Delhi Court March 1998 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1998 Page 13 of about 261 results (0.022 seconds)Ghanshyam Aluminium Indus. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT678TriDel
1. After hearing for some time with reference to the stay petition filed by the party we felt that the main matter itself can be disposed of and, accordingly, we proceed to pass this order after hearing both the sides. The amount required to be deposited for the purpose of hearing the appeal is dispensed with.2. Shri Gopal Parshad submitted that the appellants are entitled to benefit in terms of Notification No. 180/88 since the items in question i.e., aluminium utensils were of thickness above 0.1 mm and not of 2 mm thickness. He submitted that declaration was duly filed to this effect before the Superintendent.3. Shri D.S. Negi, learned SDR contended that declaration has been filed subsequent to the case made out by the department and not earlier.4. Apart from the above issues, it was contended on behalf of the assessees that the appellants are entitled to get small scale exemption in terms of Notification No. 175/86 since the aggregate value of the circles was only Rs. 9,87,405.03....
Tag this Judgment!Waris Rashid Kidwai Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1998Delhi589
ORDERY.K. Sabharwal, J.1. Waris Rasheed Kidwai, the petitioner, has filed this public interest writ petition challenging the mode and manner of appointment to the post of Chairman and Managing Director (CMD) of Minerals & Metals Trading Corporation (MMTC). He seeks quashing of the panel constituted for the said post pursuant to interviews held on 31st July 1997 and the proposed appointment of Mr. S.D. Kapoor, Respondent No. 4.2. The petitioner is stated to be Secretary General of Standing Conference of Public Enterprises (SCOPE), an Apex Body of Public Sector Enterprises to promote the interest of Public Sector and advise the Government on formulation of policies regarding the management of Public Sector and to help the public enterprises in achieving professional excellence. The petitioner claims that with his efforts the SCOPE has become a member of the International Organisation of the Employers in Geneva, an affiliated body of ILO and he was member of Indian delegation to ILO in ea...
Tag this Judgment!J.K. Industries and anr. Vs. Patroit Link Workers Union (Regd.) and or ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)565; 72(1998)DLT454; 1998(45)DRJ334
J.B. Goel, J.1. The aforesaid three applications have been filed by the plaintiff in a suit for permanent injunction.2. The case of the plaintiffs briefly is that they are tenant in property bearing plot No. 3, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi, also known as Link House owned by defendant No. 5 in respect of first floor (part), second floor (part), third floor, fourth floor and fifth floor whereas part of ground floor and other part of the first floor is occupied by Central Bank of India and basement and the remaining portion of the ground floor is in occupation of defendant No. 5. Defendant No. 1 is a union of the employees of defendant No. 5; and defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are its office bearers, being President, General Secretary and Secretary. Due to dispute between defendant No.5 and its workers, there is lock out in defendant No.5 and defendant No. 5 is working from its camp office at Janpath. The electricity, water and telephones installations meant for the use in building are i...
Tag this Judgment!ChaIn Sukh and ors. Vs. State and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998(3)Crimes24; 76(1998)DLT950; 1998(46)DRJ172
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. The petitioners have filed petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR No. 91/95, Police Station Prasad Nagar, New Delhi, under sections 452/323/506/34, IPC pending in the court of Shri R.B. Singh, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. The incident is dated 30th April, 1995, when the complainant and his wife were in their house and the petitioners forcibly entered inside and started beating the complainant and his wife. The complainant's brother Yad Ram was also given beating. The next day, the matter was reported to the Police, and the complainant got himself medically examined and on the basis of the statement of respondent no.2, FIR No. 91/95 was registered under Section 452/323/506/34, IPC.2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, who is accompanied by the petitioners and respondent no.2 in person, that the parties live in the same neighborhood for a long time and during the pendency of this matter, they ha...
Tag this Judgment!Ravinder Raj Vs. Union Bank of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998IIAD(Delhi)709; 72(1998)DLT463; 1998(45)DRJ85
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The present writ petition is directed against the order passed by respondent No.1 retiring the petitioner from service w.e.f. 31.12.1993 on attaining the age of 58 years. According to the petitioner the retirement age of the petitioner is guided by the circular dated 13.7.1970 according to which the petitioner should have been allowed to continue and retire at the age of 60 years.2. The petitioner, who appears in person before me, during the course of his arguments submitted that the conditions of service of the petitioner including the age of retirement are governed by various circulars issued by the respondent No.1 whereunder the age of retirement of the petitioner holding the post of Personnel Officer has been laid down to be 60 years. According to petitioner the change brought about by the provisions of regulation 19(1) of 1979 Regulations of respondent No.1 is not applicable to the petitioner as there is no resolution of the Board as required under regul...
