Delhi Court March 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 5 of about 205 results (0.021 seconds)Tansi Furniture Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT429TriDel
1. The question involved herein is whether stay sets as per drawings of TNEB are liable to duty. The stay sets are manufactured by cutting to sizes the iron and steel products and drilling holes in them and making them to a given shape to hold the electric poles in perpendicular position to the ground. The appellant has urged that no manufacture has taken place and, therefore, these goods are not liable to duty. Mere activity of cutting to sizes, drilling holes and jointing the pieces so cut to sizes does not amount to manufacture. The appellant also relied upon the Tribunal's earlier judgment vide Final Order Nos.E/1223-1224/98-B1, dated 5-8-1998 in their own case.2. We have also heard learned JDR Shri M.P. Singh for the respondent.In a very recent judgment the Tribunal has again held in the case of Elecon Engineering Com. Ltd. and Ors. v. C.C.E., Chandigarh and Ors., reported in 1999 (31) RLT 5 that this activity as aforesaid does not bring into existence any goods different from th...
Tag this Judgment!Sedco Forex International Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)72ITD415(Delhi)
1. All these appeals by the abovenamed assessees involved consideration of some common points. Hence, these appeals are being disposed of by this common order.2. We will first deal with ITA No. 4549/Del/1991, for asst. yr. 1986-87 and 4550/Del/1991, for asst. yr. 1987-88 filed by M/s. Sedco Forest International Inc. The first common ground in these two appeals relate to confirmation by the CIT(A) of the findings given by the AO that mobilisation fee of Rs. 99,04,000 received by the appellant company from ONGC in asst. yr. 1986-87 and Rs. 64,64,530 received in asst. yr.1987-88 should be taken in to consideration for purposes of determining the assessee's income under s. 44BB of IT Act, 1961, ("The Act"). It was contended on behalf of the assessee before the authorities below that a plain reading of the relevant clauses of the agreement executed between the appellant non-resident company with ONGC clearly reveals that mobilisation fee paid by ONGC to the appellant company were in the na...
Tag this Judgment!Sameer Gehlauat Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 78(1999)DLT775
K. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. On 11.11.1998 the second respondent put up for auction the retail outlet at Rangpuri, NH-8, Delhi Gurgaon Road, New Delhi. The petitioner was the highest bidder and the same was accepted. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 34 lakhs as per the terms and conditions. He was to further deposit a sum of Rs. 3 crores. On 30.11.1998 the petitioner filed the writ petition praying for the following reliefs:'(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus thereby directing the respondent No. 1, MCD to sanction/approve the building plans submitted by respondent No. 2 in respect of the retail out let at Rangpuri, NH-8, Delhi-Gurgaon Road, New Delhi allotted to the petitioner; (b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus thereby directing the respondent No. 2 to construct the building/ structure at the retail out let at Rangpuri, NH-8, Delhi-Gurgaon Road, New Delhi of allotment and also as per letter dated 17.11.98; (c) i...
Tag this Judgment!Shriram Refrigeration Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC541Tri(Delhi)
1. Matter called. None for the appellants. They have desired for deciding the appeal on merits.2. The issue involved in this appeal is regarding classification of crankshafts used in gas compressors which are further used in water coolers. They claimed the benefit of Notification No. 166/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 (as amended) on the ground that the crankshaft is a part of gas compressor and used in the manufacture of water coolers.Therefore, they are entitled to nil rate of duty in terms of the aforesaid notification. The lower appellate authority has, however, disallowed the benefit of the said notification on the ground that the classification of the crankshaft is under Heading 84.83 and the said Heading is not mentioned in Column (2) of the notification under which parts of gas compressors should fall before extending the benefit of the said notification.2. In order to appreciate the contention of both sides, we reproduce the relevant portion i.e. S. No. 01 of Notification No. 166/86...
Tag this Judgment!Birla Jute Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC451
1. These are two appeals arising out of a common order in appeal dated 22-2-1994 passed by the Collector (Appeals), New Delhi. The issue involved is about the rate of duty chargeable on the goods removed after 5 PM on the date of presentation of Finance Bill in the Parliament.2. Shri A. Bhattacharya, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of M/s. Birla Jute Mills in E/A. No. 1193/94-C. No one has appeared on behalf of M/s. Shriram Cement Works in A. No. 1204/94-C inspite of notice. As the issue involved in both the appeals is common, these are being disposed of by this common order.3. Shri Bhattacharya, learned Advocate submits that by a notification, Basic Excise duty at the rate of Rs. 290/- per MT was levied on cement manufactured by them. In addition, Special Excise duty at the rate of 15% of Basic Excise duty was also chargeable. While presenting the Finance Bill, the Finance Minister mentioned in his Budget speech that as a measure of simplification, the Special Excise duty is ...
