Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(104)ELT524TriDel
1. The Revenue has filed the above appeal against the order of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad holding that the product in dispute is "Chelamin" and "Agromin" manufactured by the Respondents herein are fertiliser classifiable under Central Excise Tariff sub-headrng 3105.00 and entitled to total exemption from duty in terms of Notification No. 181/86-CX, dated 1-3-1986.2. We have heard ld. D.R. for the Appellants and the ld. Counsel for the Respondents. The ld. Counsel submitted that it has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Ranadey Micronutrients v. C.C.E. - 1996 (87) E.L.T. 19 (S.C.) that micronutrients meant for growth of plants are classifiable under C.E.T. sub-heading 3105.00 as "other fertilizers" as per CBEC Circular dated 21-11-1994 withdrawing the earlier circular dated 20-6-1990. The Apex Court has held that such circular is binding on the Department and the Department is thus not permitted to raise the plea contrary to the binding circular. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998(47)DRJ656
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner, while working in the Indian Army, had to undergo Hernia operation on the 25th of August, 1995. On the 11th of October, 1995, after examination of the petitioner by the Medical Board in view of the operation, he was placed on low medical category 'CEE'. Later on after he fully recovered, on the 23rd of April, 1996 he was examined by the Medical Board and on examination of the petitioner, being completely fit, he was upgraded and placed on medical category 'A'. He was working as Nb.Subedar. As per rules, he was to retire on the 31st of December, 1996. Proceedings to that effect had been issued in January, 1996. After he was placed in category 'A', his case was not considered for promotion. 2. The petitioner filed the CM.8390/96 praying for injunction restraining the third respondent from discharging the petitioner from service. Therein the petitioner had stated that the third respondent on the 7th of December, 1996 had sent a letter to the Headqu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 75(1998)DLT503; 1998(47)DRJ549
R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to release Samman Pension under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (formerly known as Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme, 1972) (hereinafter 'the Scheme' for short).2. The petitioner is a resident of Andhra Pradesh. The Andhra Pradesh State has recommended the case of the petitioner for the release of the pension. However, the recommendation made by the State Government has been turned down by the Central Government after consideration.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made available a copy of the Scheme for our perusal. The relevant parts thereof are extracted and reproduced hereunder :-'4. WHO IS ELIGIBLE?For the purpose of grant of Samman pension under the scheme, a freedom fighter is:- (a) A person who had suffered a minimum imprisonment of six months in the mainland jails before Independence. However, ex-INA personnel will be eligible for pension if the imprisonment/ detenti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)(105)ELT181TriDel
1. This is a Misc. Application filed by the applicant company for modification of the Stay Order No. S/262-63/98-NB, dated 23-4-1998.2. Arguing the Misc. Application Shri J.M. Sharma, Id. Consultant submitted that from the date of passing of the order the financial condition of company has further deteriorated. He submits that the applicant had taken up the matter with their Bank and the Bank refused to grant them any advance against hypothecation of the raw-materials etc. He submits that in the meantime BIFR has also declared the company as a sick unit and that the rehabilitation etc. of the unit is under consideration. The Id. Consultant also refers to a decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Lakshmi Cement v. CEGAT, 1995 (75) E.L.T. 474 (Delhi) wherein the Hon'ble High Court had held as under :- "4. In the instant case, admittedly, the goods are in the custody of the Customs Authority. On this aspect there is no dispute and there cannot be any dispute. If so, the question ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998VIAD(Delhi)435; 75(1998)DLT560; 1998(47)DRJ808
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The petitioner, who was working as Depot Manager(Assistant Engineer(M) was chargesheeted and ultimately by order dated 13.11.1991 he was dismissed from service. He preferred an appeal and the decision of the Board of the respondent DTC, was communicated to him vide order dated 12.3.1992 confirming the order of dismissal.2. The charge-sheet dated 17.7.1989 is as follows:-'Shri O.P.Gupta, Asstt.Engineer(M) is required to explain as to why disciplinary action under Clause 15(2) of the D.R.T.A.(Conditions of Appointment & Service) Regulations, 1952 read with Section 4(e) of the Delhi Road Transport Laws (Amendment) Act, 1971 should not be taken against him for the following irregularities committed by him during the course of his employment in this Corporation:- 1. He, while functioning as Depot Manager, Nand Nagri Depot, misused his official position with ulterior motive & to fabricate disciplinary case against Shri Hari Ram, Assistant Foreman, by pressuring & C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998VAD(Delhi)353; 75(1998)DLT266; 1998(47)DRJ90
