Delhi Court April 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 11 of about 164 results (0.022 seconds)Attar Singh Vs. Airport Authority of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999(49)DRJ664
K. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the order of transfer dated 5.6.1998.2. The main case of the petitioners is that the first respondent had acted in violation of the transfer policy which was framed in May, 1994. The petitioners had referred to the case of certain individuals who have not been transferred, and according to the petitioners, the first respondent had deliberately acted in their favor prejudicing the rights of the petitioners. The petitioners had also stated that the first respondent had not acted fairly. 3. The first respondent in its counter-affidavit, had, in great detail, dealt with all aspects of the mailer. The first respondent had stated in the counter that the petitioners were transferred in 1993 and on their representations, the transfer was deferred. The first respondent had stated that the order of transfer was issued on the 5th of June, 1998 and that the petitioners have not even mentioned the fact that they were transferred in 1993 and that ...
Tag this Judgment!Col. S.S. Bajwa Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999(49)DRJ529
K. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The facts necessary for the disposal of the case could be given shortly in the following terms:The petitioner was working as Colonel in the Indian Army and he was to be promoted to the post of Brigadier. According to the petitioner, he was due for promotion in September, 1995. His case was considered by the Selection Board in March, 1996 and his case was rejected. The Selection Board found him fit for promotion in September, 1996 but he was not given promotion. According to the petitioner, he had given a statutory complaint against his supersession and also the setting aside of the ACR, which was against him, for the year 9/94 to 7/95.2. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-'It is, thereforee, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be please to send for the records of this case, and after perusal thereof, may be pleased to: a) issue a writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to declare the result of the board proceedings held in ...
Tag this Judgment!S.G. Engineers Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(83)LC11Tri(Delhi)
(1) The appellants purchase the raw materials, get certain processes undertaken by job workers. Those goods are received back by the appellants from the job workers in their own factory premises wherein certain other processes are undertaken by the appellants and then the finished goods are supplied to the Perfect Drop Pns (PDP). (2) The appellants herein which is a proprietory concern of one Mrs. Bina Gupta supply the goods to PDP which is a proprietory concern of Shri S.M. Gupta, husband of Mrs. Bina Gupta are related to each other and therefore, the value of goods at which PDP supplied to the Defence Organisation has to be taken for the purpose of determining the value of the goods manufactured and supplied by the appellants and then compute the aggregate clearance of the appellants for the purpose of determining whether they are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-CE.2. On the first allegation mentioned above, Defence contention is that the appellants are getting th...
Tag this Judgment!Bhushan Steel and Strips Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT564TriDel
1. The Order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad dated 1-7-1997 is under challenge in this appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) had confirmed the Or-der-in-Original passed by the Assistant Commissioner holding that the present appellants had cleared huge quantities of H.R. Coils in the guise of waste and scrap.He, therefore, confirmed a differential duty demand of Rs. 1,64,640/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- as per the Adjudication Order.2. Brief facts are that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of C.R. Coils, C.R. sheets, G.P. coils and G.P. sheets falling under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff. They were also availing of Modvat credit of duty paid on inputs. They produced as final products, C.R. Coils, Zinc and Aluminium. They were obtaining the inputs of raw-materials viz., H.R. coils from various manufacturers like SAIL, TISCO etc. During the course of manufacture, appellants are required to perform processes l...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Pelican Valves and Engg. Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC128
1. The question involved in the present case is whether clearances of goods cleared on payment of duty affixed with a brand name of the other person by attracting the provisions of para 7 of the Notification would be included within the computation of clearances for the purposes of exemption limit of the specified goods under para 1 of the Notification No. 175/86 or not.2. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from Ld. JDR. We observe that this issue is no longer res integra. it has been decided by the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. v. Power and Control that the clearances of goods on payment of duty in terms of para 7 of Notification 175/86 shall not be taken into consideration while computing value of the 1st clearances of Rs. 15 lakhs in terms of para 1 of the said Notification. This judgment has been followed by another judgment of the Division Bench of the Tribunal of the East Zone in the case of C.C.E., Bolpur v. Royco Biscuits Co.1998 (28) RLT 562 CEGAT.3. Following r...