Tag this Judgment!Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Travancore Electro Chemicals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT629TriDel
1. COD application is for filing of supplementary appeal arising out of the impugned order which has disposed of two appeals. Having regard to the practice of the Tribunal, we condone the delay in filing the supplementary appeal because their original appeal was filed in time.2.1 The respondents herein filed classification list effective from 9-2-1988 in which they classified electrode casing under TSH 7308.90 claiming exemption from paying duty vide Notification No. 217/86, dated 2-4-1986 Revenue, however, issued a show cause notice dated 13-5-1988 respondents as to why the said casing should not be classified under Heading 73.08 prior to the period 1-3-1988 and under Heading 7326.90 after 1-3-1988. The show cause notice also proposed denying the benefit of exemption Notification No. 217/86. On adjudication, the Assistant Collector concerned relying on an earlier Order-in-Appeal No. 84/88-C, dated 30-3-1988 holding that the graphite electrode and M.S. sheets for manufacture of carbon...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kishan Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)556
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition challenges the award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 1st December, 1997 by which the Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal had rejected the reference made to it at the behest of the petitioner herein on the ground that the telecom department of the Government is not an 'industry'. For this purpose reliance was placed on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1996 (8) SCC 488 Sub Divisional Inspector of Post v. Theyyam Joseph and Others. The Tribunal had relied upon the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Sub Divisional Inspector of Post case (supra) in preference to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewarage Board Vs . A. Rajappa and Others : (1978)ILLJ349SC . The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since then the view taken in the judgment of the Sub Divisional Inspector of Post has been overruled by a judgment of 3 Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'bl...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Bhimwal Mohs (Lt. Col.) Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)759; 79(1999)DLT297; 1999(50)DRJ134
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner, who has served in the Indian Army for more than 26 years, sought for premature retirement on the ground that he has to look after his mother afflicted with cancer and his father retired Air force Officer who is visually handicapped. The petitioner in his writ petition in paragraph 28 of the writ petition has given instances where in the case of officers similarly situated the respondents had permitted them to retire prematurely. The request of the petitioner has been rejected by the Adjutant General. It is not necessary to go in details the averments in the counter affidavit. The stand taken by the respondents is that the services of the petitioner are very much required and, thereforee, the respondents have not permitted the petitioner to retire prematurely. 2. At the time of arguments it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. R.P. Sharma that the Adjutant General is not the competent authority to deal with the request of ...
Tag this Judgment!Subhash Kumar Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)817; 1999(49)DRJ447
ORDERDR. M.K. Sharma, J.1. By this order I propose to dispose of the application registered as I.A. No.3055/1996 filed by the defendant under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure as also I.A. 3504/1996 filed by the defendant under section 5 of the Limitation Act. 2. The plaintiff instituted a suit against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.1.34 lakhs with interest contending inter alias that the aforesaid amount was collected by the defendant from the plaintiff as transfer limit without any authority of law. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement contending inter alias that such a transfer limit was permissible and legal. In the suit 10 issues were framed by this court and the suit was thereafter listed for trial. On 1.5.1992 statement of PW1 was recorded in presence of counsel for both the parties. However, on the subsequent date of trial i.e. on 26.7.1993 three witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff were present, but as the counsel for the defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Pal and ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corpn. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)785; 79(1999)DLT319; 1999(49)DRJ339
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The two writ petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:- 'It is, thereforee, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to hold: a) that action of the respondents in denying promotion to the petitioners to the post of Fitter in the scale of Rs.950-1500 is illegal, invalid, improper, arbitrary and discriminatory. b) call upon the respondents to consider and promote the petitioners to the post of Fitter with effect from 26.7.1989 and place them at the appropriate position in the seniority list of Fitters from July 1989 itself above their juniors and also pay all other incumbents junior to the petitioners have been so promoted against the post of Fitters.' 2. The facts are very simple. The petitioners joined the service of the DTC in 1978.In 1981, they were promoted as Asstt. Fitters, as evidenced by proceedings dated 29.10.1981 which is filed as Annexure P-8. The next higher post is the post of Assistant Fitter on the scale of Rs.9...
Tag this Judgment!