Delhi Court May 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 17 of about 243 results (0.021 seconds)Brigadier Surender Kumar Sahni Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 80(1999)DLT348
K. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The writ petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : '(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to promote the petitioner as Major General in the Army Service Corps with effect from 1.5.97, when a vacancy arose therein; (b) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiarari, calling for the records of Selections Boards held on 1.11.96 and 11.7.97 for promotion to the post of Major General in the Army Service Corps along with the nothings of the Ministry of defense and set aside the results of the Selection Board held on 1.11.96 and 11.7.97. (c) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus and/or any other writ, order or direction directing the respondents to investigate/ inquire into the allegations made by the petitioner against respondent No. 4 and thereafter take appropriate disciplinary action against Respondent No. 4...
Tag this Judgment!Pratap Rajasthan Copper Foils and Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC720Tri(Delhi)
Appellants herein are manufacturer of cotton fabric dipped in phenol formaldehyde resin completely. Thereafter they are dried up by passing through heated chambers. A question has arisen about the classification of such fabrics dipped in phenol phermaldehyde resin and dried thereafter.1.1 Revenue has contended that these are classifiable under Tariff Heading 59.03 whereas the learned Advocate, Shri A.R. Madhav Rao for the Appellants submits that these are classifiable under Chapter Heading 3922.90. Learned Advocate has produced before us a sample. It is the submission of the appellants' counsel that Note 2(a)(3) of Chapter 59 excludes the products from classification under Tariff Heading 59.03, if the textile fabric is either completely embedded in plastics or entirely coated or covered on both sides with such material, provided that such coating or covering can be seen with the naked eye with no account being taken of any resulting change of colour. Learned Advocate submits that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Gurind India P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT1020TriDel
1. The issue relates to assessable value for glass sheet (Glass panels). Arguing the appeal, the ld. Counsel Shri Naveen Mullik, submits that in the normal course these goods are delivered at the factory gate without any packing. He also points out that even the show cause notice and the impugned order have admitted that more than 64% of the goods are removed without any packing. He submits that the remaining goods are cleared after packing, including wooden packing, to ensure safety during long distance transport at the specific request from the buyers. He submits that such packings are special packings and are not liable to be included in the assessable value. He further submits that the revenue has sought to include the value of the special packing on the basis that where the goods are cleared without packing, these are special arrangements made in the trucks for the purpose of ensuring that goods do not break during transport. Shri Naveen Mullik submits that this has no relevance ...
Tag this Judgment!Shanti Metal Works Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC461Tri(Delhi)
Appellants are manufacturing Aluminium and Zinc castings. They claimed the classification under Tariff Headings 7616.90 and 7907.90. Revenue was, however, of the view that these are to be classified under different chapters depending upon the machinery in which parts made out of such castings were used.1.1 A very specific plea had been taken by the appellants before the original adjudicating authority that they are only removing unmachined castings or proof machined castings up to the stage of fettling and no further machining is done by them. Whatever machining is required to be done to convert them into parts, it is done at the customers' end.1.2 The original authority without rebutting the aforesaid factual pleas taken by the appellants before it, the said authority decided the classification by looking at the samples and holding that the castings have acquired the essential character of the component parts. It even bears the brand name. Therefore, relying on Rule 2(a) of the Inter...
Tag this Judgment!Lloyd Insulations (India) Limited Vs. Punj Lloyd Insulation Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)281; 79(1999)DLT617; ILR1999Delhi410
ORDERMohd. Shamim, J.What's in a name?That which we call a roseBy any other name would smell as sweet:(Shakespeare Romeo and Juliet II, 2).1. However, the above piece of advice tendered to the people in general by the Bard of Avon appears to have fallen flat on the deaf ears of the parties to the present suit, as they have chosen to ignore the same and preferred to fight over a trade name like kilkenny cats as in manifest from the facts of the present case.2. The plaintiff are a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. They from the very inception have been dealing in insulation besides other services. They are a pioneer in the insulation industry. They are the first to develop mineral wool insulation. They have also developed ceramic fibre and foam insulations. They also provide insulation audit services and have been retained by large industrial undertakings, including TISCO, Indian Oil Corporation, NTPC, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Cochin Refinery etc. Insulatio...
Tag this Judgment!Madhu Sudan Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)42
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. The petitioner was working as Constable in the CISF Unit, ONGC (DVP) Jorhat, Assam. While serving in the unit, it is stated that he was illegally and arbitrarily dismissed from the service. While dismissing the services of the petitioner, two articles of charge were leveled against the petitioner leading to filing of the present writ petition. The first charge was that the petitioner who belongs to Central Industrial Security Force Unit reported for duty on 23rd March, 1995 in an intoxicated condition which amounted to gross indiscipline and dereliction of duty. The second charge leveled against the petitioner reads as under:'That No. 912296153 Constable Madhusudan Singh of Jorhat Sector of CISF Unit, ONGC (DVP) Jorhat reported to threaten his superior officers couching inerperate language in his petition dated 30.3.1995 that 'on 23.3.95 Incharge, Control Room has made false allegations and suspend him from duty. It is wrong as per Section 191 of Indian Penal Co...
Tag this Judgment!Quality Fabricators and Erectors Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC544Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants herein as hired contractor undertook manufacture of steel tanks of various types and sizes on behalf of M/s. Gujarat Apar Polymers Ltd. (GAPL).2. It is submitted by the ld. Advocate in the first instance that the show cause notice was issued to the appellants herein as well as GAPL.Duty liability was imposed jointly on both GAPL and the appellants.Penalty was also imposed on GAPL as well as the appellants. Amount of penalty imposed on the appellants is Rs. 50,000/-. GAPL has already settled its appeal under KVS Scheme. It is only the appellant now who is before the Tribunal for deciding their appeal. Appeal of GAPL has already been dismissed as withdrawn in view of its settlement under KVS Scheme by Tribunal's Final Order No. 306/99, dated 23rd March, 1999.Ld. Advocate, Shri Jitendra Singh submits that the activity undertaken by the appellants was solely of the supervision over erection and assembly and guidance to the other party namely GAPL. They were merely of the...
Tag this Judgment!Primela Sanitary Products Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC179Tri(Delhi)
1. These are two appeals filed by M/s. Primela Sanitary Products (Pvt.) Ltd. and M/s. Christine Hoden (India) Pvt. Ltd. against two orders dated 27-12-1993 and 23-12-1993 respectively involving common issue as to whether the extended period of time limit was available to the Revenue for raising the demand of Central Excise Duty. As the issue involved in both the appeals is same, these are being disposed of by one common order.2. Briefly stated the facts are that both the appellants manufacture sanitary napkins which were classified by them under sub-heading 5601.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. A show cause notice dated 11-11-1992 was issued to the first appellants, namely, M/s. Primela Sanitary Products (Pvt.) Ltd. for demanding differential duty for the period from April, 1988 to March, 1991 as it was felt that the sanitary napkins manufactured by them were classifiable under sub-heading 4818.00 of CETA. Similarly a show cause notice dated 17-9-1992 was issued to...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Star Wire (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC444
1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi extending Modvat credit on items such as Refractory bricks, Thinner and other foundry chemicals Stopper Head, P.P. Resin, Ferro Chrome, Grinding Wheels, hot tops etc. We find that the items in question have seen held to be eligible for credit by the lower Appellate Authorities, following the ratio of various Tribunal's decisions holding that such items are eligible for Modvat credit.Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon a later judgment by a Larger Bench in the case of Ramakrishna Steel Industries v. CCE reported in 1996 (82) E.L.T. 575, Escorts Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh -1996 (16) RLT 712 and Union Carbide India v. CCE - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 613.2. Ld. DR brings out to our notice Special Leave Petition to be filed to the Hon'ble Supreme Court on extension of credit on some of these items and the Civil Appeal has been admitted as seen in 1997 (95) ELT.A226 in the case of Kesari Steels v. Col...
Tag this Judgment!Rhone Poulenc (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC144
1. The issue involved in the Appeal filed by M/s. Rhone Poulenc (India) Ltd. is whether the product "PLANOFIX" manufacture by them is entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 234/82-C.E., dated 1-1-1982 as an insecticide.2. Briefly stated the facts are the Appellants manufacture a preparation of Alfa Naphthylactic Acetic Acid (ANA) sold under brand name PLANOFIX and claimed exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 234/82 as an insecticide. During visit to their factory premises on 30-8-1984, the Central Excise Officers observed that the impugned product was a "Plant Harmone". Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 10-9-1984 was issued to them for denying the benefit of notification and for demanding excise duty for the past five years.A corrigendum dated 7-1-1985 was also issued in which duty demanded was specified to Rs. 41,78,006.71 for the period from 11-9-1979 to 10-9-1984. The Collector, Central Excise, under the impugned order confirmed the demand and impose...
Tag this Judgment!