Delhi Court November 1998 Judgments

Ex. CaptaIn Vivek Chopra Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999(48)DRJ126

K. Ramamoorthy, J.1. On the 1-8-1985, the Government of India passed an order staling that:'I am directed to say that the disabilities viz. (i) 'SCHIZOPHRENIA', (ii) 'MULTIPLE INJURIES AND (iii) CLOSED HEAD INJURY', on account of which the above named officer was invalided out of service should be regarded as neither attributable to nor aggravated by his military service.'2. The petitioner issued notice under Section 80 CPC in May, 1986 and instituted a suit claiming the relief that he was not suffering from any ailment as stated in the order. In April, 1991, the petitioner withdrew the suit. What is stated now is that the petitioner was under hallucination that he had been offered compensation by the Chief of the Army Staff and under that mental state of mind he withdrew the suit.3. The writ petition was filed on the 3rd of March, 1997. What is now claimed is that the petitioner is suffering from the disease 'SCHIZOPHRENIA' and he was invalided out of service because of this ailment a...

Ajay Metachem Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT217TriDel

1. The issue involved in both these appeals which are being disposed of by this common order is the correct classification of the product known as 'Metacure Part A' manufactured by both the appellants herein by mixing of duty paid Alkyd resin obtained from the market with Linseed Oil, Castor Oil, Glycerine, Phthalic Anhydride, Penta-erithritol, etc.and rolling in drums.2. Prior to the introduction of the new Tariff, the classification list was submitted under T.I. 68; however, when the new Tariff was introduced with effect from 1-3-1986, no classification list was submitted but the appellants continued to manufacture the product during 1986-87 but subsequently discontinued manufacture thereof. Show cause notices were issued for recovery of duty on the clearances effected during March-April 1986 and the demands were confirmed by the Assistant Collector by separate adjudication orders, dated 6-10-1988 (in the case of Ajay Metachem) and dated 10-10-1988 (in the case of United Metachem). ...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Raj Kamal Synthetics Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)LC445Tri(Delhi)

2. Respondents herein were issued a show cause notice dated 25-9-1991 that in undertaking refinishing on the duty-paid goods received under the provisions of Rule 173H of Central Excise Rules, 1944 they have undertaken the processes of bleaching, dyeing, printing, shrinking, proofing, tentering, etc., and thus the manufacture of processed fabric has taken place. Consequently, it was alleged that the respondents are not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Rule 173H. On adjudication, the said allegations were confirmed and demand of duty of Rs. 79,819.00 was confirmed against the respondents herein.3. On appeal, the respondents herein urged before the Collector (Appeals) that refinishing was done only on the defective finished goods. The finished goods were already dyed, printed, bleached, etc.The refinishing which they did was only to remove the defects.Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents manufactured any new product. They merely removed the defects of the duty-p...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. L and H Sugar Mills Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT368TriDel

1. The assessees manufactured sugar and used gunny bags to pack the sugar in. Such gunny bags were declared to be eligible inputs only w.e.f. 16-3-1995. The assessees filed the requisite declaration under Rule 57H(1) in order to take Modvat credit of the duty paid on the gunny bags lying in the stock. It appears that no show cause notice was issued but that the assessees were directed to appear before the Assistant Commissioner which they did on 31-5-1996. After hearing the assessees, the Assistant Commissioner denied the transitional credit in the following words : "I have carefully gone through the case records and submissions made by the party both oral and written. I find that the main point to be decided in this case is whether the Modvat credit is admissible on the invoices issued by a non-registered dealer. The Rule 57GG of Central Excise Rules, 1944 makes it explicit that every person who issues invoice or invoices under Rule 57G or as the case may be under Rule 57T shall get ...

Trivandrum Rubber Works Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT187TriDel

1. In this Appeal the dispute is in relation to the classification of "Journal Lubricating Pads" manufactured by the appellants. The appellants contend that the item is classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 86.07 "Parts of railway or tramway locomotives or rolling stock". The Department on the other hand would like to classify the item under Chapter sub-heading 4016.11 "cellular rubber".2. Ld. Counsel, Shri Anis Ahmed referred to the manufacturing processes and the description of the goods made in the statement of facts in the Memo of Appeal and stated that the process of manufacture of Journal Lubricating Pad involves cutting into sizes of Neoprene Sheets (Synthetic Rubber imported from USA) which forms the inner core of the Pad, the outer cover (Pouch) is made out of Cotton Canvas and Yarn.Cotton yarn is tufted over the Cotton Canvas in a Tufting Machine. The tufted canvas is further cut into required size and then the pouch is knitted, stitched and finally sealed with neoprene cor...

