Delhi Court October 1999 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.
J.D. Kashyap Vs. National Seeds Corporation Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)697; 82(1999)DLT726; 2000(52)DRJ253; (2001)IIILLJ383Del
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J. 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition against impugned award dated 27th May, 1998 passed by Labour Court VII in I.D. No.292/95. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working with National Seeds Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as Corporation, for short). On 7th May, 1992 respondent-Corporation introduced a Voluntary Retirement Scheme and the petitioner applied for voluntary retirement on 17th July, 1992 under the aforesaid scheme. However, the application of the petitioner was kept pending and no action was taken on the same by the respondent-Corporation. The petitioner subsequently submitted application dated 26th April, 1994 withdrawing his application dated 17th July, 1992 for voluntary retirement. This, according to the petitioner, before his application for voluntary retirement could be accepted he withdrew the same. However, after his application dated 26th April, 1994, the respondent-Corporation accepted petitioner's application for...
B.N. Sharma and ors. Vs. Central Bank of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)809; 82(1999)DLT779; 2000(52)DRJ217
ORDERUsha Mehra, J.1.Petitioners and private respondents 3 to 40 were in the clerical service of Central Bank of India Ltd. (hereinafter called the erstwhile bank) prior to its nationalisation under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (hereinafter called the Act). The erstwhile bank had prescribed four grades for its different categories of employees which were grades 'D, 'C', 'B, and 'A', After the nationalisation of the bank the grades were revised into seven and categorised as grades `G', `F', `E', `D', `C', `B' and `A'. Petitioners 1 to 16 were promoted to Grade `F' (erstwhile Grade `D') i.e. the lowest grade in the officers' cadres as Junior Officers/Sub-Accountants. Rest of the petitioners and respondents were clerical staff. Applications were invited by the bank between 1969 to 1972 from clerical staff for undergoing six months training for the post of Assistant Internal Auditor and Assistant Godwon Inspector. First of such circular as date...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Raja Ram Maize Products
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT410TriDel
1. These six appeals filed by the Revenue have arisen out of the same set of facts which are briefly as stated below : 2. The Respondents, engaged in the manufacture of liquid glucose, starch etc. falling under Chapters 17 and 35 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, had opted to avail themselves of the facility of Modvat credit on capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Accordingly they took Modvat credit of the Central Excise duty paid on various goods treating the same as 'capital goods' under Rule 57Q ibid for the period May, 1994 to January, 1995, the total amount of credit was so taken amounting to Rs. 1,30,331.00.The jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise issued six Show Cause Notices, for various periods between May, 1994 and January, 1995, asking the party to show cause why the Modvat credits taken for the respective periods should not be held to be inadmissible and hence recoverable from them. In adjudication of such SC...
Miracle Foils P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-1999
Reported in: (2000)(68)ECC98
1. The issue involved in both these appeals filed by M/s. Miracle Foils P. Ltd. is whether slitting/cutting of jumbo rolls of aluminium foil into small size amounts to manufacture.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the issue stands settled by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Foils India Laminates (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur 1999 (33) RLT 474 wherein it was held that since House Foil is cleared for home consumption as House Foil and not merely as Aluminium Foil in Jumbo rolls, a distinguished and new product has emerged. Shri Anand also pointed out that the Collector (Appeals) while rejecting their appeal in the impugned order, has relied upon the earlier Order-in-Appeal which was the subject matter of the decision referred to above.4. We find that the issue involved in both the present appeals has been decided by the Tribunal in the case of Foils India Laminates (P) Ltd. (supra) holding that slitting/ cutting of jumbo rolls of aluminium into small size brings ...
Ester Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT1039TriDel
1. These are four appeals filed by the appellants M, s. Ester Industries Limited involving the common issues and therefore they are taken together and are being disposed of by this common impugned order.2. Whether following items are eligible capital goods in terms of Rule 57Q to avail the Modvat credit is an issue to be considered in these appeals :- 3. Shri R. Santhanam, learned Advocate submitted that these matters have been adjourned awaiting the decision of the larger bench of the Tribunal and since the decision of the larger bench in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. v. C.C.E., Coimbatore reported in 1999 (108) E.L.T.47 (Tribunal) is out and reported, following the same these appeals may be allowed.4. Shri Y.R. Kilania, learned JDR appearing for the Revenue has nothing to argue in view of the position that issue with reference to the above items has already been considered by the Tribunal in the case of M/s.Jaivalwr Mills Ltd., referred to above.5. On going through the facts and ci...
Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Sukhajit Starch and Chemicals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT760TriDel
The Respondents are manufacturers of liquid glucose and similar products falling under Chapters 17, 29 and 35 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and are availing the Modvat credit facility on capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. They availed Modvat credit on certain goods (as capital goods) viz., Electric motor, Power cable, Current drive and Uninterrupted Power Supply System (UPS) during the period January, 1995 to March, 1995. The credit so taken amounting to Rs. 1,34,799.95 was disallowed by the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, but allowed, on appeal by the party from the decision of the Adjudicating Authority, by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). It is against this decision of the lower Appellate Authority that the Revenue has filed the present Appeal before the Tribunal.2. The lower Appellate Authority found that the aforesaid goods, in respect of which the party had taken Modvat credit under Rule 57Q...
imonual Poly Bags Inds. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT953TriDel
1. In these appeals filed by M/s. Immuanual Poly Bag and others the matter relates to the classification of high density polyethylene strips. The allegations of suppression of production and clandestine manufacture of the tapes had also been levelled. With regard to the classification, the Collector of Central Excise who adjudicated the matter did not pass any orders and observed that earlier the assessee had accepted the classification of their goods under sub-heading 5406.90. While noting the pleadings of the assessee that the correct classification should be under sub-heading No. 5406.11 of the Central Excise Tariff, he did not pass any orders on this aspect.2. Ms. Prasanthi Prasad, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the classification was a question of law and in response to the show cause notice the appellants had submitted that the classification of HDPE strips under sub-heading 5406.90 was not correct and that the correct classification should be under...
Bansali Engineering Polymers Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-1999
Reported in: (2000)LC32Tri(Delhi)
1. These are two ROM applications - one filed by the assessee and the other filed by the Revenue. There is one reference application also filed by the Revenue stating that a point of law arises out of the decision of this Tribunal contained in its Final Order No. A/546/98-NB, dated 10-7-98 [1999 (105) E.L.T. 213 (T)].2. We have heard the arguments adduced by Shri J.P. Kaushik, ld.Counsel for the appellant/assessee and Shri S. Srivastava ld. DR appearing for the Revenue.3. The assessee's counsel submits that while arguing the case before the Tribunal, he had specifically stated that penalty was not warranted and had cited the case law reported in [1997 (96) E.L.T. 398 (T) = 1997 (22) RLT 551] in which the Tribunal had held that "in the background of what we have held above, I hold that the benefit of Modvat credit as held by the Bench in the case of Humidifire Unit available for the airconditioners. The appeal of the Revenue is therefore, allowed in the above terms. The order of the ad...
Collector of Customs Vs. Grover Imports
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-1999
Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT992TriDel
1. The appellants imported two consignments of Lignea Cassia weighing 2.303 M.T. and .9.212 M.T. respectively and sought assessment of the goods at the declared value of US $ 1025 per MT CIF Ex. Bombay. The Customs authorities loaded the price to the rate of Rs. 44.44 per kg.CIF as against declared value of over Rs. 36.74 per kg. They also took the weight of the goods as 50 kg. per package as against the declared weight of 47 kg. per package thus, holding that there was an excess import of 808.50 kgs. The Customs authorities confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) and 111(m) for misdeclaration and non-production of import licence and gave an option to redeem them on a redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/-. Penalties of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- were also imposed on the appellants for the import of the two consignments.2. The appellants took the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (A), New Delhi. They submitted that the actual weight of the consignment was only 47 kgs....
Seawell and Filter Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT75TriDel
1. In these appeals filed by M/s. Seawell & Filter Co. the matter relates to the effect of restructuring of Tariff Entry under Clause 80 of the Finance Bill, 1985. In the Finance Bill 1995, the classification of the Felt Components had been changed from sub-heading No. 5909.00 to 5911.90. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) is of the view that the changes made in the Tariff description were effective from 16-3-1995 itself when the Bill was introduced in the Parliament. It was the contention of the appellants that the provisions of the Provisional Collection Taxes Act were not applicable in respect of the change in the Tariff description and such changes are effective only from the date of the enactment of the Bill.2. The appellants have prayed for decision on merits. We have heard Shri R.S. Sangia and have gone through the facts on record. We find that the matter is covered by the Supreme Court decision in the case of Pieco Electronics and Electricals Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 199...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »