Delhi Court May 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 8 of about 243 results (0.019 seconds)Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Bharat Forge Press Industries P.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC679Tri(Delhi)
1. In this Revenue appeal, the Order-in-Appeal No. KW-147/91 BRD, dated 16-9-1991/25-9-1991 passed by the Collector (Appeals) has been impugned on the ground that Section 11A of the Central Excise Act cannot be super-imposed over Section 35E of the Act with an over-riding effect as both sections are independent of each other.2. When the case was called, no one appeared for the respondents, who however vide their letter dated 14-5-1999 have acknowledged the receipt of notice and have submitted and requested that the appeal may be decided on the basis of merits.3. Heard Shri M.P. Singh, ld. DR who submits that the facts of this case are that the assessee filed a refund claim, in consideration of which the Department issued a show cause notice giving the grounds on which the said claim was proposed to be rejected. The first adjudicating authority in consideration of this, issued an order-in-original wherein the refund claim was partly allowed on merits but the said order was silent on th...
Tag this Judgment!Punjab and Sind Bank Vs. Ashok K. Aggarwal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)203; 80(1999)DLT517; (2000)ILLJ447Del
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. The appellant Bank is aggrieved by the order/judgment dated 28th October, 1998, by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant Bank to calculate the amounts as per the details given by respondent No.1, petitioner in the writ petition, and pay to him the amounts due on or before 30th December, 1998. 2. The grievance of respondent No.1 in the writ petition was that despite the acceptance of his resignation and his being relieved from service w.e.f. 20th March, 1995, he had not been paid provident fund, gratuity and other amounts due to him. The appellant Bank had contended before the learned Single Judge that respondent No.1 had not completed the requisite period of service for being entitled to the benefits of gratuity and the contribution on provident fund. It was further contended that the appellant Bank was entitled to deduct three months salary in lieu of the notice period as per the terms of appointment and the rules...
Tag this Judgment!Holy Health and Educational Society (Regd.) Vs. Delhi Development Auth ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)552; 80(1999)DLT207; 1999(50)DRJ416; ILR1999Delhi530; (1999)123PLR60
ORDERDR. M.K. Sharma, J.1.The present suit was instituted by the plaintiff seeking for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining the defendant-Delhi Development Authority from giving effect to the letter dated 17.8.1995 issued by it cancelling the allotment and lease of the land of the plaintiff-society at Sector-C, Pocket-3, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, and also for a decree not to dispossess the plaintiff-society from the land in question. 2. A copy of the letter dated 17.8.1995 is annexed as'Annexure-L' to the plaint. By the said letter, the plaintiff-society was informed that the reply of the plaintiff-society showing cause as to why the lease/allotment of the land allotted to the plaintiff-society should not be cancelled due to violation of Clause II(13) of the lease deed by renting out the building to a third party for commercial use was examined and the same was not found satisfactory and accordingly the decision of the defendant authority was intimated to the plaintiff cancellin...
Tag this Judgment!Shubh Mangal Merchantile (P.) Ltd. Vs. Trion Restaurants (India) Pvt. ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2000Delhi13; 79(1999)DLT777; 1999(50)DRJ437
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. By this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner seeks the following interim reliefs against the respondents :'(a) pass ad interim injunction against respondents from appointing and/or awarding and/or contracting and/or assigning and/or allowing any other developer and/or agent and/or dealer to develop and/or run Pizza Hut outlets in Mumbai and Navi Mumbai other than the petitioner and/or ; (b) pass an ad interim injunction in favor of the petitioner and against the respondents and/or its officers, employees; and/or agents from preventing and/or interfering and/or in any manner obstructing the petitioner from running the Pizza Hut outlets at Hyde Park and Gulmohar Road (Juhu) and/or ; (c) pass ad interim injunction against the respondents from authorising and/or assigning the trademarks or trade name rights to any other person and for the use in the territory of Mumbai and Navi Mumbai ; (d) pass ad interim order direct...
Tag this Judgment!Rakesh Kumar and ors. Vs. Air India Limited and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999(50)DRJ355
K. Ramamoorthy, J.1. All the petitioners in the above writ petitions, relying upon the notification issued by the Government of India on the 9.12.1976, claim the following reliefs:-'It is, thereforee, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:- a) issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to regularise the services of the petitioners from their date of joining; b) issue a writ of mandamus and any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pay all consequential benefits and differences in wages as applicable to a permanent employee of respondent Nos.1 and 2 from their date of joining; c) issue a writ of prohibition and/or any other writ, order or direction prohibiting the respondents from terminating the services of the petitioners.' 2. It is admitted by the petitioners that they...