Tag this Judgment!G.L. Verma Vs. Dda
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998IIAD(Delhi)774; 72(1998)DLT484; 1998(45)DRJ213
ORDERDR. M.K.Sharma, J.1.The present writ petition is directed against the action of the respondent in not calling the petitioner for the interview for appointment to the post of Deputy Director (Public Relations). According to the petitioner he possesses all the requisite qualifications and experience in terms of the Recruitment Rules as also in terms of the advertisement published by the respondent and even inspire of the same the petitioner is not being called for the interview whereas persons without the requisite qualifications and experience are being called. 2. In view of the aforesaid allegations it would be necessary to look into the background of the petitioner and his qualifications and experience to come to a conclusion as to whether the petitioner fulfills the requisite qualifications and experience as per the Recruitment Rules and the advertisement and also whether the respondent has ignored the case of the petitioner arbitrarily and illegally. Along with the writ petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Glasstronics India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT63TriDel
1. This case was taken up for admission in terms of second proviso to Section 35F since the amount of Rs. 17,387.35.2. Heard Shri D.K. Nayyar, learned Departmental Representative. The respondents were not present.3. In the appeal Memorandum and also orally it was submitted that the Collector relied upon the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Moosa Haji Patrawala Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bombay-I, reported in 1996 (83) E.L.T. 620 (Tribunal). It was claimed that West Regional Bench had referred the point of law arising out of this judgment to the jurisdictional High Court. On this ground it is urged that the issue should be examined.4. The ratio of a judgment would continue to prevail until it is set aside by the Higher forum. The fact that reference has been made to the jurisdictional High Court on a point of law arising out of a particular order does not take away the ratio of the judgment unless and until the jurisdictional High Court so holds. At this stage ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Jaypee Enterprises
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT311TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay dated 25-3-1991.2. Ld. DR stated that the respondents M/s. Jaypee Entt. had filed a classification list bearing No. 1/88-89, dated 13-2-1989 seeking among other things classification of (1) Plastic Float Ball (2) Plastic PVC Connection (3) Plastic Waste Pipe (4) Plastic Bottle Trap and (5) Plastic Bend under sub-heading 3926.90 claiming NIL rate of duty under Notification No. 53/88, dated 1-3-1988. Since it appeared that the impugned goods are made of plastic and the goods are sanitary fittings as seen from the invoices, a show cause notice dated 17-10-1989 was issued asking them to show cause as to why they should not be classified under sub-heading No. 3922.90 @ 20% ad valorem in terms of Notification No. 53/88, dated 1-3-1988 and the concessional rates under Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986, as amended, should not be denied. The A.C. classified these products under...
Tag this Judgment!Wander Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT735TriDel
1. These are two appeals filed by (1) M/s. Wander Ltd., Bombay against order-in-appeal 9-1-1989, and the other filed by M/s. Frozen Foods Pvt.Ltd., Kolhapur against order-in-appeal dated 16-2-1988, both the orders passed by the Collector, of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. In both the appeals the matter relates to the classification and the rate of central excise duty with regard to the product marketed under the brand name of 'spert'. Both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The matter relates to the classification of the product marketed under the brand name 'Spert'. The appellants had sought classification of the spert under sub-heading No. 0404.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the "Tariff"), as "other dairy produce; edible products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified or included". Chapter 4 of the Tariff covered dairy produce; edible products of animal origin hot elsewhere sp...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. East Man Exports
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT267TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the classification of the goods described in the bill of entry as Industrial Iron (Presses for Shirts, Trousers and Jackets, complete Set with Standard Accessories). The respondents, M/s. East Man Exports filed bill of entry dated 8-10-1993 and claimed assessment under Heading No. 84.51 of the Customs Tariff with the benefit of concessional rate of Customs duty under Notification No. 16/85-Cus. The respondents had pleaded that the Industrial Iron imported by them had no heat shield and that it generated steam from gravity fed water supply tank. The Asstt. Collector of Customs, who adjudicated the matter, classified the goods imported under sub-heading No. 8516.42 of the Customs Tariff. As Chapter 85 was not covered by the Customs Notification No. 16/85-Cus., the benefit of that exemption was denied.On appeal, the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras referred to the HSN Explanatory Notes at page 1539 and after perusing the...
Tag this Judgment!