Delhi Court May 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 23 of about 243 results (0.019 seconds)U.P. Twiga Fibre Glass Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC421
1. The appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad.2. In this case the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of Refractory-Cement was denied to the appellant on the ground that refractory cement do not confirm the definition of capital goods as provided under Rule 57Q to the Central Excise Rules, 1944.3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the Tribunal in their own case i.e. Appeal No. E/1051/97/-NB(OB) vide Final Order No. A/397/98-NB(OB), dated 9-6-1998 and Appeal Nos. E/1650 & 1651/97-NB vide Final Order No. A/774-775/97-NB(S/M), dated 26-9-1997 allowed the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of refractory cement.He also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Madhya Pradesh Iron & Steel Co. v. Commissioner of central Excise, Meerut, reported in 1998 (29) RLT 696 (CEGAT). He, therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed.4. Learned JDR Shri T.A. Arunachalam appearing on ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Escort (Jcb) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC733Tri(Delhi)
1. By Order-in-Original dated 11-5-1994, Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi disposed of duty demands raised by the Department against respondents herein in four show cause notices. The Commissioner held that the abatement of 5% claimed by the respondents on account of dealer's commission from the retail price to arrive at the wholesale price was correct and the same was permissible deduction as sale commission under Rule 6(a) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975. The Department is in appeal against the said order on the ground that the commission which is paid by the respondents to their selling agents, i.e., dealers, for services rendered by them cannot be considered to be in the nature of trade discount qualifying for deduction in arriving at the assessable value of goods since such commission was not a trade discount given either to the wholesale buyer or to the retail buyer. The Department has relied on Supreme Court decision in Coromandel Fertilisers v. Union of I...
Tag this Judgment!Paharpur Plastics Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT560TriDel
1. The present appeal has been filed by M/s. Paharpur Plastics against the order dated 25-2-1993 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Ghaziabad.2. Shri Rajesh Chhibber, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture HDPE/PP/LLDPE strips/tapes, woven sacks, woven fabrics unlaminated/laminated. Classification list No. 1/91-92 dated 25-7-1991 was approved by the Asstt. Collector with modification. On appeal filed by them, Collector (Appeals), following his earlier Order-in-Appeal No. 58/92, dated 31-1-1992, ordered classification of strips/tapes under sub-heading No. 3920.32 and of woven sacks of HDPE/PP/CLDPE under sub-heading No. 3923.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. He, however, confirmed the classification of all other products as ordered by the Assistant Collector. The learned counsel further, submitted that tubular fabrics laminated or coated with LDPE made from strips/tapes falling under subheading 3920.32 is used for the manufacture of bags/sacks fa...
Tag this Judgment!Lt. Colonel M.P.S. Gill Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)846
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The writ petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- '(i) Pass an appropriate writ/order/ directions to the respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion from Lt Col to Colonel without taking in to consideration the impugned ACR for the period 6/92-4/93 in the selection board which is going to be held in the month of December 1998. (ii) Pass appropriate writ/order/ directions to the respondents to defer the petitioner's name from the next Promotion Board of the petitioner for promotion from Lt. Col. to Colonel till the disposal of this writ. (iii) Pass an appropriate writ/order directions to the respondent that the impugned ACR for the period 6/92-4/93 be either quashed or be taken of the records/dossier of the petitioner. (iv) Pass an appropriate writ/order/ directions to the respondents to promote the petitioner as colonel with retrospective effect giving all the past consequential benefits. (iv) Pass an appropriate writ/order/ direction to ...
Tag this Judgment!New Delhi General Majdoor Union (Regd.) Vs. Govt. of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IAD(Delhi)675
ORDERCW No. 4963/98 & CMs. 11095/98 & 9894/98. 1. On 24th September, 1998 Petitioners-New Delhi General Mazdoor Union (Regd.) apprehending closure of the Grandlay Cinema being run by respondent No. 6 sought certain directions by filing this petition. It was prayed that direction be issued to respondents 4 and 5 to restrain respondent No. 6 from changing the land use of the leased land as the leased land had been granted only for the purpose of running a Cinema Hall and respondent No. 6 cannot be permitted to convert the leased land into commercial use. The petitioners also prayed that direction be issued to respondent No. 1 to enforce the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act by directing the respondents No. 1 to take over the management of respondent No. 6 so as to allow the petitioners to earn their livilihood. 2. On the last date of hearing we had observed that the petitioners, if they are aggrieved by closure of cinema rendering the workman without any job, they are at liberty ...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Darda Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 79(1999)DLT309
Devinder Gupta, A.C.J. 1. The Estate Officer on 10.2.19998 passed an order directing the appellant to vacate Bungalow No. 12, Teen Murti Lane, New Delhi within 15 days of publication of the order. Appeal of the appellant filed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 was dismissed on 10.3.1999 by Shri S.N. Aggarwal, Additional District Judge, Delhi, exercising powers of Appellate Authority under the Act. The appellant challenged both the orders by filing a petition under Article 227 read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which was registered as C.M.(Main) 181/99. On the miscellaneous application (CM.819/99) learned Single Judge passed an ex parte order staying the operation of the order of eviction. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, Single Judge by the impugned order passed on 22.4.19999 vacated the earlier order of stay but directed that the impugned order dated 10.2.1999 passed by the Estate Officer shall not be enforced for o...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 79(1999)DLT565
K. Ramamoorthy, J.1. Mr. Raj Kumar is the writ petitioner in CW 3833 of 1997 and CW 876/98. In CW 3833 of 1997 the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:'(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned order dated 11.06.97.(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing he respondents to release the petitioner on the scheduled date of 31.01.98 and grant him the pension and other retire mental benefits as applicable to on the expiry of 15 years including 4 years training period'.2. On 15.11.983 he joined the service of the Navy. The respondents has taken the view that there should be a complete period of 15 years service for getting the pension and the training period of 4 years was excluded from consideration. The Supreme Court in its judgment -- Anuj Kumar Dey v. Union of India dated 28.11.1996 reported in JT 1996 SC 679 has held that training period of 4 years should be counted ...
Tag this Judgment!Krofta Engg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT703TriDel
1. Ld. Advocate Shri V. Sridharan, prays for waiver of pre deposit and stay of recovery of Rs. 75,32,889/- demanded as duty on the effluent treatment plant system sold by the applicants herein to various customers during the period 1991-92 to 1995-96. A show cause notice for the same was issued on 22-10-1996. An equivalent amount of personal penalty has also been imposed on the applicant by the adjudicating authority. Ld. Advocate prays for a similar treatment plant as he has prays for the aforesaid amount of duty.2. There is no factory operated by the applicants. They purchase various fabricated items from different persons bring them to the site and erection/installation is done by the customers themselves under the supervision of the applicant. Revenues intends which are asked duty on the said goods under Tariff Heading 84.19 which speaks of machinery plant or laboratory equipment whether or not electrical heating, for the treatment of materials by process involving change of tempe...
Tag this Judgment!Precision Tools and Castings (P) Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC481
The appellants herein are manufacturers of iron and steel castings as well as stainless steel castings. They filed the classification list for these castings claiming classification under Tariff Heading 73.25. They are undertaking the process of fettling and grinding as alleged in the show cause notice. However, in reply to the show cause notice the appellants stated that they are merely undertaking the removal of excess material of castings as it comes out of the mould and to remove further surface defects. It is also mentioned in the impugned order that they are cleaning the surface and removal of surface defects and excess material and there is no change in the form of castings. The Adjudicating Authority as well while classifying the goods under Chapter Headings 84 to 87 has observed the goods under dispute as semi-finished machine parts. But the description of goods has been correctly mentioned in the classification list submitted by them. In other words it is pointed out by the ...
Tag this Judgment!U.P. Twiga Fiberglass Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2003)(00)ELT0TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. U.P. Twiga Fiberglass Ltd., the matter relates to the valuation of "Twiga Insulation Resin Bonded Glass Wool Mat. Pipe Section." The appellants have declared their prices in part-I price list proforma and had also filed price lists in part-II price list proforma, when sales were effected to different class of buyers.The appellants had a contract for supply of the wool Mat. at site for insulation of the pipes. They paid excise duty on the basis of the prices declared in the part-I price list proforma. The Department adopted the prices declared in the part-II price list proforma and when the goods were not similar, the price was arrived at on the basis of the differential notional price as in part-I and part-II price list.2. Appearing for the appellants, Shri S.V. Arya, learned Advocate submitted that when the goods were not similar as indicated in their part-II price list the Department was not justified in independently arriving at the assessable value ...
Tag this Judgment!