Delhi Court September 1998 Judgments

Shri A.K. Singhal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Common grounds and identical issues are involved in these Original Applications (in short 'OAs') and, therefore, they are disposed of together in this consolidated order.2. The reliefs claimed in both the OAs are somewhat common. We are extracting hereunder the reliefs claimed in OA 266/94 : (i) quash the seniority lists bearing No. 3/3/86-ADM-I (B) dated 25.8.86 (Annex. A-4) No. 3/5/91-Adm. I(CEA) dated 26.9.91 (Annexure-A-7) and the Seniority List bearing No. 3/1/93-Adm. I (CEA) dated 4.2.1993 (Annexure-A-10), in so far as it pertains to the applicants and respondents 3 to 9 and restore his inter-se seniority in line with their original seniority assigned to him by virtue of his position in merit at the time of his initial appointment batch i.e. restore the position as is reflected by the Seniority List No. 3/85/ADM. I (B) dated Nil May, 1985(Annexure-A3). (ii) declare that the applicant continued to maintain his seniority which he originally enjoyed vis-a-vis respondents 3 to 9 ...

T.V.N. Rao Vs. Indian Railway Construction Company Ltd. (ircon)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998VIAD(Delhi)428; 76(1998)DLT784

ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The petitioner was in service in the Indian Railways and later on he worked with Indian Railway Construction Company Ltd. (for short IRCON), the first respondent. He retired from service of the IRCON on 29.02.1992. The petitioner received a communication dated 27.07.1994 from the first respondent stating that his retiral benefits had been determined and a sum of Rs. 1,04, 266/- was due to him. From this amount the sum of Rs. 52,938.53 was withheld on account of some deficiencies of the quantity of cement supplied to the project when the petitioner was in charge of it. Ultimately the first respondent had said that a sum of Rs. 1,04,266/- plus a sum of Rs.18,923/- as gratuity was to be released to the petitioner. It was further stated by the first respondent that it had been decided to recover a sum of Rs. 52,938.53. The first respondent had stated that a sum of Rs.70,250.50 was ultimately payable to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has prayed for the followin...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bansal Exports Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1999]238ITR455(Delhi)

R. C. Lahoti, J.1. Under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question of law referable to the assessment year 1977-78 has been referred at the instance of the Revenue for the opinion of the High Court :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessed is entitled to weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the sum of Rs. 5,43,628 representing expenditure on refining, melting and handling charges ?'2. From the statement of the case drawn up by the Tribunal, it appears that the assessed was engaged in the export of silver. The export was made through the State Trading Corporation pursuant to the agreement entered into between the assessed and the Corporation. The silver exported by theassessee was to be of a particular percentage of purity. After the silver was exported, the importer before accepting the refined silver sent by the assessed had as per the terms of the sale agreement got the silver melted and ref...

Raj Bir Singh Vs. Municipal Corpn. of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998(47)DRJ705

Vijender Jain, J.1. Rule.2. This petition can be disposed of at this stage itself. Mr. Aggarwal has contended that the matter is covered by numerous Single Bench decisions of this Court as well Division Bench decisions of this Court. He has contended that in respect of the petitioner who is a Duplicating Machine Operator, the age of superannuation ought to have been 60 years instead of 58 years under Clause B of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules. In support of his contentions he has relied upon a judgment of this Court in CWP No. 260/98 decided on 27.5.1998 which was in relation to the Duplicating Machine Operators. He has also cited Division Bench judgment of this Court in CWP 1229/95 decided on 17.2.1997. The same was also in relation to the Duplicating Machine Operators and the Division Bench held that the Gestetner Operators are covered under FR 56 (b) and are entitled to be retained in service the age of 60 years. Aggrieved by this order, the MCD filed a special leave petition (SLP...

Sambhav Processors P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT193TriDel

1. The appellants herein are processing fabrics on job work basis and paying the duty to the department. They are also passing on the burden of duty to the persons on whose behalf they are undertaking the job work for the job charges from their customers (M/s. Oswal Industries herein). The lower authorities have rejected the refund claims of the appellants on the ground that they have passed the burden of duty to the customers i.e., job workers. Hence, these appeals by the appellants herein.3. Ld. Advocate, Shri G.S. Bhangoo for the appellants submits that no doubt, they have passed on the burden of duty to the customer but M/s.Oswal Industries on whose behalf they have done the job work have not passed on burden of duty to their customers. In support of this plea, they have produced invoices of M/s. Oswal Industries in respect of goods sold by them to their customers. These invoices did not show any collection of duty by M/s. Oswal Industries from their customers. Ld.Advocate drawing...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Studio Ritam

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT200TriDel

1. In the instant case, the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, by his Order dated 31-3-1992, intimated the Appellants on the question of approval of their classification lists that "It is observed that your SSI Registration with the said Development Commissioner is provisional one. For availing the exemption benefits under Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986, it is essential that the factory should be permanently registered with the Directorate of Industries of the State. However, as you have stated in your letter dated 5-12-1991 that you are making all efforts to obtain a permanent SSI registration, I order that the assessment of the duty be made provisional under Rule 9B of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 till you produce proof of your permenent SSI registration with the Directorate of Industries." The Appellants filed an appeal against this order. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his Order held that: 'The Trade Notice No. 26/87, dated 28-4-1987 does provide that provisional Re...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. S.M. Dye Chem. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT226TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay against the order of Collector (Appeals) dated 26-11-1992 by which the Collector (Appeals) had held that the product "Silfin-9009" manufactured by the respondents was classifiable under Chapter sub-heading No. 3403.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.2. Briefly, the facts were that the present respondents had classified their products "Silfin-9009" as a lubricating preparation falling under 34.03. The said classification was not accepted by the Department and on the basis of the Test Report by the Deputy Chief Chemist, the Assistant Collector by his order- in-original dated 11-3-1992 approved the product as "organic surface active preparation" under Chapter Sub-heading 3402.90 attracting duty @ 25% ad valorem. In the appeal filed by the respondents herein, the Collector (Appeals) by his order-in-appeal dated 26-11-1992 held that the disputed product "Silfin-9009" was to be classified under Chapter sub-heading ...

Jai Prabha Textiles Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT112TriDel

1. Briefly stated the facts of this case are as follows : In pursuance of Intelligence gathered by the Departmental Officers, factory of M/s.Jai Prahba Textiles and residential premises of the its partner Shri Vijay Prakash Aggarwal of the appellant firm were raided on 29-1-1985 and certain documents were seized. As a result of the scrutiny of seized records, department came to the tentative conclusion that the appellant firm has evaded the payment of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 13,08,199.26 by making wilful mis-statement, & suppression of facts. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 17-7-1985 was issued to the appellants calling upon them to show cause as to why the aforesaid amount of duty may not be demanded and penalty be not imposed. It also appears that cloth measuring 751.60 Meter valued at Rs. 8442.90 was also seized and show cause notice was also issued to M/s. U.S. Textiles calling upon them to show cause as to why the seized cloth may not be confiscated. After...

P. and B. Pharmaceuticals (P). Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT132TriDel

1. M/s. P & B Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. have come in Appeal against the order in appeal, dated 22-4-1994 passed by the Collector (Appeals) in which the Collector (Appeals) has disallowed the higher notional credit in respect of bulk drugs.2. When the matter was called none was present on behalf of the Appellants in spite of notice to them as well as their counsel.4. The Appellants manufacture pharmaceutical products and availed Modvat credit on bulk drugs. At the relevant time rate of duty applicable to bulk drugs was 5% under Notification No.31/88. The Appellants have purchased bulk drugs from SSI units availed and higher notional credit of 5% under Rule 57B read with the Notification No.175/86. Both the Lower Authorities denied the higher notional credit on the ground that the effective rate of duty on bulk drugs was also 5% and in view of the specific provision of paragraph 5 of the Notification No. 175/86 higher notional credit was not admissble. The Appellants have contended i...

income-tax Officer Vs. Ferry Sales Corpn.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)69ITD231(Delhi)

1. These are two appeals of the revenue directed against the combined order of CIT(A)-XII, New Delhi dated 5-10-1990 relating to assessment years 1984-85 and 1986-87 in the case of same assessee. These are being disposed off by a consolidated order as facts and points at issue are identical.2. Facts are like this that original assessment for both the assessment years under appeal were completed under section 143(1). Subsequently, the Assessing Officer reopened these assessments on the basis of certain information and discrepancies coming into here possession and found during the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1987-88. These proceedings were initiated by issuance of notices under section 148 on 27-5-1988 by invoking provisions of section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act. No returns were filed in response to these notices issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act by the assessee and rather the assessee challenged the service of these notices issued under secti...