Delhi Court July 1999 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Super Syncotex (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT705TriDel
1. These are two appeals filed by the appellants, M/s. Super Syncotex (India) Ltd., Gulabpura against the common impugned order dated 23-4-1998 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of man-made yarn falling under Chapter 55 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Shri R. Swaminathan, Consultant submitted that the dispute is in respect of determination of the value of the yarn in question. He submitted that there is wide fluctuation in the pricing of the yarn during the course of the day and the appellants had adopted the price equivalent at the time of sale for paying duty on the yarn cleared to their fabric division. Due to fluctuation in the prices, they were not aware of the price during the course of the day and they could not realise the price at which the yarn could be sold during the course of the day. The declarations were filed after actual sale price was ascertained. Referring to the...
Architectural Systems Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT1037TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Architectural Systems, the matter relates to the eligibility to the benefit of Notification No.175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986. Under Notification No. 175/86, the refrigerating and air-conditioning appliances, machinery and parts, and accessories thereof falling under Chapters 84,85 or 90 were not eligible for the small scale benefit. The appellants had contended that the cooling towers manufactured by them were not covered by the exclusion under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. The Collector of Central Excise, Madras did not agree with the contention of the assessee and demanded duty of Rs. 1,13,406/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/-.2. When the matter was called, no one appeared for the appellants. The notice for today's hearing had been issued on 25-5-1999 and a copy was also endorsed to the Counsel on record. There is no response. There is no request for adjournment. As it is an old matter in which show cause notice was issued in the year 1992, we are ...
U.P. Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT495TriDel
1. The impugned order in the present appeal denies the abatement claims filed by the appellant herein for 9-1-1998 to 16-1-1998 for non-complying with the provisions of Rule 96ZO(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Findings of the adjudicating authority rejecting the said claims are that the appellants herein have not filed the intimation of closure of furnace on or before the date of closure and they have also not given the particulars of RG 1 stock and electrical meter readings.2. Learned Advocate Shri R. Santhanam has taken us through the relevant closure informations with regard to the first party. We observe that closure information was submitted by the appellant on 9-1-1998. There is a receipt of the concerned Inspector of Central Excise and the information was given by way of telegram. The information also discloses the RG 1 ingot stock as also the reading of the electricity meter. We are therefore satisfied that the appellants are entitled to the said claim for the period 9-1-19...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Supreme Indus. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT460TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the classification of the soil waste and rain water (SWR) PVC pipes and fittings. The respondents, M/s. Supreme Industries have sought classification under Chapter Heading 39.17 as tubes, pipes and hoses and fittings thereof of plastics. The Assistant Collector Central Excise who had adjudicated the matter observed that the SWR PVC pipes and fittings were nothing but gutter fittings thereof and were classifiable under sub-heading 39.25 as buildersware of plastic not elsewhere specified. On appeal Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) observed that the correct classification of SWR pipes and fittings [are] under sub-heading 3917.00.2. Shri S. Das, JDR submitted that the pipes and fittings involved in these proceedings were for drainage purposes and they were covered by the broad description of gutter and fittings of gutters. He referred to the impugned order-in-appeal and submitted that the reliance placed by the appellate a...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Intec Polymers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-1999
Reported in: (2000)LC432Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by the Revenue is whether the product Insomar XLM-35 is classifiable under sub-heading 3208.10 as paint as claimed by the Revenue or under sub-heading 3208.40 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by the Respondents and ordered by the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order.2. Briefly stated the facts are that M/s. Intec Polymers Ltd., Respondents, manufacture Insomer XLM-35 and insulating Varnishes; that in their various classification lists, they classified Insomer XLM-35 under sub-heading No. 3208.40; that the Respondents, however, in their classification list No. 66/92-93 effective from 16-10-1992 claimed classification of the impugned product Insomer XLM-35 under sub-heading 3208.10 of CETA, describing the same as "Polyster Wire Enamel". As it was observed by the Department that both the products are same and earlier it was classified under sub-heading 3208.40, a show cause notice dated 1-2-1994 was issued to the ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Sterling Control P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-1999
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT381TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the classification of electrical drum controllers, master controllers, drum switches and limit switches. These products were used for electric drum controller. The respondent M/s. Sterling Control P. Ltd. had sought classification of these goods under sub-heading No. 8537.00 of the Central Excise Tariff. A show cause notice was issued and the matter was adjudicated by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise who held the goods classifiable under sub-heading No. 8537.00. In the show cause notice, it was proposed that the goods should have been classified under sub-heading No. 8536.90. The Revenue took up the matter before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) and pleaded for classification of the said goods under sub-heading No. 8431.00. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) agreed with the view of the adjudicating authority and classified the goods under sub-heading 8537.00.3. We have heard Shri R.D. Negi, SDR and ...