ORDERC.M. Nayar, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the order passed by Shri J.K. Pali, Senior Sub Judge Delhi in ESIC case No.193/89. The appeal was directed against the order of Medical Appellate Tribunal dated June 30, 1989 on the ground that the appellant during the course of his duty on January 11, 1989 suffered injury in his left index finger, thereby his left index finger at terminal phalanx was amputated. He remained under treatment from January 11, 1989 to February 10, 1989 at ESI Hospital, Basai Darapur and ESI Dispensary, Shakti Nagar, Delhi and became fit to join duty on February 11, 1989. The appellant obviously suffered amputation with loss of bones. The injury was classified at item No. 35 in Part II of Schedule II, and, thereforee, he was held entitled to disability benefit 9% instead of 1%. The medical board found that the injury to the left index finger recovered completely and the assessment of earning capacity was held nill. 2. The appellant preferred an ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)(105)ELT222TriDel
1. In these two appeals filed by the Revenue, the issue involved is whether waste product known as Bag House fine, obtained during the process of manufacturing filter aid powder is an excisable product.2. M/s. Amol Decalite Ltd. manufacture Filter aid powder, classifiable under Heading 28.51 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, from Perlite Ore by heating it in a furnace. The final product is graded according to the particle size and is assigned a grade number. The waste in the form of very fine powder, known as bag-house fine, which is not usable as filter aid powder, was graded by the Respondents as 414 and 424. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand of excise duty under order dated 29-1-1991 holding that the filter aid powder of grade 414 and 424 is a fully manufactured product and is capable of being sold in the market and needs to be classified as "filter aid powder". The Assistant Collector, in a subsequent order dated 26-2-1992, however, held that waste of filter aid powd...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998VAD(Delhi)869; 1998(47)DRJ103
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition assailing the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal by which the original application (O.A.) filed by him against the rejection of his claim for family pension was dismissed. 2. Petitioner claims to be the husband of deceased, Mahesh Kumari Bhatia, who was employed with MTNL and had retired on 30.4.1985. She died on 26.9.1993. Respondents rejected the claim of the petitioner for family pension on the ground that the deceased did not nominate the petitioner and, in fact, had nominated her two sons as the original nominees and her daughters as alternate nominees. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, urged before us that deceased was the legally wedded wife of the petitioner till her death. The marriage had not been dissolved by any Court of law. Petitioner being the widower, was the sole legal heir of the deceased employee, entitled to receive the family pension under the Central Civil Services (Pen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)LC513Tri(Delhi)
1. The common-appellant in these appeals is not represented in spite of notice of hearing, but has sent a request for decision of the appeals without hearing the appellant's representative. We have heard Shri K.Srivastava, SDR and perused the papers.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Appeal No. Date of order ap- No. of appeals disposed Nature of the pealed against of by Collector (Appeals) proceeding--------------------------------------------------------------------------------747/93-A 26-11-1992 10 8 refund claims two demands748/93-A 18-1-1993 1 Demand749/93-A 19-1-1993 1 Refund claim750/93-A 1-1-1993 1 Two demands751/93-A 10-2-1993 1 Demand752/93-A 26-11-1992 5 Five refund claims 3. Against the order dated 26-11-1992 passed by the Collector (Appeals), appellant is required to file ten separate appeals before the Tribunal, but has filed only a single appeal. Therefore, this appeal has to be treated as an appeal only against one of the app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 100(2002)DLT357; [1999]238ITR414(Delhi)
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. This is a petition under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, arising out of the assessment year 1987-88 whereby the Revenue seeks a mandamus to the Tribunal for drawing up a statement of case and referring the following question for the opinion of the High Court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the investment of Rs. 14,91,874/- in an incomplete and unfinished factory building is not liable to be included in the wealth of the assessee-company?'2. The questions calls for interpretation of Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983. The assessed was constructing a building. The value of investment made therein was sought to be included in the assessable wealth of the assessee. Section 40(3)(vi) which is relevant for our purpose reads as under:'(3) The assets referred to in Sub-section (2) shall be following, namely: (vi) building of land appurtenant thereto, other tha...
Tag this Judgment!