Delhi Court March 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 20 of about 205 results (0.019 seconds)Collector of Central Excise Vs. Pan Asia Corpn.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC415Tri(Delhi)
1. The respondents herein are manufacturing a product described as 'open loop water cooler'. The Assistant Collector classified the product under Tariff Heading 8418.00 and extended the benefit of Notification 166/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 (as amended) as 'water coolers' at nil rate of duty. Revenue filed an application for revision of said classification and extension of the benefit of the said Notification claiming that the said product is an "other refrigerating appliances and machinery" calling for rate of duty at 60% ad valorem, under Sl. No. 6 (iii) of the said notification. Lower appellate authority, however, has classified the product under Tariff Heading 84.19 and extended the benefit of Notification 155/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 chargeable to 15% ad valorem, rate of duty. Reasoning of the concerned Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) in arriving at the aforesaid decisions is as follows :- "It is observed that Heading 84.18 covers refrigerators, freezers and other refrigerating...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs and C. Ex. Vs. J.K. Synthetics Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC324Tri(Delhi)
1. This is a Department's appeal with reference to the Order-in-Appeal dated 28-1-1997 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi.2. The learned Departmental Representative stated that the basic issue in this case is regarding availability or otherwise of Modvat credit availed by the respondents on the item Air Curtain KAC 5D and KAC 6D.The Department was of the view that these goods were not capital goods and therefore, were not eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q.3. Learned DR also stated that definition of capital goods during the period 1-4-1994 to 1-3-1994 (sic) is required to be kept in view.The provision of this rule apply to finished excisable goods of the specified description for the purpose of allowing credit of specified duty paid on the capital goods used by the manufacturer in his factory.4. It is quite evident that key words in the definition of capital goods are- - Machines, machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances. - Used for producing or...
Tag this Judgment!Universal Cans and Containers Vs. Collector of C Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC176Tri(Delhi)
2. The appellants herein are manufacturers of metal containers, they acquire duty paid tin sheets. They punch various parts of metal containers out of those metal tin sheets. What remains of tin sheets after punching the various part is the subject matter of classification before us. The appellant have described the same as waste and scrap of steel falling under Tariff Heading 7203.20 whereas the Revenue contends that this left over material is cuttings of tin sheets under Tariff Heading 7212.20.3. Ld. Advocate Shri Sanjeev Sen submits that the Apex Court in its judgment in the case of LML Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur reported in 1997 (94) E.L.T. 273 (S.C.) has held that such left over material (described as off cuts in that judgment) is to be classified under Tariff Heading 72.10 as "shapes and sections" and not under 7203.20 as contended by the appellant or under Tariff Heading 7212.20 as contended by the Revenue. In that case of LML the appellant therein was bringing...
Tag this Judgment!Nafed Processed Foods Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC861Tri(Delhi)
The appellants herein paid duty on Flattened Containers and took Modvat credit for the same for utilisation in manufacture of processed foods described as 'prepared or preserved food' put up in the unit containers.2. Central Govt. issued a Notification No. 181/88, dated 13-5-1988 whereby metal containers 'reformed' out of duty paid flattened containers were exempted from payment of duty. A question has arisen whether the Modvat credit of duty paid on flattened containers can be given to the appellants herein or not, inasmuch as there is an exemption Notification as mentioned above for reformed metal containers.3. The authorities below have denied the Modvat credit on the ground that since the final product in their case is the exempted reformed metal containers the benefit of Modvat credit of duty paid on flattened metal containers cannot be allowed to the appellants.4. On the other hand, contention of the appellants is that their final product is not the reformed metal containers but...
Tag this Judgment!Consolidated Chemequip (Mfr.) Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC71Tri(Delhi)
1. Short question involved in this matter is whether cutting of Cupronickel Process pipes to sizes and joining them by hightech welding process, namely, radiography to make them of different shapes like Tees, Us, Ls etc. amounts to bringing into existence a new commodity having a different name, character and use leviable to duty again or not. Lower Authority has held that the aforesaid process undertaken by the appellants herein brings into existence new products.2. It is against the aforesaid order that the appellants have come in appeal. They have requested to decide the appeal on the basis of the available records.3. We have heard ld. JDR Shri S. Nunthuk for the Revenue. He reiterates the aforesaid finding of the Adjudicating authority. The lower authority in coming to its conclusion has relied on Tribunal's judgment in the case of Richardson Cruddas 1998 (38) E.L.T. 176 (T). Ld. JDR further takes support from another judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Simplex Casting Pvt. Lt...
Tag this Judgment!international Building and Furnishing Co. (Cal.) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union o ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)239; 78(1999)DLT435
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The petitioner was awarded a contract by the respondent for restoration work of Vigyan Bhawan , New Delhi. During the execution of the aforesaid work , disputes arose between the parties with regard to work carried out by the petitioner and the respondent rescinded the contract by its letter dated 19.5.1993 by taking action under Clause-3 (a, b & c). As disputes arose between the parties relating to the aforesaid work, the said disputes were referred to the sole arbitrator Sh. S.S. Juneja, who was appointed by the appointing authority in terms of clause 25 of the agreement, to decide and make an award regarding the said disputes. The arbitrator received evidence adduced by the parties and upon hearing the parties made his award on 18th May, 1995. The aforesaid award was filed in this court as against which, an objection has been filed by the respondent-UOI. The said objection was listed before me for arguments and disposal, on which I heard the learned counse...
Tag this Judgment!Corporal Satbir Singh (Ex.) Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)295
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1.The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- 'It is, thereforee, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to:- i) Issue appropriate writ/directions/orders in favor of the petitioner and against the respondents for quashing the impugned decision of the respondents whereby the petitioner was denied his disability pension which was duly recommended by the Medical Board at the time of invaliding out the petitioner from the service on 08.9.1995. ii) To direct the respondents so as to reconsider their recommendations with regard to admissibility of Medical Pension to the petitioner considering the invaliding disease on account of which the petitioner suffered disability was attributable to the service and also was aggravated by the service keeping in view the nature of duties of the petitioner.' 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition can be noticed in the following terms: On the 11th of October, 1984, the petit...
Tag this Judgment!N. Somarajan Gs 150747 K Supdt.Br.ii Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)299
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1.The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- 'It is, thereforee, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue:- (i) A writ or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the respondent to maintain uniformity between the personnels of General Reserve Engineering Force and other Armed Forces which are covered under the provision of Army Act, 1950 in consonance with verdict of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. (ii) A writ or direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to pay to the petitioner the arrears of such special allowance like Bhutan Compensation Allowance to which he is entitled to due to his posting to Bhutan, Sikkim, and Meghalaya and to further post the petitioner to Bhutan in preference to his junior and pay him the Bhutan Compensation allowance as is admissible to other army personnels. (iii) To issue a writ or direction to the respondents to pay to the petitioner interest at the rate ...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. JaIn Vs. the Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)317; 79(1999)DLT380
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner, who was Junior Engineer, in the M.C.D., has filed this writ petition. A charge memo was issued to him on 25.4.1984. The statement of allegations against the petitioner is :- 'Shri P.K. Jain, was posted as Junior Engineer in the Building Department, City Zone in the year 1982 and ward No. II, including Katra Lachu Singh, was under his charge. Huge unauthorised construction of a commercial nature was carried out in premises No. 19997/II, Katra Lachu Singh. He booked the unauthorised construction of 8 shops in the said premises on 16.10.1982 vide file No. 361/II/CZ dated 16.10.1982 but served the show cause notice upon the builder only on 19.10.1982 i.e. after a delay of 3 days. Inquiries in the said case were made by the ADC/City Zone and the Executive Engineer (Co-od) and Shri P.K. Jain had been found responsible for the following lapses/irregularities:- 1. That he served the show cause notice dated 16.10.1982 on 19.10.1982 after a delay of 3 d...
Tag this Judgment!Jvg Finance Ltd. and ors. Vs. Dda and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)661; 1999(49)DRJ178
ORDERJ.B. Goel, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') filed by the petitioner No. 1, the Company, petitioner No. 2 its Chairman-cum-Managing Director and petitioners No. 3 to 6 its Directors, for quashing the complaint filed against them by the respondent Delhi Development Authority (for short 'DDA') for the offence under Section 14 read with Section 29(2) of the Delhi Development Act (for short 'the Act'). Petitioners have been arraigned as accused Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, & 7 respectively in the complaint. 2. Briefly, the facts are that property No. B-24, Ansal Chambers-III, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi was inspected by the staff of the DDA on 9.7.1992 when it was noticed that an office was being run in the basement (419 Sq. Ft. area) under the name and style of 'M/s. JVG Finance Ltd.' and about 8 persons were found working at the time of inspection; The premises falls under Development Zone No. F-5 and the use of the premises ...
Tag this Judgment!