Tag this Judgment!M.K. Verghese and ors. Vs. Air India Limited and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999(50)DRJ353
K. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The writ petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-'In the above mentioned circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:- a) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to treatthe petitioners as their employees of the respondent No.1 from the dates of their joining; b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to regularise the services of the petitioners with respondent No.1 and extend all service conditions, emoluments and consequential benefits as available to the regular employees of respondent No.1; c) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to pay as arrears the difference in pay scales and or other consequential benefits suc...
Tag this Judgment!Rubber Complex (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC506
1.1 The appellants herein manufacture excisable goods, namely footwear PVC soles. A show cause notice dated 3-1-1986 was issued to the appellants alleging that they cleared the said excisable goods clandestinely in a manner other than provided without payment of excise duty and without having the proper Central Excise licence. It was also alleged that such goods were assessable to duty consequent upon rescinding of Notification No. 70/85-C.E., dated 17-3-1985 by Notification No. 174/85-C.E., dated 24-7-1985. The show cause notice was issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Range-1 Agra. The show cause notice asked the appellants to show cause to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Agra. It not only proposed recovery of duty of Rs. 1,09,095.85 but also proposed imposition of penalty. On adjudication, the demand of duty, as aforesaid has been confirmed and a penalty of Rs. 5,000/-was also imposed by the Additional Commissioner.1.2 It may be stated at this stage that in th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Victoria Mills Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC178
1.1 The respondents herein are manufacturers of cotton fabrics and other fabrics falling under Chapters 52,54,55 and 84 of CETA, 1985. In respect of cotton fabrics falling under TSH 5206 and 5209 the respondents cleared the trade samples and availed exemption from payment of Central Excise duty under Notification No. 258/82 and was required to pay duty on quantity of trade samples cleared in excess of the prescribed limitation in the said notification.1.2 On scrutiny of the relevant documents, Superintendent concerned noticed that the respondents was determining the quantity of exemption by availing the exemption up to 0.1% by clubbing the clearance of all the sorts of cotton fabrics falling under Chapter 52. It appeared to the Superintendent that under the Notification 258/82 the exemption limit of 0.1% provided is deter-minable for each sort or variety cleared in a month and Central Excise duty was recoverable on quantity of sample of each sort or variety cleared in excess of that l...
Tag this Judgment!Natraj Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT211TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant with reference to the impugned order of the Collector of Customs, Kandla bearing No.KDL/COLLR/24/94, dated 28-3-1994 imposing on the appellant a penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- under Section 112A of the Customs Act, 1962 by ordering assessment under Heading 7901.20 as Zinc Alloy as against "Zinc Die Cast Dross" declared by the appellant and enhancement of the price from US $ 910 PMT to 672 pounds PMT CIF.2. The appellants have imported a consignment of 20.440 MT declaring "Zinc Die Cast Dross" "Shelf" and sought clearance under Bill of Entry No. 3500, dated 5-7-1990. The price declared was US $ 910 PMT CIF and the classification sought was under Heading 2620.00 as "Ash and Residues" (other than from the manufacture of iron or steel) containing metal or metal compounds. On an examination it was found that the goods were not covered under the definition of 'Prime Zinc Die Cast Dross' "Shelf" as per NARI's circular NF-85 with regard to the weight of ...
Tag this Judgment!Escorts Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT372TriDel
1. The issue involved is the assessable value of motorcycles removed by the appellants from their manufacturing premises in Uttar Pradesh. The sales pattern is that the wholesale price for sale to dealers in U.P.is higher than the wholesale sale price to dealers located outside the U.P. The retail sale price is the same throughout the country. The Central Excise authorities have adopted the wholesale price in U.P. for the purpose of all removals made to U.P. i.e. both for wholesale sales and retail sale. Removals to dealers located outside U.P. are assessed at the lower wholesale price common to them. Learned Senior Advocate Shri A.N. Haksar contends that as the retail price is the same throughout India, the assessable value for retail sale in U.P. should be the same as the wholesale sale price for the rest of the country and not the wholesale price for sales to U.P. dealers.2. Heard Shri S.P. Rao, learned JDR, for the Revenue. He submitted that while fixing the assessable value, if w...
Tag this Judgment!