Delhi Court April 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 12 of about 164 results (0.020 seconds)Munjal Showa Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT684TriDel
1. By the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi has : (a) confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 9,770/- on finished goods (shock absorbers for two wheelers and four wheelers) found short on 17-9-1993 by the Central Excise officers and confiscated excess stock of finished goods valued at Rs. 7504/- involving duty liability of Rs. 1501 /-, with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 1500/-. (b) confiscated finished goods valued at Rs. 98,574/- seized at the time of visit, which the assessees claimed as rejected goods returned by the customers, with option to redeem on payment of a fine of Rs. 25,000/-; (c) confirmed an amount of Rs. 19,98,179/- under Rule 57(1) on shortage of inputs on which Modvat credit had been availed and (d) imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. We have heard Shri J.P. Kaushik, learned Counsel and Shri D.K.Nayyar, learned DR and record our findings on the issues as under : (I) Excess and shor...
Tag this Judgment!Process Plant (India) Ltd. and Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC150
1. By his Order-in-Original dated 18.6.91, Collector of Central Excise, Bombay demanded and confirmed various amounts of duty against (1) M/s Process Plant (India) Bombay. (2) M/s. Industrial Products, Bombay and (3) M/s. Neelam Industries, Bombay under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. He also imposed penalties of Rs. 50,000 each on the three aforesaid units and on M/s. Troika Processes Pvt. Ltd., apart from ordering confiscation of land, building, plant and machinery of all the units under Rule 173Q(2) of the Rules with redemption fine of Rs. 50,000 on the said units in lieu of confiscation. Penalties of Rs. 25,000 each on (1) Shri R.K. Chopra, Director of M/s. Troika Processes Pvt. Ltd., and proprietor of M/s. Process Plant (India), (2) Shri R.S. Jhaveri, Director of M/s. Troika Processes Pvt. Ltd., (3) Shri Arvind R. Chopra, partner of M/s. Industrial Products and M/s. Neelam Industries, (4) Shri O.P. Agarwal, Director ...
Tag this Judgment!Sumangalam International Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC146
1. These are two appeals filed by the appellants involving the common issue and therefore they are taken together and, are being disposed of by this common order.2. The dispute is in respect of determination of value of Graphic 4L Toner for use in Canon HP SX LASER Printer and Graphic II Toner for use in Canon HP SX LASER Printer. According to the party, the item Graphic Toner of 160 Gms. of 200 bottles were imported declaring the price US $2.80 FOB per bottle. Similarly, item HP4L PX Toner 160 Gms. of 300 bottles were imported at the value of US $3.10 FOB per bottle. Against the price of US$ 2.80 per bottle. The Assistant Commissioner has determined 4.14 per bottle and similarly value 5.5 per bottle in case of certain items as against declared value of US $3.10 respectively.3. Shri J.S. Agarwal, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the Assistant Commissioner who adjudicated the matter has enhanced the value based upon the import by M/s. Ramtron Systems.He submi...
Tag this Judgment!Ravi Mittal Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC85Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by Shri Ravi Mittal is whether the Ball Bearing purchased by him from the open market, were smuggled ones/illegally imported into the country.2. Shri Naveen Mullick, the ld. Counsel, submitted that the appellant is a dealer in Ball Bearings; that he had purchased the Ball Bearings through Dalai on cash payment from the open market in Delhi where the Ball Bearings were freely sold and purchased; these goods did not attract the provisions of Section 123 of the Customs Act and accordingly the onus to prove that the Ball Bearings in question were smuggled into the country was on the Department which had not been discharged by the Department. He relied upon the decision in the case of Sethi Bearing Sales Corporation and Anr. v. C.C., New Delhi, Order Nos. A-75 & 76/87-NRB, dated 10-2-1987 in which it was held that "since Bearings though of foreign origin are thus shown to be freely available in the market and in the absence of presumption as t...
Tag this Judgment!Banwari Lal Mahajan Vs. Municipal Corpn. of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)382; 79(1999)DLT282; 1999(49)DRJ527
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner, who was working as School Inspector, has challenged the order dated 31.5.1988 superannuating him on attaining the age of 58 years while according to the petitioner, he was entitled to continue until he attained the age of 60 years.2. The facts necessary for appreciating the question involved could be stated very tersely in the following terms:Till the 30th of June, 1970, the petitioner was working as a Language Teacher and w.e.f. 1.7.1970, he was transferred to the Directorate of Education, Delhi Administration. On the 3rd of November, 1973, the petitioner came back to the service of the respondent on promotion. With effect from the 2nd of November, 1973, the petitioner was working as a School Inspector.3. According to the respondent the retirement age of teachers is 58 years and the petitioner was working as School Inspector, and, thereforee, the order dated 31.5.1988 is in accordance with law.4. The point raised by the petitioner is covered b...
