Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998VAD(Delhi)686; 74(1998)DLT629; 1998(46)DRJ465
K. Ramamoorthy, J.1. In the writ petition the writ petitioner had claimed the seniority over respondents 2 to 4. By order dated the 15th of January, 1992, the name of the second respondent was deleted from the array of parties and amended memo of parties was filed on the 29th of February, 1992. Now, the claim of the petitioner was confined as against Shri Yad Ram Singh and Shri Deo Pal Singh. 2. I heard the learned Counsel for the parties for a considerable length of time, and in particular, the learned Counsel for the petitioner argued the matter at length. I had perused the writ petition and the counter-affidavit filed by the MCD. 3. The petitioner stated that there was seniority list published in 1986 wherein he was shown above respondents 2 and 3. Subsequently, on the 26th of November, 1985 that had been changed and he was brought down below to respondents 2 & 3. 4. The answer by the MCD is that the seniority list published in January,1982 was purely tentative and no norms were fol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)(110)ELT937TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi confirming a demand of duty of Rs. 43,52,716.34 for the period 1-4-1984 to 31-5-1985 for clandestine clearance of bed sheets, bed spreads etc. from the appellants through official liquidator under Rule 9(2) and Section 11A of the Act. The Commissioner further confirmed a demand of duty of Rs. 1,72,694.26 from the appellants through official liquidator for wrongful availment of benefit of Notification No. 77/83-C.E., dated 1-3-1983 for the period 1984-85. He also confiscated 132 bichhona sets, 17 packages containing 204 bichhona sets, 40 cartons containing bed sheets, pillow covers, top sheets etc. and 38 cartons containing bed sheets, pillow covers etc. He also gave an option to the appellants through official liquidator to redeem these confiscated goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1.50 lac with the direction that this option may be exercised within 30 days of receipt of this order. He also im...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)LC787Tri(Delhi)
2. The appellants herein filed a classification list No. 5/86-87 effective from 1-3-1986 for goods manufactured by them and claimed classification of one of their products, namely, alumina products under Tariff sub-heading 8485.90. The said classification list was duly approved by the authorities.2.1 Later on the Revenue had a rethinking and they addressed a letter to the appellant on 30-1-1987 for changing the classification list of the aforesaid product under Chapter 69 but the appellants did not agree to the said request. Hence a detailed show cause notice setting out the grounds for change in the classification of the aforesaid goods was issued to the appellants on 11-2-1987 which was received by them on 19-2-1987. The classification list was changed as proposed by the Revenue under Chapter 69 for the aforesaid product. The appellants herein did not succeed before the lower appellate authority. Hence this appeal before the Tribunal.3. Learned Counsel, Shri Gopal Prasad has submitt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : II(1998)ACC167; 1999ACJ339; 1998VAD(Delhi)596; 74(1998)DLT634; (1998)120PLR12
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. The appellants have preferred this first appeal against the grant of compensation vide Award dated 7.9.1992 amounting to Rs. 5,83,200/- with costs and simple interest at the rate of 12%, per annum from the date of petition till realisation. 2. Respondents herein and claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal have also preferred cross-objections (C.M.No. 1309/93) seeking enhancement in the awarded amount. The appeal was admitted to hearing on 3.2.1993. 3. During the pendency of the appeal interim directions were given from time to time requiring the appellants to deposit the awarded amount, as well as the amount so deposited, being kept in Fixed Deposit Receipts for the minor respondent and for disbursement to the other respondents. 4. By this order the appeal and the cross-objections being C.M. No. 1390/93 are being disposed of. 5. Relevant facts in brief may be noted. The deceased Captain Ashok Kumar Dinanath, was employed as an Accountant with the Punjab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998IVAD(Delhi)676; 74(1998)DLT632; 1998(46)DRJ264
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner, who was working as Major, was cashiered from service by the respondents. On the 27th of November, 1981, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why service gratuity and death-cum-gratuity should not be forfeited. On the 23rd of December, 1981, the mother of the petitioner gave the Explanationn. On the 15th of July, 1983, the Government of India passed the following order:-'I am directed to refer to letter No.GI/M/42473, dated the 15th October, 1980 from the Controller of defense Accounts (Pensions), Allahabad, addressed to Army Headquarters and to say that after considering the Explanationn dated the 234d December, 1981 from Smt.Shanta Verma replying on behalf of her son Ex-Major Ranjit Verma (IC-16201) in response to Ministry of defense Memorandum No.B/41057/AG/PS4(c)/2007/A/D/(Pension/Services), dated the 27th November, 1981, and having regard to the circumstances leading to the cashiering of the officer from service, the Presi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998IVAD(Delhi)957; 74(1998)DLT760; 1998(46)DRJ372
