dyeing and finishing the goods were brought back. On 1-10-1984 the Officers visited prem...
Tag this Judgment!Cellulose Products of India Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT147TriDel
1. These are a group of appeals filed by different appellants challenging different orders passed by the concerned Collectors of Central Excise. They are being disposed of by this common order as the issue involved i's the same and broadly common arguments were advanced on behalf of the appellants and the respondent Collectors by their respective counsels.2. The appellants were aggrieved with the impugned decisions whereby Central Excise duty has been demanded from them on certain grades of ethyl alcohol e.g. Rectified spirit, Feint Spirit etc. manufactured by them and cleared without payment of duty. The demand of duty was consequent to classification of such goods under Tariff Item 6(ii) of the Central Excise Tariff as it stood till 28-2-1986 and thereafter under Heading 22.04 of the new Tariff. These Tariff descriptions read as follows :- (ii) Power alcohol, that is to say, ethyl alcohol of any grade (including such alcohol when denatured or otherwise treated) which, either by itse...
Tag this Judgment!Unversal Instruments Mfg. Co. Vs. Coll. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT668TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 60/86, dated 29-9-1986, passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras. The learned Counsel for the appellants stated that the appellants have imported 'Turbine' for demonstration purposes.2. Since the item was designed for demonstration purpose in educational institution. It was their contention that it was required to be classified under Heading 90.21 of the Customs Tariff which reads as follows :- "90.21 Instruments, apparatus or models, Free designed solely for demonstrational purposes (for example, in education or exhibition), unsuitable for other uses." 3. It was his contention that since it was in the nature of model for educational purposes, therefore, it should be classified as such. The department, however, has classified it under Heading 84.07 and the Collector (Appeals) has also rejected their appeal. Hence, the petition.4. It was also his contention that after importation they have actually been supplied to variou...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. K.L. Mehta Vs. National Seeds Corporation Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)177
ORDER NO. 207 WHEREAS the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, National Seeds Corporation Ltd. is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so. NOW thereforeE, in exercise of the powers conferred by clauses (j)(i) of rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules as made applicable to the employees of this Corporation, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director hereby retires Shri K. L. Mehta, Seed Officer, Sriganganagar under Jaipur Region with immediate effect, he having already attained the age of 50 years on 12-10-1987. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director also directs that Sh. K. L. Mehta shall be paid a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for a period of three months calculated at the same rate at which he was drawing them immediately before his retirement'. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Agriculture Inspector with the respondents on 8th February, 1986. He rose to the rank of Seeds Officer, a Class-I Officer, w. e. f. 31st July, 1985. It was a ...
Tag this Judgment!Mansingka Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)341; 1996(36)DRJ7
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) The plaintiff company is engaged in the manufacture to Vanusputi. To do so, it is required to use 80% of the vegetable oils allocated by the Union of India (Defendani No.1) and imported and canalised through the Stale Trading Corporation (Defendant No.2). It is claimed by the plaintiff company that on having been allocated 300 metric tonnes of oil at the issue price of Rs.6100.00 per metric tonne. it deposited the entire price with defendant No.2, consequent upon which though defendant No.2 did issue two delivery letters dated February 5, 1979 and March 3. 1979, it supplied in all 119.980 metric tonnes of oil till up to 10th March. 1979 and did not make further supplies till March 16. 1979. This however, was not the and of the mailer. The real trouble started later. It so happened, that as the plaintiff Company had been further allocated 108 metric tonnes of Soyabean oil by the Central Government in the month of August, 1979 il paid Rs-7,80,116.40 to defendant No.2...
Tag this Judgment!R.K. Malhotra Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)194; 1996(36)DRJ12
Devinder Gupta, J.(1) By this application, purported to be under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner-applicant has sought review of the judgment dated 11th September, 1995, rendered in Cw 6113/95 - R.K.Malhotra & Others v. Union of India and others - dismissing the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.(2) The petitioners having a share holding of 4.17%, 2.29%, 2.25% and 22.78% respectively in M/s Harbans Lal Malhotra & Sons Ltd. (respondent No.5) had challenged the approval granted by respondents 1 to 4 to M/s Gillette International (respondent No.6) in investing up to 49% of equity capital of the fifth respondent inter alia, on the grounds that the approval granted was without authority of law; and that the material required to take decision was not available with respondents 1 to 4, the decision was vitiated for want of application of mind. The grounds seeking review are that the principal issues raised have remained unresolved and ...
Tag this Judgment!Surveyors' Welfare Association (Regd.) Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1996(36)DRJ296
M.K. Sharma, J.(1) This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 9.5.1995 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 3115/1994 dismissing the writ petition. The appellant association Filed the aforesaid writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to strictly adhere to and comply with the provisions of Section 64UM of the Insurance Act, 1938 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) and to quash all appointments of unqualified persons acting and/or performing duties of surveyors in contravention of Section 64UM of the Act and to substitute them with only licensed surveyors in terms of the Insurance Act. (2) In the writ petition the appellant, as the writ petitioner, challenged the legality and validity of the statement of the Chairman-cum- Managing Director of the Oriental Insurance Company, which appeared in the Issue of 'Economic Times' dated 21st April, 1994, wherein it was stated that the company would not employ licensed surveyors or ...
Tag this Judgment!B.P. Choudhury Vs. Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Re ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1996]86CompCas176(Delhi); 1996(36)DRJ105
M.K. Sharma, J. (1) In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the orders passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, (for short 'BIFR') on 15th February, 1993 and also the order dated 3rd August, 1994 passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short 'AAIFR'), whereunder directions have been issued for winding up of the respondent No.9 company.(2) The respondent No.9 became a sick industrial unit within the meaning of the definition of Section 3(l)(o) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisons) Act, 1985, (for short 'SICA') at the end of the financial year ending 31st March, 1990. Accordingly, a reference was by respondent No.9 filed as provided under Section 15(1) of the Sika before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short 'Board'). After considering the various proposals for revival of the company by the petitioner and other, the Board came to a final c...
Tag this Judgment!