Delhi Court March 1999 Judgments

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Johnson and Johnon Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT723TriDel

1. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Collector has found that the charge in the notice, against the respondents, that it imported spares of machinery used to manufacture sanitary napkins in order to assemble complete machinery, was not substantiated by any evidence. He was also of the view, that since an order under Section 47 of the Customs Act, allowing clearance of the goods had been passed and the department had not filed appeal against it, the notice for unauthorised importation was barred by limitation.3. So far as the question of limitation has concerned, the department's appeal had to be accepted in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. 1996 (86) E.L.T.460 (S.C.) 4. However, the Collector's finding that the department has not been able to establish, by means of sufficient evidence, the charge of illegal importation has not been successfully assailed in the appeal.In our view, it is not sufficient to say that the re...

Nishwe Packings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)LC848Tri(Delhi)

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order in appeal dated 11-11-1997 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The brief facts of the case are that a show cause notice was issued to the appellants stating therein that the appellants brought the duty paid goods in their own factory and they had not removed these goods within six months as provided under Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules.After adjudication the adjudicating authority demanded the duty under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise rules read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 3000/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. The appellant filed appeal and the same was dismissed.2. Learned Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the demand was confirmed on the ground that the appellant cleared the goods under Rule 173H after six months after receipt in the factory. He submits that Rule 173H does not stipulates the period of six months fo...

C.P. Jayant and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The main legal question for determination in this O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is whether Reserved category Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST for short) candidates appointed/promoted to posts, under the Union of India, on the basis of their merit and seniority and not on the basis of reservation, should be counted against the percentage of posts reserved for them or whether they shall be adjusted against the posts meant for general category candidates. Other ancillary issues have also been raised for consideration.2. The applicants, who are Group C Inspectors in Central Excise and Customs (CE & C for short), have vehemently opposed the decision of the official respondents in counting 23 SC and 9 ST inspector (CE & C) promoted to the posts of Superintendents (Group B Gazetted) on their own merit and seniority, against the posts reserved for backward communities, thus illegally and arbitrarily denying promotions to the applica...

Birla at and T Communications Limited Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)553; 78(1999)DLT667; 1999(49)DRJ488

ORDERDR. M.K. Sharma, J.1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking for an injunction against the respondents restraining the respondents from encashing the two post-dated cheques dated 12.1.1999 and 12.1.1998 and further restraining the respondents from encashing the two bank guarantees dated 9.12.1995. The petitioner has also sought for an ad interim injunction pending disposal of the petition. 2. The respondents entered appearance and thereforee, on the aforesaid prayer of the petitioner for grant of an ad interim injunction pending disposal of the petition in the terms aforesaid, I heard Mr. Shanti Bhushan and Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also Mr. Trivedi, Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondent. 3. The petitioner was given licenses for providing Cellular Mobile Telephone Services. Particulars relating to the licenses granted to the petitioner are give...

Tata Teleservices Ltd., Hughes Ispat and Essar Commvision Vs. Union of ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)625; 78(1999)DLT572; 1999(49)DRJ431

ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. These are petitions filed by the petitioners under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking for an injunction against the respondent restraining the respondent from giving effect to the letter dated 25.1.1999 and also restraining the said respondent from taking any action for encashing the bank guarantees furnished by the petitioners. All the petitioners have also sought for ad interim injunctions pending disposal of the petitions. However, the respondent entered appearance and thereforee, the respondent has also been heard. As the facts relating to the present petitions are similar and contentions raised by the counsel appearing for the parties are also similar, thereforee, I propose to discuss and appreciate the contentions of the rival parties and give my decision thereon by this common order.O.M.P. 58/1999:Since the petitioner has sought for an ad interim injunction till the disposal of the petition, I have heard Mr. Arun Jaitley, a...

Harish Narayan Singhani and Others Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)763; 78(1999)DLT726

ORDERJ.B. Goel, J.1. By this order the aforesaid two petitions (Crl. M. (M) 331/99) and (Crl. M. (M) 342/99), both for bail, first under Section 439 and the second under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the 'Code') are being disposed of. 2. Both these petitions arise out of RC No. 10(E)/96-SIU-VIII registered by the CBI under Sections 120-B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The petitioners are two of the accused. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously contended that no forgery, fraud or cheating has been committed by the petitioners and case is false and baseless and their prosecution is unwarranted. 4. For appreciating this contention, it will be relevant to go into the brief facts of the case which are as follows. 5. By virtue of Indo-EU Bilateral Textile Agreement, products falling under Category 26 i.e. Powerloom 'Ladies dresses' are placed under restrained category. 6. On the basis of information received from European Commission...

S.V. Muzumdar Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2000]241ITR481(Delhi)

C.M. No. 147 of 1998 in C.W.P. No. 954 of 1990 :1. By this application the petitioner has sought information about the status of demand of the Income-tax Department against respondent No. 2. Mr. Jolly, counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 3, has stated at the Bar, on instructions from Mr, Sukhdev Singh, Tax Recovery Officer, Patiala, who is present in court, that presently the demand against respondent No. 2 is Rs. 8,27,899. Mr. Jolly further submits that fresh proclamation proposed to be issued will incorporate the revised demand. In view of this statement made by Mr. Jolly this application stands disposed of.C. W. P. No. 954 of 1990 :2. The petitioner has sought quashing of the attachment dated February 18, 1988, and the proclamation of sale dated February 26, 1990, with respect to property No. B-3, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi, allegedly belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have purchased this property from respondent No. 2 after paying full consideration for the same. Le...

Atul Electro Formers (P) Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT626TriDel

1. The short point for determination in this appeal is whether the waste and scrap arising in the course of manufacture of articles of nickel shall be dutiable or not.2. The contention of the appellants was that since the waste and scrap succeed the term nickel precedes the term articles thereof; therefore the waste and scrap generated in the process of manufacture of articles of nickel will not be dutiable. The department's contention was that since the waste and scrap is grouped with nickel, therefore the waste and scrap that arises in the process of manufacture of articles of nickel will also be leviable to duty as nickel under Chapter Heading 75.01 of the Tariff.3. None was present for the appellants. We, therefore heard Shri M.P.Singh, JDR. After hearing the ld. JDR and perusing the evidence on record and submissions made by the appellants before the authorities below, we find that the entry against sub-heading 7501.00 reads "Nickel" (including nickel waste and scrap), and articl...

Vishva Vishal Engineering Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT325TriDel

1. Learned Counsel, Shri S.N. Kapoor, submits that credit has been denied in the instant case holding that the appellants had not declared the inputs. He submits that this finding is not factually correct. He refers to declaration dated 22-11-1993 of the appellants where, under Serial No. 14, they had declared C.I. Castings falling under sub-heading 8417.00 as one of the inputs and the credits were taken subsequent to this declaration. They had filed clarificatory letter on 5-7-1994 giving detailed particulars of the castings already declared in the earlier letter. Shri Kapoor submits that the inputs in question were covered by the first declaration and, therefore, there is no ground for denying the credit.2. Heard Shri T.A. Arunachalam, learned D.R. who reiterates the findings in the order.3. I have perused the records of the case and have considered the submissions made by both sides. The inputs involved in the instant case were castings and they had been declared by the appellants ...

Roplas (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT705TriDel

1. These two appeals of M/s. Roplas (India) Ltd. relate to dutiability of Fibre Glass Reinforced Plastic (FRP) bodies manufactured by them and fitted on jeeps of M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. 2. Impugned Order No. P-337/94 issued on 10-10-1994 was passed in an appeal filed under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and this order sets aside classification list No. 49/91-92 effective from 1-3-1992 approved by the Assistant Collector. The Assistant Collector had approved the classification of the FRP bodies under sub-heading 8707.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff and held that the goods were liable to nil rate of duty as jeeps are received from M/s.Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. under Rule 57F(2) and that no duty is payable by M/s. Roplas (India) Ltd. as M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. are paying duty on the value of the jeep including the value of the FPR bodies. Appeal No. E/1298/96-B1 is in respect of the impugned order No.P/107/96, dated 23-2-1996 upholding dut...