Delhi Court October 1999 Judgments

Manoj Kumar Srivastava and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. This is an application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The respondents have filed reply. We have heard Shri B.S. Mainee, Counsel for the applicant and Shri O.P. Kshtriya, Counsel for the respondents.2. The applicants who are 16 in number were engaged on casual appointment as Highly Skilled Technical, Mistry at Gwaliar in Central Railway. From the pleadings it is not clear as to in what year the applicants were engaged on casual basis. But this was sometime prior to 1.1.1986. It is stated that the applicants are Diploma holder in Civil Engineering and Discharging the duties of Inspection of works. Prior to IVth Pay Commission Report the salary for the post of IOW was Rs. 425-700 which has now been revised as Rs. 1400-2300 as per IVth Pay Commission Report. Earlier the applicants were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 330-560 for which the revised pay scale after the IVth Pay Commission is Rs. 1200-2040. The IVth Pay Commission Report has suggested that...

Dewas Die Castings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT663TriDel

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 15-5-1999 who dismissed their appeal for want of compliance with the provisions of Section 35-F.2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal may briefly be stated as under: 3. The appellants are manufacturer of excisable goods falling under Chapter 35 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. They availed Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules on the strength of certain invoices of Rs. 2,65,453/- but the same was disallowed by the Assistant Commissioner through order in original dated 30-9-1997. They were also imposed penalty of Rs. 25,000/-.3. Feeling aggrieved by that order they filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). They also filed an application for interim stay before the Commissioner (Appeals) for dispensing with the pre-deposit of the duty and penalty amounts. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 23-4-1999 directed them to deposit the duty amount and wai...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Indica Chemicals Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT140TriDel

1. Revenue has filed this reference petition stating that a point of law arises out of the Tribunal's final order No. A/171/98-NB, dated 16-3-1998 [1998 (102) E.L.T. 381 (Tribunal)] reading as "Whether an item which is specifically excluded from the category of input in Rule 57A, during a relevant period, would still be eligible for Modvat credit during that period i.e. March, 1994 to May, 1994." 2. In the instant case, the Tribunal in para 7 had held that "We have considered the submissions. The appellants have contended that the authorities below have failed to appreciate their submissions relating to the scope of the exclusion Clause under Rule 57A in relation to HDPE bags and sacks. It is contended that there is no mention of HDPE bags in the said exclusion clause but it only talked of bags or sacks made of fabrics woven from strips or tapes of plastic. It was their contention that exclusion clause did not affect bags falling under Heading No. 39.23. Such bags would be outside the...

Elymer Havells Electrics Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(68)ECC104

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Elymer Havells Electrics is whether they were affixing the excisable goods with the brand name of other persons so as to make them not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-CE dated 1.3.1986.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellants manufacture electric meters which were affixed with the brand name 'Elymer Havells'. The Collector, Central Excise, in the impugned order dated 25.11.91, confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 11,46,524.07 P. and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000, holding that benefit of Notification No. 175/86 was not (sin) as they were affixing their excisable goods with the brand name of M/s. Havells Industries and M/s. Elymer Electric Controls (India) Pvt. Ltd. He relied upon the decision in the case of Parle Products Ltd. AIR 1972 SC1359.3. Shri J.P. Kaushik, the learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants were using the brand 'Elymer Havells' since 1981 and it was their...

Sujata Textiles Mills Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT429TriDel

1. The appellants, M/s Sujata Textiles Mills, are engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn, flax yarn and man-made yarn which are excisable goods. In arriving at the value of the goods so manufactured for the purpose of assessment, they claimed various deductions like turnover tax, cash discount, trade discount and dealer discount, octroi, etc. The discounts so claimed by the manufacturer were not allowed by the department. Notice dated 1-12-1995 was issued to the manufacturer requiring them to show cause as to why various deductions claimed as per the price list should not be disallowed. Those deductions included trade discount and cash discount; freight and insurance; transport bills and octroi; brokerage; selling commission; interest on inventories; depot expenses; turnover tax and Textile Committee Cess and Central Excise duty, other than actuals paid at the time of clearance of goods. Adjudicating authority by Order-in-Original No. 124/96, dated 29-3-1996 allowed deductions clai...

Krishna Steel Ind. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT115TriDel

1. Our Final Order Nos. E/1154-1157/98-D, dated 28-7-1998 is the subject matter of this ROM. The issue involved is the correct classification of grinding media balls and we expressed the opinion that they are correctly classifiable under Chapter Heading 7308.90 of the Central Excise Tariff, while the appellants contended that their correct classification would be under Chapter Heading 7208. The ROM contends that our order was passed without taking into account all the facts set out in the appeal memorandum and papers filed therein. It has been pointed out that Chapter Note 6 of Chapter 84 of Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 is binding in the matter of classification as per Rule 1 of Rules for Interpretation of Schedule and steel balls other than polished steel balls are to be classified under Heading 7308 and not under Heading No. 7208 because Heading No.7208 includes only those products which are only roughly shaped by forging and as such require further processing like ma...

Rajasthan Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT399TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., the matter relates to the classification of the cabled yarn, and the issue for consideration is whether the cabled yarn was covered by the description of doubled/multifolded yarn for exemption under Notification No. 53/91-C.E., dated 25-7-1991 and its predecessor Notification No. 53/87, dated 1-3-1987 and Notification No. 47/90-C.E., dated 20-3-1990. It was only under amending Notification No.23/92-C.E., dated 1-3-1992 that cabled yarn was added for exemption under Notification No. 53/91-C.E. It was alleged in the show cause notice dated 26-7-1994 that the appellants by wilful suppression had during the period 1-7-1989 to 28-2-1992 wrongly availed of the exemption by misdeclaring the cabled yarn as doubled/multifolded yarn and thus, evaded the payment of central excise duty amounting to Rs. 48,46,122.70. The matter was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur, who under his Order-in-Original ...

Universal Filtration Co. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(68)ECC102

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s Universal Filteration Co. is whether the filter heads and filter elements were manufactured by them and Central Excise Duty was chargeable from them.2. Shri B.K. Kulkarni, ld. Chartered Accountant, submitted that the appellants are manufacturing lube oil filter assembly which consists three parts, namely, filter heads, filter elements and oil shell; that they manufacture aluminium castings for filter heads and then send the same to various processors for machining; that the appellants are not the manufcturer of filter heads; that unmachined castings for filter heads are exempt from payment of duty under Notification No.180/88-C.E., dated 13-5-1988. He, further, submitted that for manufacture of filter element, they procure raw materials like sheet metal and filter paper etc. from market; that these raw materials are sent to job workers for manufacturing filter elements; that third part, oil shell is purchased from the market; that as t...

Tata Consultancy Services Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT213TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) is whether discount given to them by the Exporter is to be included in the assessable value of imported goods.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the Appellants imported a consignment of Tandem Computers and Bill of Entry was filed on 3-3-1990 and goods were allowed to be cleared on payment of Customs Duty.However, subsequently the goods were seized on 16-3-1990 and a show cause notice dated 14-9-1990 was issued for confiscation of the goods and demanding duty amounting to Rs. 56,69,784/- on the ground of under valuation of the goods and import in excess of the licence. Another show cause notice dated 5-5-1991 was issued to them for demanding duty of Rs. 17,18,710/- on the same grounds by the Collector of Customs. The Collector, in the impugned order dated 30-7-1991, confirmed the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 17,18,710/-and confiscated the goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine o...

M/S. Green Transport Corp. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anothe ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokesh war Prasad, President: 1. Since the above mentioned appeals, filed by the appellant, named above, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') have common facts and also raise common questions for consideration, the same with the consent of the learned Counsel for the appellant have been heard together on the question of admission. 2. Both the above mentioned appeals are directed against a common order dated 13.9.1999, passed by District Forum No. I (District North) in Complaint Case No. 514/97 entitled The New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Anr. v. M/s. Green Transport Corporation, and Case No. 805/97also entitled The New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Anr. v. M/s. Green Transport Corporation. 3. The facts relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned two appeals briefly stated are that the respondent/complainant No. 2 in both the cases had booked two separate consignments of oil with the appellant for transportation from ...