Shree Raj Texchem Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT335TriDel

1. These two stay applications have been filed by two different assessees and are disposed of in the common order since the issue involved is the same.2. The assessees in each case were denied Modvat credit on HSD oil used captively for generation of electricity which in turn was used for production of final products, on the ground that it stood specifically excluded under notification issued under Rule 57A. The Commissioner in the impugned order, in holding so, relied upon the Tribunal judgment in the case of Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. v. C.C.E., 1997 (20) RLT 778 (CEGAT-S 2B). He also referred to an Explanation added to Rule 57B by virtue of Notification No. 5/98-C.E. (N.T.), dated 2-3-1998 which equated the term "inputs" used in the said Rule with the meaning given to this term in Rule 57A. He, further, held that since the amendment was clarificatory, it would have retrospective effect and the oil so used, would be barred from availing of credit.3. Shri Bhattacharya relies upon ...

Sanjiv Bottling Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT631TriDel

1. The subject stay application prays for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 13,29,689.00 demanded as duty and an equivalent amount imposed as penalty. The impugned order dismisses the appeal of the appellants before the lower authority on the ground that they failed to pre-deposit the aforesaid amount of duty and penalty as directed by the Commissioner (Appeals). We observe that reference to the interim Stay Order No. 150-CE./BPL/98, dated 5-5-1998 which directed the appellants herein to deposit the adjudged dues within three weeks from the date of issue of order has been made in the impugned order. A reference to the said interim stay order indicates that there is no order as such passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). It is merely a letter dated 5-5-1998 from the Superintendent (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Bhopal which no doubt refers to the fact that Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal after carefully considering the facts on records and submissions made by the appellants, has not a...

C.S. Arora Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this O.A., the applicant has made a prayer for quashing the two orders dated 25.3.1997, Annexures A-1 and A-2 of the respondents, whereby the post of Director (EDP) under them was downgraded and the pay of the applicant was refixed in the lower pay scale of Rs. 4500-150-5700. Further relief claimed is for "the arrears of pay and allowances since 25.3.97 in the pay scale of Rs. 5100-6300 with interest @ 18% per annum till the date of actual payment." Other reliefs claimed in the application are inconsequential and need not be mentioned.2. Briefly stated, the applicant was directly recruited to the post of Director (Electronic Data Processing) through the Union Public Service Commission in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-5700 with effect from 25.3.1988. By Office Order No. 14/2/89-RG (Ad. II) dated 5.7.1994, Annexure R-1, the respondents upgraded the post "from the existing pay scale of Rs. 4500-1250-5700 to the pay scale of Rs. 5100-6300 with immediate effect" and by the same order, th...

Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Alasthom Exports. (Alsthom

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. The Revenue has raised the following ground in their appeal against the order dt. 13th September, 1990, for asst. yr. 1987-88 : "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law in directing the AO to allow 50 per cent of the salary claimed at Rs. 12,80,930 without appreciating the facts and material on records." 2. The assessee has submitted the following grounds in the cross-objections arising out of the same order of the CIT(A) : "1. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by restricting the allowances to 50 per cent of salary claimed at Rs. 12,80,930. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in disallowing 10 per cent of the staff welfare expenses on estimate at Rs. 8,305. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in disallowing 10 per cent of the miscellaneous expenses on estimate at Rs. 20,868." 3. The assessee-company is a French non-resident company having a permanent establishment (PE) in India, manufacturing gas turbine. The company was awarded a contract ...

Amarjeet Singh and Another Vs. Smt. Uma Sethi and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998VIIAD(Delhi)143; 76(1998)DLT675; 1999(48)DRJ390

ORDERC.M. Nayar, J.1. The present petition is directed against the Judgment dated November 5, 1997 passed by Shri S.M. Aggarwal, Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi. The appeal filed by the petitioners against the Order dated January 27, 1995 of Shri J.R.Aryan, Additional Rent Control, Delhi was dismissed. The petitioners filed objections under Section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Order 21 Rules 98 & 99 and Section 151 CPC claiming independent right in the suit premises and praying that execution of eviction Order dated February 2, 1994 be not effected against them.2. The respondent Smt. Uma Sethi filed eviction petition under Section 14-D of the Act on September 15, 1993 seeking recovery of tenanted premises being flat No.38, Khan Market, New Delhi comprising of premises on first floor and second floor. It was alleged that M/s. Hindustan Thompson Associates Ltd. was let out the suit premises by her father late Shri P.N. Mehta and aft...