Delhi Court May 1998 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Eacom's Controls (India) Limited Vs. Bailey Controls Company and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Delhi365; 74(1998)DLT213; ILR1998Delhi392
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. This is a petition whereby the petitioner, Eacom's Controls (India) Limited, seeks a declaration to the effect that the arbitration agreement dated May 14, 1982 between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1, Bailey Controls Company, stands frustrated and resultantly ceases to have effect. The facts giving rise to the petition, briefly, stated, are as under:-2. The petitioner and first respondent entered into an agreement dated May 14, 1982 whereby the respondent inter-alia, granted to the petitioner an exclusive, non-transferable license under the Patent Rights and know-how utilized commercially by the said respondent to make licensed products systems in India and a non-exclusive, non-transferable license to use and sell licensed products and systems in any country in the world except in countries where the said respondent established licensing arrangements for manufacturing in that country or where the said respondent had manufacturing facilities or activit...
Sukhpal Singh (Ex. Const.) Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-1998
Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)795; 73(1998)DLT329
DR. M.K.Sharma, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 2.2.1994 imposing on the petitioner by the respondents a penalty of removal from service with effect from 7.2.1994. The petitioner has also challenged the orders passed by the appellate authority on the appeal preferred by the petitioner as also the order passed by the revisional authority on the revision petition dismissing the same. 2. The petitioner was charge-sheeted under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act. The charge relates to remissness of the petitioner in the discharge of duty. As against the aforesaid charge-sheet, the petitioner submitted his reply to the Memo of charges. The disciplinary authority considered the said reply and found that the reply is not satisfactory and accordingly appointed an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer after completion of the enquiry proceeding submitted his report. The petitioner was afforded opportunity to make a r...
Naib Risaldar Man Singh Vs. the Chief of the Army Staff and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-1998
Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)814; 73(1998)DLT324
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner praying for a direction to the respondents to promote him to the rank of Risaldar by giving him ante-date of seniority and promotion with full back wages from a date prior to 1.2.1993 when he was superseded by his junior Naib Risaldar after quashing and setting aside annual confidential report of the petitioner for the year 1991. 2. The petitioner obtained an adverse remark in his annual confidential report for the year 1991 which was conveyed to him on 7.4.1992 by the Initiating Officer in accordance with para 41 of Army Order 5/90. A vacancy in the rank of Risaldar occurred around February, 1993. The respondents took up the matter for consideration for making promotion to the said post of Risaldar from Naib Risaldar. However, the petitioner could not be considered for promotion to the said post as he was not recommended for promotion in view of adverse entry in his confidential report for the ye...
Common Cause Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-1998
Reported in: 1998IVAD(Delhi)83; 73(1998)DLT451; 1998(45)DRJ630
ORDERC.K. Mahajan, J. 1. The present petition is limited to the issue as to whether the persons who were covered under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') and who superannuated from insurable employment in which they were engaged till superannuation, would be entitled to medical benefits under the Act and the Employees State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950 (for short 'the Rules'). 2. The petition has been filed by Common Cause, a registered Society, through its Director, Mr. H.D. Shourie, espousing the case of six retired employees of Eicher Tractors and their spouses for grant of medical benefits. M/s Eicher Tractors Limited in 1995 made a representation to respondent No.2, the Employees State Insurance Corporation, through its Director General, requesting them to grant medical benefits to six of its retired employees and their spouses. The matter was considered by respondent No.2, who rejected the claim of the six retired employees to medical benefits under ...