Balbir Steel (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-1999
Reported in: (2000)LC49Tri(Delhi)
1. Learned Advocate Shri R. Santhanam prays for waiver of pre-deposit and recovery of Rs. 21,12,042/- confirmed as duty under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with proviso to Under Section HA(i).). The impugned order also imposes a penalty of an equal amount Under Section 11AC for which a similar plea has been made by the learned Advocate. In addition, he also prays for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed under Rule 173Q.2. Dealing with the penalty learned Advocate submits in the first instance that no penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs was imposed in the first O-in-O. Thereafter the appellants came in appeal before the Tribunal and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority. He submits that in the present impugned order the adjudicating authority has imposed an additional penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs which was not there in the adjudication order. Therefore, imposition of this additional penalty is not at all sustainable. He also submits that the period in...
Jagdish Chand Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-1999
Reported in: 2000IAD(Delhi)138; [2000(86)FLR973]; 2000(1)SLJ355(Delhi)
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J. 1. The present writ petition is directed against the award passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. IX, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in I.D.No.961/94 ( Old No. 348/87) holding that the petitioner / workman is entitled for reinstatement with continuity in service but without any back wages. 2. The petitioner was working as a conductor in the Delhi Transport Corporation. His service was terminated w.e.f. 23.12.1985. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also rejected by a letter dated 2.5.1986. The peti- tioner raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Department, pursuant to which a reference was made by the appropriate Government on 16.12.1987 to the Labour Court. The reference reads as follows:- 'Whether Sh. Jagdish Chand himself abandoned his job or whether his services were terminated by the management illegally and/or unjustifiably and, if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?'3. The Labour Court on the ...
C.S.O. Senior Investigators' Association and Another Vs. Union of Indi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-1999
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)325; 80(1999)DLT748; 1999(51)DRJ385
ORDERMadan B. Lokur, J.1. Rule D.B. both in Civil Writ Petition No. 144 of 1999 and Civil Writ Petition No. 2044 of 1999.2. With the consent of Learned Counsel for the parties, and since the pay scale of a large number of employees is involved, these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution were taken up for final disposal and heard on 3rd, 4th, 11th, 17th, 24th, 25th and 26th May, 1999 when judgment was reserved. Written submissions have also been filed by the parties.3. Petitioner No. 1 in Civil Writ Petition No. 144 of 1999 is an association of about 70 Senior Investigators working in the Central Statistical Organisation (for short CSO). The CSO is an attached office of the Department of Statistics in the Ministry of Planning and Programme Implementation of the Government of India. Petitioner No. 2 is an individual (and perhaps a representative) Senior Investigator. For the sake of convenience, both of them, and the others that they purport to represent, are hereafter referre...
B.B. Verma Vs. National Projects Construction Corporation Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-1999
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)757; [2001]103CompCas11(Delhi); 80(1999)DLT498; 1999(50)DRJ613; ILR1999Delhi1b
ORDERS.K. Mahajan, J.1. After hearing arguments of the parties on July 6, 1999 we had announced our order in court and had dismissed the appeal. We are now giving our reasons for dismissal of appeal.2. The short point involved in the Appeal is whether the Court within whose jurisdiction the Principal/registered office of the company is situate, will have the jurisdiction to try the suit even if no part of the cause of action has arisen within its jurisdiction and the cause of action has accrued at a place where the company has its subordinate office. The facts in short are :3. That the respondent has its registered and head office in Delhi and the agreement was executed between it and the appellant for execution of certain works for Rihand Super Thermal Power Station, Stage I Rihand, District Sonbhadra, Uttar Pradesh, Certain disputes having arisen between the parties, the same were referred for arbitration to the arbitrator. The award of the arbitrator was filed in this Court and one ...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »