Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998IVAD(Delhi)117; 73(1998)DLT55; 1998(46)DRJ112
JudgmentK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The first petitioner is the widow of late Shri Shom Parkash Tiwari. The second petitioner is the eldest son of the first petitioner. The husband of the first petitioner died on 2.7.1989. He was working as a senior clerk with the second respondent (DESU) controlled by the first respondent. Setting out the condition of the family, the petitioners sought an appointment of the second petitioner on compassionate grounds as per the scheme of the respondents.2. On 17.8.1989, an application was made for seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. Nothing was done on till 13.1.1993 a reminder was sent on 13.01.1993. On 24.3.1993 the Assistant Personnel Officer of the second respondent passed the following on 23.4.1993.Sub: Regarding employment to your son Shri Mukesh Kumar Tiwari on compassionate grounds. Madam, With reference to your letter dated 13.1.1993 on the above subject, I am directed to inform you that as per information obtained from Asstt. Chief Accoun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(101)ELT39TriDel
1. This stay application is filed by the applicants for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 89,577.38 paise and stay of the recovery proceedings.3. The dispute is in respect of classification of the product namely aluminium foils discs. Whether the item is classifiable under 76.07 as claimed by the assessee or under 83.09 as per department is an issue to be considered in this case. According to the party, the item is known in the trade parlance as aluminium foils only and not as a stopper and cap etc. and, accordingly, it is appropriately classifiable under 76.07 and in support of his contention, he also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Garware Nylon Ltd., reported in 1996 (87) E.L.T. 12 (S.C.).4. On the other hand, Shri D.S. Negi countering the arguments drew our attention to the finding given by the Collector (Appeals) observing that since the thickness of the item in question exceeds 0.2 mm. it is not classifiable under 76.07...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(100)ELT68TriDel
1. This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 1.2 lac. In this case, the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of capital goods, that is storage tanks, is denied to the applicants on the ground that storage tanks as such can neither be called as a 'machinery' nor equipment/apparatus/spare parts of accessories of any capital goods.Shri R. Nambirajan, Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants submitted that storage tanks are used for storing of hydrofluoric acid which is corrosive in nautre and the hydrofluoric acid is stored in the storage tanks in order to maintain pressure and temperature. He submits that these storage tanks are necessary components of the plant for the manufacture of the final product. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Metrochem Industries v. C.C.E. and Customs, Vadodara reported in 1997 (96) E.L.T. 114 (Tribunal) and submits that in this case measuring tanks used for pumping into it measured quantity of the liquid ra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)(111)ELT828TriDel
1. This is a stay application filed with reference to the order of Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna dated 22-7-1997.2. Learned Counsel stated that the appellants had a number of units manufacturing PSC Poles as per specifications laid down by the Bihar State Electricity Board and were not meant for the market. The annual clearance of individual unit never exceeded the exemption limit during any of the period under consideration, under the small-scale industries scheme, in terms of Notification No. 1/93, dated 31-3-1993.3. Therefore, the appellants believed that no registration or declaration was necessary. However, declarations in the prescribed form were filed before the respective officers for view of the bona fide belief of the appellants, no penalty was called for. Furthermore, the financial condition of the Board was very bad and they were not in a position to deposit such a large amount. This is apparent from a copy of the annual accounts for 1994-95 filed by them which sho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(102)ELT363TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against Order No. 28/89, dated 20-10-1989 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of evaporative coolers classifiable under Chapter Heading 84.15 of the CET. They claimed benefit of exemption under Notification No. 65/83 dated 1-3-1983. This notification exempts the impugned goods among others up to 15 lakhs cleared on or before 1st of April in any Financial Year and exemption, however, is dependent on the assessee's filing a declaration with the Assistant Commissioner to the effect that aggregate value of clearances of the specified goods would not exceed Rs. 15 lakhs.3. The Additional Collector held that the aggregate value of clearances had exceeded Rs. 15 lakhs and they had not filed necessary declaration.4. Arguing for the appellants, learned Advocate submits that the notification during the Financial Year 1986-87 was rescinded on 23-4-1986. In other words, the benefit of this notific...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 73(1998)DLT72; 1998(45)DRJ580
K. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The writ petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Air Force in 26.11.1985. At the time when he joined the service he had passed all necessary examinations. Later on, in the year 1992 he acquired Engineering degree. Subsequently he acquired M.B.A degree in April 1996, from Pune University.2. On 28.02.1997, the petitioner applied for premature discharge as he had completedthe age of 30 years and having regard to his higher educational qualification, if he getsdischarge he can get the better employment. According to the petitioner on the basisof the post he has held as he crossed 30 years. He is not eligible to be considered forcommissioning. But according to the learned counsel for the respondents the can still apply for commissioning when he became a Sergeant until he attainsthe age of 40 years. The respondents had filed annexure R-1 which is the instructionsor guidelines for discharge of Airmen on Educational Grounds. Para 2 of the instructions read as under: The dis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 71(1998)DLT766
Usha Mehra, J.1. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order of the Additional District Judge whereby the judgment and decree passed by the Sub Judge in his favor in Suit No. 366/80 has been set aside. Against the decree passed by Subjudge the present respondent preferred an appeal before the Additional District judge. The learned Additional District judge after considering the case of the parties held that Issues No. 3 & 4 pertaining to the applicability of Delhi Rent Control Act and question of jurisdiction of Civil Court could not be decided on the basis of oral testimony. For that parties were required to produce notification. He accordingly remanded the case back. He further directed that the Trial Court would record evidence of the parties on these two issues namely Issue No. 3 which read as 'Whether the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act are not applicable to the premises in suit?' and Issue No. 4 Which read as 'Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit?' Part...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998(44)DRJ796
D.K. Jain, J.1. EA No. 343/97 has been filed by one M/s. United Towers India (P) Limited for impleadment as well as for recall, set aside and variation of the warrants of attachment issued by this Court on 4 May 1994, in respect of property No. 22, Barakhamba lane, New Delhi (subsequently corrected as 20, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi). EA No. 344/97 has been filed by Raj Kumar Gupta - Judgment debtor No. 1, for recall of the said warrants of attachment. These arise under the following circumstances:On the basis of judgment dated 29 March 1988, obtained under the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933, Part-1, from the High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division, Commercial Court, England, in suit bearing No. 1988 Folio No. 1090, M/s. Barnes Investment Limited and two others against Raj Kumar Gupta (judgment debtor No. 1) and seven others, styled as defendants, the plaintiffs, (hereinafter referred to as the decree holders) filed execution No. 135/92 against Raj Kumar Gupta-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(75)LC267Tri(Delhi)
1. These are four appeals filed by (1) M/s. Bharat Brass and Silver Manufacturing Co. (2) Shri Masood Alam, (3) Shri Shahe Alam, & (4) Shri Abul Hasan, being aggrieved by the common order-in-original No. 234/91 dated 7.1.1992 passed by the Addl. Collector of Customs, New Delhi.Under his order in original dated 7.1.1992 the Addl. Collector of Customs, New Delhi had imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- each on (1) M/s. Bharat Brass and Silver Manufacturing Co. (2) Shri Masood Alam (3) Shri Shahe Alam (4) Shri Abul Hasan and (5) Shri P. Juneja. In addition a redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/-was imposed and it was ordered that the goodsNickel Silver alloy confiscated could be redeemed on payment of appropriate customs duty and the redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/- aforesaid.1.1. The Appeal No. C/376/92-B2 filed by Shri Abul Hasan had come up before the Tribunal on 5.6.1997 for final hearing. When the matter was called none appeared for the appellant Shri Abul Hasan. In the circumstances the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)LC164Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Methodex Systems Ltd., the matter relates to the demand of central excise duty in respect of the products which the appellants had classified under Heading No. 83.04 and which the Revenue had sought to classify under Heading No. 94.03. The Collector of Central Excise, Indore, who had adjudicated the matter had classified the products under Heading No. 94.03 of the Central Excise Tariff, had demanded duty of Rs. 6,63,037.14 and had imposed a penalty of Rs. llakh.2. We have heard Shri R.D. Pahwa, Consultant, who appeared for the appellants and Shri Satnam Singh, SDR, who is present for the respondents /Revenue.3. We have carefully considered the matter. We find that the period involved in these proceedings is from 1-3-1988 to 31-7-1989 and the show cause notice had been issued on 22-12-1989. The learned Consultant referred to the classification list effective from 7-3-1988 in which they had described their products in detail and had declared the classific...
Tag this Judgment!