Tag this Judgment!True Forge Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC160Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants are engaged in the conversion of duty-paid pipes into small pieces known as elbows, tees, reducers, etc. known as pipe fittings. The impugned order has held that this conversion activity amounts to manufacture and the appellants are liable to pay duty on these items.2. In the appeal memorandum it has been submitted that the conversion of longer pipe lines into smaller pieces for specific use as elbow, tees, reducers, etc. does not constitute manufacture under the Central Excise law. The goods in question were pipes and tubes for the passage of gases, liquids, etc. before the conversion work was undertaken and they continue to be pipes and tubes even after the conversion work is over and they serve the same purpose as before. The processes involved are only one of cutting to size, giving shape by heating in furnace, hammering and pressing, etc. That they are sold under different names also does not mean that they are new goods. These names are only to indicate that th...
Tag this Judgment!Modipon Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC148
1. Arguing for the appellant, Shri N.R. Khaitan, learned Advocate submitted that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Syntnetic filament Yarn falling under Headings 5402 and 5403 of the Tariff. The appellant claimed following deductions in the assessable value of Synthetic Filament Yarn: 2. As regards first item, he submitted that the party has not claimed any Modvat credit and expenses incurred on account of collection, freight and repairs and maintenance, these expenses were allowed by the Assistant Collector. But the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order while observing that these expenses are to be deducted, but he has not allowed in respect of repair and maintenance charges. He submitted that the Tribunal following the case of Indian Oxygen Ltd. has been consistently taking the view that these items are deductible in determining the assessable value including in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut v. Spun Tubes Ltd. 3. After hearing both the side...
Tag this Judgment!Gehring India Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC157
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Gehring India, the matter relates to the valuation of the Gehring Honing Machine re-made for Honing Cylinder Blocks and for Honing Brake Drums. Earlier the machine in question was usable for Honing Brake Drums only. After conversion it became usable for Honing both the brake drums and the cylinder blocks. The machine had been imported in January, 1988 by M/s. Hindustan Motors, and its assessable value was Rs. 25,33,356/-. With the customs duty of Rs. 22,80,020.40, its landed cost came to Rs. 48,13,376.40. The machine was brought in the premises of M/s. Gehring India under Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules')- The conversion cost was of Rs. 44,13,200/-. Further a sum of Rs.4 lakhs was charged as service charges. In the show cause notice dated 6-3-1992, it was alleged that the conversion of the Honing Machine by the appellants amounted to the manufacture of a new machine and that the matter was not covered b...
Tag this Judgment!Steriware Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC449
1. This appeal is directed against the classification of disposable syringe bodies. The impugned order has confirmed the classification of syringe bodies under Tariff Heading 9018.00 as "instruments and appliances used in medical, surgical...".2. The appellant's contention is that in the absence of syringe needle, the syringe body does not become a medical or surgical article and it is only a plastic tube and should be classified as article of plastic.The appellants have also submitted that their classification list was approved on 12-6-1986 with effect from 14-4-1986 as article of plastic.Therefore, demand could not be subsequently raised for a previous period of 1-3-1986 to 10-6-1986 as it amounted to review of his own order by the Assistant Collector.3. The appellants have left the matter to be decided on the basis of their written submissions. Therefore, we have heard Shri R.D. Negi, learned SDR for the Revenue who reiterated the findings contained in the impugned order.4. We have...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Guindy Machine Tools (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC10Tri(Delhi)
1. None for the respondents. Being Revenue's appeals we have heard the learned SDR, Shri R.D. Negi.2. Short question before us is whether the Electro Mechanical Actuator (EMA) is to be classified under Tariff Heading 84.66 as held by the two authorities below or under Tariff Heading 85.01 pertaining to electric motors or various categories of it, as contended by the Revenue in its appeals.3. We have gone through the order-in-original. We observe that the said order-in-original discussed all aspects of classification in relation to the item into consideration before us. The finding arrived at by the learned Assistant Collector in the order-in-original dated 18-12-1990 is fully endorsed by us. We further observe that the lower authorities' finding is also supported by an expert opinion from the Head of the Lab. of IIT, Madras. Consequently, we do not find any substance in Revenue's appeals. We reject the same....
Tag this Judgment!