Delhi Court April 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 13 of about 164 results (0.019 seconds)Babri Fibres Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC472
1. This appeal relates to imposition of penalty of Rs. 25,000.00 and duty demand of Rs. 7,081 plus cess of Rs. 186.00. The charge in the show cause notice was that the appellant had removed two consignments twice under same invoice numbers, namely, invoice Nos. 117 and 118, dated 2-7-1995.2. Arguing the case for admission, learned Counsel, Shri Alok Arora submits that the only evidence in support of the allegation of clandestine removal is that two copies of the same invoices are available and that they were made in the name of two parties, namely, United Packaging and Bansal Packers. Shri Arora explains that both the consignments were actually sent to Bansal Packers. The invoices came to be written first by the factory clerk by mistake (on account of hearing the name wrongly in the name of United Packaging) in the name of United Packaging, though no supplies were made to them. Supplies were made only to Bansal Packers. Thus, in fact, there were no two removals against the same invoic...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Ala Chemicals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT308TriDel
1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 30-11-1992 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. In the impugned order, the Collector held-that the polyester polyols are also known as polyester resins, hence, are entitled for the benefit of Notification 133/86-C.E.4. The contention of the Revenue is that polyester polyols is not a resin. As polyester polyols is manufactured from Adipic Acid, ethylene glycol, hydroxy butylebe glycol, glycerol trimenthylol propane, etc. by the process of condensation and is a fully saturated polyester polymer with free hydroxyl groups, hence, it is termed as polyester polyol.Since there is a process of polycondensation, there is a formation of the product named as polyester polyol. It is clearly indicated in the manufacturing process that the product is fully saturated polyester polymer with free hydroxyl groups. Such type of products in the trade parlance are not known as resins.5. The Revenue also relied upo...
Tag this Judgment!Controlled Acoustic Indus. P. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC494Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants, M/s. Controlled Acoustic Industries Pvt. Ltd. were manufacturing different articles from the galvanised sheets. The articles were named as T coupler, L.T. coupler, furring channels, leaf spacer clip, stabilizer, bar, hold-on-hangers, stud, perimeter, angle/ceiling hanger, T leveller, steel clip, ranner and rotating clip.The issue for our consideration is whether these products were classifiable under subheading No. 7212.10 of the Central Excise Tariff as in force during the year 1987 or they were classifiable under sub-heading No. 7308.90.3. On behalf of the respondents/Revenue, Shri R.K. Sharma, SDR briefly explained the facts and submitted that the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad had decided the classification of these products under sub-heading No. 7212.10, which covered galvanised sheets, plates and forms. The Revenue being aggrieved had filed an appeal with the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad, who had agreed with the Revenue that ...
Tag this Judgment!Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT175TriDel
1. In the above cases, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise has denied Modvat credit on the strength of invoices which were issued before six months from the date of credit, since as per the proviso to Sub-rule 2 of Rule 57G, a manufacturer can take credit only within six months from the date of issue of such invoices. The lower appellate authority had directed the applicants to deposit the duty amount as a condition for hearing of their appeals and upon their failure to do so, he has rejected the appeals for non-compliance with the statutory requirement of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. Learned Counsel for *:he applicants, Ms. Nisha Bagchi submits that it had already been brought to the notice of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the applicants' company was a sick company registered under the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies Act, with the BIFR and that, therefore, they were not in a position to comply with the requirement of pre-deposit. Learned SDR, Shri Sa...
Tag this Judgment!Badarpur Power Engineers and Workmen Union Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)640
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by one of the Unions in the above Power Project which is owned by the Government of India and maintained by the National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. Though this petition arose from a refusal of Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour Respondent No.1, to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication, inter alias for the reason that demand for holding a secret ballot cannot form the basis of an industrial dispute, the real issue now arising in this petition is the method and manner of determination of majority character of trade unions in an establishment. 2. On the issue arising in the writ petition there is now a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India Staff Union Vs . Food Corporation of India and Others : (1995)IILLJ272SC wherein it has been held as follows: 'Collective bargaining is the principal raison d'etre of the trade unions. However, to see that the trade union, which takes up the matter concerni...