Uni Products (India) Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-05-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT588TriDel
1. The above case relates to confirmation of a duty demand of Rs. 1,28,17,462 + Rs. 4,60,684/- on floor coverings of jute manufactured by the applicants herein. It is the case of the Department that the floor coverings are classifiable under sub-heading 5703.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 on the ground that the base hessian fabric cannot be taken into account for the purpose of determining as to whether the textile material predominates in weight for the purpose of Note 14 of Section XI of the CETA, 1985. According to the applicants, the product falls for classification under CET sub-heading 5703.20. Learned Counsel states that the question of classification is contentious and that he would rest his arguments for the purpose of today's application on the ground that there is a conflict of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the question as to whether a demand can be raised even for the period of six months backwards from the show cause notice or it can...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-05-1998
Reported in: (1998)LC647Tri(Delhi)
1. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal No. 81/93, dated 29-1-1993 reversing the Order-in-Original No. 31/91, dated 27-5-1991 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise has filed the present appeal.2. Respondent, engaged in the manufacture of Soda Ash in the factory in Gujarat State, was availing the benefit of Sales Tax Incentive Scheme available to units in backward and remote areas. The State Sales Tax payable in Gujarat was 7.2% and the Central Sales Tax payable for Inter State sales was around 4%. In this view appellant filed price lists declaring higher price for buyers in Gujarat State and lower price for buyers in States other than Gujarat State and on approval thereof was paying appropriate duty. In respect of the period June, 1988 to June, 1990 eight show cause notices were issued stating that for clearances made to States outside Gujarat, assessable value should be determined on the basis of the higher price charged to buyers in Gujarat State.The notices proposed...
Shreem Capacitors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-05-1998
Reported in: (1998)(62)ECC207
1. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows. The appellants herein manufacture capacitors which were fully exempted from 1-3-1988 by Notification No. 74/85-C.E., dated 17-3-1985. Their clearance during the period 1987-88 during the financial year 1987-88 was 1.16 crores.The appellants claimed the benefit of Notification 175/86 with effect from 1-4-1988 when duty was imposed on the capacitors manufactured by the appellants. But the benefit of the said notification is sought to be denied by the Revenue on the ground that the clearance of the appellant, during the preceding financial year i.e. 1987-88 was over Rs. 1.50 crores. It was estimated as Rs. 1.61 crores. The lower authorities accordingly held against the appellants. Hence this appeal before the Tribunal.2. On the matter being called, the appellants have requested decision on merits. Accordingly we have heard ld. SDR Shri A.K. Agrawal. We have gone through the impugned order as also memo of appeal filed by the appellan...
Flakt Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-05-1998
Reported in: (1998)(62)ECC209
1. Following items are in dispute in so far as their classification in the Central Excise Tariff Act is concerned. Their classification is made by the Revenue and as claimed by the assessees are shown against each of these items :---------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sl. Item Heading Heading (By Asstt. Collr.)No. (Assessee)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------(1) (2) (3) (4)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------5.Air Handling Unit/Air 84.21 8419.00 treatment Unit9.Insulated Panel 84.24/ 84.79 8485.9010. Air Heater 84.39 7308.70-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Main reasoning of the lower authorities for classifying them as mentioned above is that they are made of iron and steel. They are parts of general use and not specific to any particular machinery. Therefore these items will be classified under 7308.90 as...
Alpha Electricals Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-05-1998
Reported in: (1998)(62)ECC402
1. The matter called. No one for the appellant. They have prayed for decision on merits. We have heard ld. SDR Shri D.S. Negi. We have gone through the impugned order and memo of appeal.2. The question involved in the present case is whether the trade name Swift affixed by the appellants on the excisable goods manufactured by them and 95 per cent of such goods being sold through M/s. Swift Sales and Service could be treated as trade name within the meaning of Para 7 of Notification No. 175/86. In other words whether the benefit of said notification would be denied to the said goods.3. It has been urged by the appellants in the appeal memo on the basis of affidavit from Swift Sales and Service that 'swift' is not a branded name or trade name of M/s. Swift Sales and Service. The appellant however had denied this evidence that 90 per cent of the sales had been made through Swift Sales and Service. However we have also taken note of the fact that prior to amendment of Notification No. 175...
international Cylinders Private Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-05-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT584TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 8-3-1995 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, by which a duty demand of Rs. 12,27,194.97 for the period December, 1988 to March, 1992 was confirmed against the appellants and a penalty of Rs. 4 lac imposed on them.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of LPG Cylinders falling under Chapter 73 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985. On 25-6-1992, the Police at Nahan District seized 822 Cylinders from a residential house in Village Nariwala. A statement was recorded from one Shri Ram Bilas Choudhary who stated that the Cylinders belonged to the appellants and they were cleared clandestinely from the appellants' factory. On the basis of further investigations and examination of various records collected from the Municipal Barrier at Taruwala at a distance of about one kilometer from the appellants' factory as well as from the Police Barrier at two other points namely, Behral and Kala Amb and also on the basis of e...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »