Delhi Court October 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 14 of about 150 results (0.014 seconds)Harish Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(68)ECC600
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by the Revenue is whether automobile cess is leviable on the activity of body building of the chassis.2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the appellants, in spite of notice. We, therefore, heard Shri Ashok Kumar, ld. JDR and perused the records.3. We find that the Collector (Appeals), has extracted the definition of automobile in the Autombiles Cess Rules in the impugned order, according to which, automobile means motor cars, trucks, buses, jeep type vehicles, vans, scooters, motor cycles, mopeds and all other automobiles covered under sub-heading (5) of Heading 7 'Transportation' (sic) of the First Schedule to the Act. The Collector (Appeals) proceeded to hold that the cess is leviable as he gave his findings that the appellants were manufacturing motor vehicles falling under sub-heading 87.02,87.04 and 87.05 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It is settled by the decision of the Supreme Court...
Tag this Judgment!Guru Kartar Steel (Private) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT144TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Gurukartar Steels (P) Ltd. is whether the goods manufactured by them are classifiable under Heading 73.25, as claimed by them or under Heading 84.55 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, as decided by the Collector in the impugned order.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellants manufacture steel castings and cast articles of iron or steel. The Collector, Central Excise, under the impugned order held that Adamite Rolls/Chill Rolls were classifiable under Heading 84.55 of CETA and confirmed the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 74,305.75 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25000/- on the ground that specific shape and form had been given to the castings by shaping them to stepped diameter shape by machining process; that the enquiries made from the appellant's customers namely M/s. Upper India Steel Manufacturing and M/s. Engineering Company Ltd. revealed that steel rolls were fit for replacement after simply grooving them....
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Kay Cee Electricals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(68)ECC95
2. In the impugned order, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) held that the review against the order passed by the Assistant Collector Under Section 35E(3) of the Central Excise Act was beyond the period of one year. Therefore, the review appeal is time barred Under Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, 1944.3. Ld. JDR, appearing on behalf of the Revenue, submits that no doubt the order was signed by the adjudicating authority on 9.3.92, but the same was issued on 12.3.93, as mentioned on the top of the Order-in-Original. He, therefore, submits that the appeal be allowed.4. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the review order was passed on 16.3.93. He submits that even if we presume that the adjudication order is dated 12.3.92, as now pleaded by the revenue, the review order is still beyond the time prescribed Under Section 35E(3) of the Central Excise Act. He relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E. v. M.M. Rubber. Co. ....
Tag this Judgment!Jyoti Plastic Works P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC107
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 24-2-1992 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals).2. In the impugned order, the benefit of Notification No. 155/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 was denied to the water filter manufactured by the appellants.3. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the appellants manufactured water filter and they claimed the benefit of Notification 155/86-C.E. She submits that the Notification 155/86-C.E.provides the exemption from the Central Excise duty to the water filters of capacity not exceeding 40 Itrs. She submits that the notification does not stipulate that the water filter must have separate storage tank or separate candles. She submits that the water filters, manufactured by the appellants, are directly put on the taps.She also produced the samples of the product. She submits that the lower authorities wrongly held that the water filter, in question, does not have retaining capacity of water...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. R.K. Metal Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(68)ECC96
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dated 29.9.93 passed by the Collector (Appeals).2. We heard Shri Ashok Kumar, Ld. JDR and Shri P.M. Panwar, Ld.Consultant. We find that the respondents, M/s. R.K. Metal Industries manufactured copper circles out of the scrap purchased from the market.The Assistant Collector disallowed the benefit of notification No.178/88 on the ground that the scrap purchased from the market had not suffered duty and as such the benefit of notification was not available. However, on appeal preferred by them, the Collector (Appeals) under Order-in-Appeal No. 223-CE/Appl/JPR/92 dated 21.2.92 allowed the benefit of notification holding that the burden of proving that the inputs were non-duty paid, was squarely on the department and the department had not proved the inputs to be non-duty paid. The Assistant Collector, following the said Order-in-Appeal dropped the demand against the respondents vide Orders No. 72/92 and 74/92. The Collector went...
Tag this Judgment!J.P.S. Bhandari Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IAD(Delhi)286; 82(1999)DLT702
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of letter dated 8th July, 1990 to the extent it proposes to include the petitioner's name in the seniority list for the year 1977. His case is that he is was appointed in the year 1970 and as per the Government own instructions from time to time his seniority should have been fixed from the date of his initial appointment. 2. The petitioner was employed as Operator Grade-II in Indian Drugs and Pharmaceutical Limited (hereinafter referred to as IDPL, for short) with effect from 16th May, 1970. In January, 1977, Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as CISF, for short) took over the security of IDPL and in the process the services of the petitioner were also taken over by the CISF. 3. The Government of India issued circular letter dated 17th July, 1977 in which principles of the determining the seniority of various persons employed in CISF were stated and paragraph 2 thereof related to fixation of ...
Tag this Judgment!Taj Services Limited Vs. Industrial Tribunal-i and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)732; 82(1999)DLT378; 1999(51)DRJ567; [2000(84)FLR600]; (2000)ILLJ1012Del
ORDERCyriac Joseph, J.1. This application is filed on behalf of respondents 2 to 11 in the writ petition under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. 2. The challenge in the writ petition is against the award dated 30th September, 1996 of the Industrial Tribunal in I.D. No.10/88. As per the impugned award the management was directed to reinstate the workmen in service and also to pay to them 50% of backwages from the date of their dismissal from service to the date of the award and full wages from the date of the award to the date of reinstatement in service. While issuing notice on the writ petition and the application for stay (C.M. 997/97) this Court directed that the impugned award shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing. The said stay order was being extended from time to time. Respondent Nos. 2 to 11 in the writ petition are the workmen in whose favor the impugned award was passed. The said workmen have filed the present application for benefits under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Telu Ram Vs. Chairperson Ndmc
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(52)DRJ11
C.K. Mahajan, J. 1. The petitioner challenges the action of the respondents which is proposed to be taken for demolition/removal of the shop at 160, Jhuggi Camp, Laxmi Bai Nagar, New Delhi which had been erected by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner claims to be in possession of the aforesaid shop since 1971. A suit was filed by the petitioner in 1986 praying permanent injunction restraining the respondent from demolishing the said shop. The suit was withdrawn on a statement of the respondents that they had no intention to demolish the structure. Thereafter a suit was filed in 1999 for permanent injunction when respondents/NDMC started construction of boundary wall. The petitioner was not granted any site. Thereafter the petitioner withdrew the suit and filed the present writ petition. 3. The petitioner was served with a notice calling upon him to remove the unauthorised structure. The petitioner did not respond to the said notice and rushed to this court for relief. The occupation of t...
Tag this Judgment!Sumit Anand Vs. Govt of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)806
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner applied to the Delhi College of Engineering for being admitted into Part Time Course in Engineering. On 18.7.1999 Entrance Examination was held. On 6.8.1999 the result was declared and the petitioner was successful in the examination. The Programme fixed for the Course is as follows:- Last Date for Receipt of Completed Applications: 18.6.1999 Date of B.Tech.Entrance Examination 18.7.1999 Date of Declaration of Result (Tentative) 06.8.19992. The petitioner went to the College on 18.8.1999 as he could not go to the College on 17.8.1999 as he was suffering from high fever and when he visited the College on 18.8.1999 he was informed that Admissions had been closed on 17.8.1999. On 18.8.1999 the petitioner made representation to the Principal in the following terms :- 'Sub : Admission to B. Tech. Course (Part-Time). I have been declared successful in the competitive examination held for admission to B. Tech (Part-Time) Course of your College. As...
Tag this Judgment!Dharampal Satyapal and ors. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(90)LC45Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Dharampal Satyapal, Shri J.D. Desai, Sr. Manager of M/s.Dharampal Satyapal and Shri Rajeev Kumar, Partner of Dharampal Satyapal had filed three separate appeals being aggrieved with the common Order-in-Original No. 18/98 dated 28.4.1998 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I.M/s. Satyapal Industries, M/s. Gopal Zarda Udyog and M/s. Harichand Shri Gopal have also filed three separate appeals being aggrieved with the common Order-in-Original No. 31/98 dated 20.5.1998 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I.All these six appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Under show cause notice dated 19.6.1997 issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi, it was alleged that M/s. Dharampal Satyapal and others had manufactured excisable and dutiable 'kimam', which was classifiable under sub-heading No. 2404.49 of the Central Excise Tariff during the period 1.3.1994 to 22.7.1996, and under sub-heading No.2404.40 from 23...
Tag this Judgment!