Tag this Judgment!Golden Ahar Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)619; AIR1999Delhi372; 79(1999)DLT161
ORDERArun Kumar, J.1. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is about refusal by the Government to renew the permit of the petitioner for pur- poses of fishing by using foreign vessels. Initially the petitioner was granted permit for five pairs of deep sea trawlers for a period of three years vide communication dated 31st August, 1982. The permit could be renewed for a further period of two years subject to certain conditions. The petitioner submits that it chartered five pairs of fishing trawlers from a foreign country in view of the said permit granted to it. It is further the case of the petitioner that it applied for permission to pur- chase foreign trawlers. The respondent granted the permission subject to the petitioner buying equal number of trawlers from an Indian source. According to the petitioner it made huge investments in this behalf. On the expiry of the period of three years for which the permit was initially granted, the petitioner applied for rene...
Tag this Judgment!J. Joseph Vs. Shri A.P. Nandy
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3090; 79(1999)DLT541; 1999(49)DRJ649; 1999(66)ECC87
ORDERD.K. Jain, J.1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Code), the petitioner prays for quashing of the criminal complaint filed against him on 26 June, 1985 under Section 56 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the FERA), on the ground that more than 12 years have elapsed since the institution of the complaint and only one witness has been examined on behalf of the complainant so far as pre-charge evidence, thus infringing his right to speedy trial, flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India.2. The allegations against the petitioner, as can be culled out from the complaint, are that during the course of search at his residential premises on 15 May, 1985 by the officers of the Enforcement Dte., some incriminating documents were seized, which revealed that the petitioner had violated various provisions of the FERA inasmuch: (i) he had a right to receive from foreign principals in Saudi A...
Tag this Judgment!Luk Auto Ancillary (India) Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. Laxmi NaraIn Rain ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999(50)DRJ101
D.K. Jain, J. 1. By this application, Raj Kumar Goyal, Ex-Director of M/s. Luk Auto ancillary India Ltd., company in liquidation, prays for quashing of the prosecution proceedings pending against him in this Court in Crl.O.No. 2/82.2. In the application it is stated that the applicant was co-opted as Director of the said company by the Board of Directors on 23 December, 1974 but he resigned from the Directorship on 2 December, 1975, i.e., more than five years prior to the date on which the said company was wound up by this Court, i.e., 24 April, 1981. It is asserted that the applicant had duly sent his letter of resignation to the Registrar of Companies.3. No reply to the application has been filed on behalf of the OL.4. I have heard Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, respondent No. 4 herein and Mr. Luthra, learned counsel for OL. In addition to what has been pleaded in the application, it is also pointed out by Mr. Sharma that at the time of recording of evidence of the pa...
Tag this Judgment!ic-3450f Major Ashok Kumar Pant Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 79(1999)DLT292; 1999(49)DRJ581
K. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-'a) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the findings in interim confidential report pertaining to the period 1.6.1993 to 7.12.1993; b) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to hold a Special Promotion Board and to grant the petitioner consequential benefits on merits and based on his overall profile in service; c) issue directions for placing the original copy of the Court of Enquiry findings as well as the evidence recorded in the Court of Enquiry; d) direct the respondents to order enquiry into the loss of classified documents and also inform the Court about the punishment given to the officers responsible for the loss of the documents:' 2. The case in short of the petitioner is that he has been maintaining good record of service and the interim confidential report pertaining to the period 1.6.1993 to 7.12.1993 has been made by the 4th respondent who was later on del...
Tag this Judgment!Consolidation Mfg. and Mktg. Co. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(85)LC546Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Consolidated Manufacturing and Marketing Company, the order-in-appeal dated 13.8.1996 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi is under challenge. The appellants had imported 5,000 sets of Filter elements and 3,000 Nos. of Heater plugs. The declared value was not accepted by the Customs and based on the contemporaneous imports, the assessable value was determined. On appeal, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) observed that the details of the goods as were found on physical examination of the goods did not tally with the invoice. She observed that there was a glaring lacuna in the invoice produced and relied upon by the importers and came to a decision that the view taken by the adjudicating authority was correct.2. Shri R. Parthasarthy, Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the importers in this case were an established importers and had been purchasing similar goods from the same traders in U.K. He referred to the or...
Tag this Judgment!