Delhi Court April 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 14 of about 164 results (0.020 seconds)Linda Swamy Vs. Commissioner of C. Cx.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC440
1. The appellant is aggrieved by the confiscation of the truck bearing registration No. HR-38-8628 belonging to her, by the order of the adjudicating authority who has held that the truck is liable to confiscation under Section 115 because it was used for transport of non-duty paid pressure cookers cleared from the factory of M/s. Sonia Engg. Works (P) Limited, New Delhi.2. Shri Gopal Prasad, ld. Advocate submits that the truck cannot be held to be liable to confiscation unless it is established that the owner or agent or the person in charge of the vehicle had knowledge of the use of the vehicle in the smuggling of the goods or had connived in clandestine removal of the goods. Regarding imposition of penalty, he submits that the appellant had no means to know that the consignor of the goods had not discharged duty liability themselves and for this reason, he has not imposed a penalty on her. He further submits that there is no penalty on the driver which would show that the driver ha...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Mahindra Engg. and Chemical
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC429
1. The question involved in this appeal is classification of Arc Chamber Housing Tubes (ACH Tubes) while the respondents' ld.Representative calls it as ACH. Its purpose and function has been described by the Assistant Collector in the Order-in-Original in the following manner :- "The Arc Chamber Housing Tube is housing in it oil - the oil is contained in the ACH tube in circuit breaker. When an electrical circuit is broken, a huge spark occurs generating tremendous amount of heat. The oil contained in the ACH tube is used for quenching the arc. In the process heat is generated when the arcing takes place vapourising some oil contained in the tube which create a high pressure inside the tube. The specification of ACH, therefore, have to be such as to withstand the (i) High Temperature & (ii) High pressure generated in the arcing process. Therefore, the material of which the housing is made has to be sufficiently strong and must have high thermal insulation characteristic so as to s...
Tag this Judgment!Technicom-chemie (India) Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(83)LC765Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against order dated 30.10.1996 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi.2. Arguing for the appellants, Shri J.P. Kaushik, Advocate submitted that the appellants, M/s. Technicom-Chemie (India) Ltd. have imported one second hand Mercedes 300SEL Car of Model 1993 on 8.10.1996. The Commissioner was of the view that the imported Car was without import licence and he has enhanced the value based upon the Parker's Car Price of March, 1996. Shri Kaushik, ld. Advocate attacked the impugned order on the two grounds. First of all the Commissioner was not correct in arriving at the conclusion that the import licence was required with reference to the car in question. He has submitted that as per the Public Notice No. 202 of 92-97 if the car is imported by a company which had invested more than 40% shares, the licence is not required as per Clause E of the Public Notice 202 of 92-97 dated 30.3.1994. He drew our attention to the relevant Clause E...
Tag this Judgment!Aluplex Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC130
2. The appellants herein filed a Classification List No. 1/90-91 claiming lower rate of duty i.e., 5% BED and 5% SED of BED under Notification No. 175/86 [Clause (a)(i)] of the said notification. The Assistant Collector passed an order dated 15-2-1991 approving the Classification List at full rate of duty without giving the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 (as amended) till the investigation and further enquiry is completed. At the same time, he directed the appellants herein to execute B-13 Bond for sufficient amount with 25% Bank Guarantee.3. The appellants filed an appeal before the lower appellate authority on 15-2-1991 contending that the full rate of duty is being paid as per the direction of the Assistant Collector and there is no necessity for execution of Bond as well as for executing Bank Guarantee. Collector (Appeals) accepted the contention of the appellant that there was no necessity for furnishing a Bank Guarantee.4. The appellants are not satisfied and they have come ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Kirloskar Ebara Pumps Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC127
1. The question before us in this appeal is classification of sleeves used for protecting the shaft in power driven pump (P.D. Pump).2. Lower appellate authorities has classified the said products as sleeves under Tariff Heading 84.13 as part of P.D. Pump whereas the Revenue contends that sleeves are part of shaft which are classifiable under Tariff Heading 84.83. Therefore by application of Section Note 2, sleeves are to be classified as part of shaft under Tariff Heading 84.83.3. We have gone through the impugned order as well as the ground of the appeal. We observe that shaft can function without sleeves but the purpose of sleeves is only to protect from wear & tear and corrosion and erosion. Therefore sleeves are rightly to be treated as part of P.D. Pump but not as a part of shaft and the pump can function without sleeves. The ground given by the Revenue in its Memo, of Appeal that the same Commissioner (Appeals) classified that the sleeves are part of shaft under Tariff Head...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Pan Asia Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC14Tri(Delhi)
1. The question involved in this appeal is regarding extension of benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. to the 'Centrifugal booster fan' being used actually by the respondents herein in the air-conditioning machineries as the centrifugal booster fan is cleared separately at times.2. Revenue seeks to deny the benefit of the said notification to the product in question on the ground that parts of air-conditioning machinery are specifically excluded from the list of specified goods by virtue of Clause 4(iv) of Annexure to Notification No. 175/86, dated.1-3-1986.3. Lower appellate authority has extended the benefit of the said notification on the ground that it has been held in Order-in-Appeal that it is not a part of air-conditioning machinery and is classifiable under Tariff Heading 84.14.4. Revenue's case on the other hand is that in spite of the classification as a part under Tariff Heading 84.14, it has been given a specific shape and design so that it is used in air-conditioning m...
Tag this Judgment!Parbhati Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)278; 79(1999)DLT446; 1999(49)DRJ554
ORDERC.M. Nayar, J.1. This petition has been filed to impugn the Order dated March 17, 1986 of the Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi rejecting the application of the petitioner under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinaf-ter referred to as'the Act'). It was held that the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act were attracted only if the interested person had not filed a reference under Section 18 of the Act. Since the petitioner filed a reference under that provision he was not entitled to the benefit of the judgment delivered by the Additional District Judge enhancing the compensation of other land-owners covered by the same notification.2. The facts as enumerated in the petition are that the petitioner is a resident of village Karkardooma, Shadhra-Delhi and is a cultivator by profession. Some lands including the lands of the petitioner were acquired by two different awards Nos.54-A/70-71 and 1804 under the relevant provisions of the Act. In respect of the lands falli...
Tag this Judgment!Shashi Kanta Rishi Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)637
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'ble...
Tag this Judgment!S.S. Bhatia Vs. Delhi Transport Corpn.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 79(1999)DLT461; 1999(49)DRJ502; [1999(82)FLR973]
ORDERS REGARDING APPEALS. 1. The disciplinary action referred to in Regulation 15(2) (a) of the D.R.T.A. (Conditions of Appointment & Service) Regulations, 1952 shall be taken by the General Manager in all cases. If an appeal is made against his orders this shall be considered and decided by a sub-committee consisting of the following members of the Delhi Road Transport Authority: (i) Shri Raghvendra Singh or any other non-official member who may be specified by the Authority from time to time. (ii) The representative of the Ministry of Transport, on the Authority.(iii) The representative of the Ministry of Finance, on the Authority. In case of any difference of opinion amongst the members of the sub-committee the majority view shall prevail. 2. Any appeal shall be preferred within one month from the date on which the appellant was informed of the order appealed against. No appeals received after the expiry of this period shall be considered except in cases where the General Manager is...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Ramesh Chander Sinha and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC163
1. These appeals are directed against a common order. Therefore, they are taken up together and are disposed of under this common order.2. The bare facts of the case are that M/s. India Carriers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi had an agreement with M/s. ITC Ltd. for the transport of empty cigarettes packets packed in cartons. Appellant Ramesh Chander Sinha is the Manager of M/s. India Carriers Pvt. Ltd. M/s. India Carriers Pvt. Ltd. had taken on hire truck No. BR-IG-0993 belonging to Mr. Mohd. Ilias for use in the transport of the empty cigarette packets. Mohd. Ilias is the other appellant.3. On 23-7-97 Custom Officers of Gorakhpur intercepted the aforesaid truck while it was carrying cartons of empty cigarette packets. The examination of the consignment led to recovery of 6546 pieces of Tiger brand Chinese make torches. These torches were in gunny bags and were covered by the cigarette packets. In the ensuing adjudication proceedings, the cigarette packes valued over Rs. 5.7 lakhs were confisca...
Tag this Judgment!