K. Kumamoorthy, J. 1. There are 14 petitioners who are working with the first respondent the Indian Road Construction Corporation Limited. The service particulars of the petitionersare as under:-S.No.Name & Designation Date of promotion as Dy. Manager1.Sh.Ashok Kumar Vaid18.09.1991Dy.Manager (P)2.Sh..Satnam Singh Arora16.02.1993Dy. Manager (P)3 ,Sh.Rajcsh Hari18.09. 1991Dy.Manager(P)4.Sh.Chittcr Sen16.02.1998Dy.Manager (P)5.Mrs.Radhey Dua31.12.1993Dy.Manager (P)6.Sh.Ram Bilas Ram14.03.199Dy.Manager (P)7.Sh.Rama Krishna Varanasi25.05.1992Dy.Manager (F&A;/c)8.Sh.S.P. Gupta25.05.1992Dy.Manager (F&A;/c)9.Sh. Satish Kumar Dareja25.05.1992Dy.Managcr (F&A;/c)10.Sh.Shayam Lal Arora25.05.1992Dy.Manager (F&A;/c)11.Sh.R.K. Arora31.12.1993Dy.Manager (F&A;/c)12.Sh.A.K. Mathur31.12.1993Dy.Manager (F&A;/c)13.Sh.S.Surin31.12.1993Dy.Manager (F&A;/c)14.Sh.Gurcharan Singh02.07.1992Chief Draughtsman2. The main grievance is that on the 10th of July, 1990, the first respondent Corporation, issued a memo gra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)(106)ELT211TriDel
1. Short question involved herein is whether demand of duty for the period September, 1988 to August, 1989 against the show cause notice dated 15-6-1990 for declaring the goods in the classification list as watch crystals is barred by time when the authorities find that it is watch glass.1.1. Learned Advocate submits that watch crystal is known as watch glass. It is apparent from the Ministry of Finance Circular No.132/5/94-CX. 4 (Circular No. 1/91, dated 1-1-1991). That circular starts with the following paragraph :- "I am directed to say that doubts have been raised regarding correct classification of Watch Crystals (glasses) whether under sub-heading 7011.90 as 'clock or watch glass and similar glasses' or under sub-heading 9114.00 as 'other clock or watch parts'." He also points out the meaning of crystal from the Chambers Dictionary Delux Edition which among various meanings gives the meaning of crystal as superior glass. He also cites various meanings from the said dictionary fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(104)ELT654TriDel
1. The point involved in this appeal is whether the appellants were eligible to take Modvat credit in February, 1996 on the basis of duty paying documents issued before six months of the date of taking credit.2. Arguing on behalf of the Appellants the ld. Counsel submits that the Rule 57G(2) was amended by Notification No. 28/95-C.E. (N.T.), dated 29-6-1995 in which it was mentioned that the manufacturers can not take credit after six months of the date of documents specified under first proviso to this Sub-rule. He submits that the notification cannot be given retrospective effect as the duty paying documents was issued before 29-6-1995. When it was pointed out to him that the credit was taken in February, 1996 the notification was already in force and it refers to the date the credit is availed of, he fairly concedes the point.3. Arguing on behalf of the Revenue the ld. DR reiterates the department's arguments. It is apparent from proviso to Section (sic) 57G(2) that the manufacture...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)(113)ELT284TriDel
1. One of the issues involved in this case is whether Modvat credit is admissible on GP 1 issued before 1-4-1994 but endorsed after 1-4-1994.2. This reference application is filed by the Revenue requesting to refer the following questions on the ground that they arise out of the Final Order No. A/34/98-NB, dated 8-1-1998. (i) The Modvat credit is not admissible on the strength of endorsed Gate passes which are invalid documents after 31-3-1994 in the light of Notification No. 16/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 30-3-1994 read with Rule 52A and 57G. (ii) As per Notification No. 16/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 30-3-1994 endorsed GP Is are valid documents for Modvat provided that the documents in question have been issued before 1-4-1994 and credit has been taken on or before 30-6-1994 and in the instant case the GP Is were issued prior to 31-3-1994, but endorsement made on or after 1-4-1994 which should not be considered as valid documents in view of proviso mentioned under Notification No. 16/94-C.E. (N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)(113)ELT721TriDel
1. The issue involved in this case is granting of exemption under Notification No. 208/83 to the appellant. The dispute is in respect of inputs purchased by the appellants from ship breaking activity. The adjudication order has denied the appellants exemption in respect of materials purchased from the ship breaking activity after new Tariff came into force from 1-3-1986 on the ground that the goods in question had paid duty under Tariff Heading 72.15 and not under the tariff headings mentioned under Column (2) Serial No. 2 of the Table to the said notification. In respect of purchases from dealers before new Tariff came into existence, exemption has been denied on the ground that no evidence has been produced to show that re-rollable scrap obtained out of ship breaking was duty paid prior to December, 1985, even though certain invoices of J.K. Entt. and other iron and steel merchants shows payment of duty under protest.2. Arguing the appeal, Shri K.K. Anand, ld. Advocate submitted tha...
Tag this Judgment!