Delhi Court June 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 13 of about 122 results (0.016 seconds)Dayawati Vs. the Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-1999
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)929; (2000)ILLJ864Del
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. The crux of the case is that the petitioner's husband Shri Balwan Singh joined the services of respondent No.2 as a Peon. The petitioner's husband's services were terminated by respondent No. 2 without assigning any reason on 24.2.98. Against this order of termination the petitioner's husband filed an Industrial Dispute under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and the appropriate Government had referred the dispute for adjudication to respondent No.1. Before respondent No.1 the petitioner's husband challenged his illegal termination and claimed for reinstatement of his services with full backwages. During the pendency of the dispute before respondent No.1 the petitioner's husband died and the petitioner was substituted as legal representative of her deceased husband before respondent No.1. On 1.9.97 respondent No.1 passed the impugned award inter alias stating that'In view of this situation since the management is not an industry so the reference under Se...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Birla Vxl Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT1041TriDel
1. The Revenue seeks stay of operation of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) who has held that Modvat credit is available on "3D Trilobal Tow Raw White" falling under sub-heading 5501.20 used by the respondents herein in the manufacture of final products.2. On hearing the learned DR, we find that the lower Appellate Authority has relied upon the case of Raymonds Synthetics Ltd. v.Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai reported in 1998 (99) E.L.T. 545 wherein the Tribunal has held that the assessee had declared Synthetic and Polyester fibre of sub-headings 5501.10 and 5501.20 and not of Synthetic and Polyester tops and tows, all the three products namely fibre, tow and tops are classifiable under the same sub-heading and in fact there is no distinction between the tow and fibre and there has been substantial compliance with the requirement of Rule 57G. Prima facie, there is no reason to interfere at this stage and ground made in the application that it will be di...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›