Tag this Judgment!Arvind Bhatia and ors. Vs. Delhi Administration
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)441; 79(1999)DLT697
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The writ petitioners are working under the Management of the third respondent which runs a group of schools. On the 11th of January, 1990, The Director of Education, Delhi had issued a circular with reference to maintaining seniority of employees of recognised Govt. aided schools which run by the same trust/society. The Circular reads as under:-'Sub: Seniority of employees of recognised Govt. aided schools run by same trust/society. In supersession of previous instructions on the above subject the following instructions are issued for compliance by all the managing committees of recognised Govt aided schools in the Union territory of Delhi except in those cases where there are orders to the contrary by any court of law:- 1. The seniority of employees of the Govt. aided schools run by the same society/trust shall be common for purpose of promotion and other related matters. 2. So far as the management of each school is concerned, common members of managing comm...
Tag this Judgment!Khaitan and Associates Vs. Minerals and Metals Trading Corpn. of India ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)472; 80(1999)DLT198; 1999(49)DRJ291; 1999RLR460
ORDERDR. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The present suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure was instituted by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of Rs.8,09,476.39 Along with interest. Pursuant to a tender enquiry floated by defendant No.1 M/s. Klockner & Co. of West Germany acting through the plaintiff submitted its offer for supply of 6000 MT of LPG Sheets. The said offer was accepted by defendant No.1 and a letter of intent dated 5.9.1989 was placed with M/s. Klockner & Co. for supply of a total quantity of 6000 MT of LPG Sheets at the rate mentioned in the said letter of intent. A purchase order dated 16.10.1989 was executed between M/s. Klockner & Co., West Germany and the defendant No.1 for supply of the aforesaid LPG sheets. In terms of the said letter of intent and the purchase order the total value of 6000 MT LPG Sheets was DM 5,880,000. The aforesaid price was inclusive of agency commission @ 1% of FOB value less freight DM 107 per MT payable in equivalent Indian ...
Tag this Judgment!Major Tilak Bose Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 79(1999)DLT164
K. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner, who is a Doctor, has prayed for the following reliefs for the purpose of pursuing Post Graduate Course:'(a) issue a Writ and/or Order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents and each one of them to transfer the petitioner to any one of the places where there are institutions run by the Armed Forces, namely Delhi Cantonment, Pune, Bombay and Bangalore and to give admission to the petitioner as 'local candidate' in the said colleges; (b) to further issue a Writ and/or Order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to lay down clear policy indicating the admission to the post graduate courses under the Armed Forces Quota at the various institutions in India, both under the Entrance Exams and admissions which are made de hors the Entrance Exams and further to quash the admissions which have been given dehors the merit of the candidates as secured under the Entrance Examination; (c) issue a writ and/or order and/or direction in the...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. F.G.P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC756Tri(Delhi)
1. Short question involved in this matter is whether "resin bonded glass wool" is entitled to the benefit of Notification 45/88-C.E., dated 1-3-1988.2. By this Notification exemption has been given to parts and accessories of Refrigerating and Airconditioning appliances falling under schedule of the Tariff Heading 1985 as is in excess of rate of duty of 15% ad valorem. In case of use being in a cold storage plant of such part and accessories, procedure set out under Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules is required to be followed. In the instant case the respondent herein supplied the aforesaid goods to a customer who had taken L6 license and followed the Chapter X procedure. The Asstt.Collector had denied the benefit of the said Notification to the respondents on the ground that resin bonded glass wool cannot be considered to be a part and accessories of refrigerating and airconditioning machinery or appliances. It is a raw material required for insulation. Lower appellate authority,...
Tag this Judgment!Vinod Kr. Jailal Agarwal Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT738TriDel
1. These are four appeals filed by (i) Shri Vinod Kumar Jailal Agarwal, (ii) Shri Ajay Jailal Agarwal, (iii) Smt. Sonadevi Jailal Agarwal and (iv) Smt. Nirmaladevi Ravindrakumar Agarwal, being aggrieved with the common order-in-original dated 28-11-1989 passed by the Addl. Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad.2. When the matter was called, no one appeared for the appellants. The notice for today's hearing had been issued on 12-2-1999. There is no response. There is no request for any adjustment.3. The matter relates to the eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 208/83-C.E., dated 1-8-1983 with regard to the nature of the raw material used. As the matter involves appreciation of the facts, in the absence of the appellants it is not possible to dispose of the matter. In view of the above, all these four appeals are dismissed for non-prosecution....
Tag this Judgment!