Delhi Court August 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 15 of about 321 results (0.020 seconds)Collector of Central Excise Vs. Hariram Gobind Ram
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT675TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue the issue involved is classification of Plasting moulding housing, plastic mould covers and hubs, locks, roller etc. made of plastic.2. We have heard Shri Ashok Kumar, learned DR on behalf of the Revenue and Shri Parthasarathy, learned Advocate, for the respondents. Both the representatives submitted that the classification of all the products involved has been settled by the Tribunal in different cases and the matter may be decided in the light of those decisions. Learned Advocate submitted that the Board has also issued an order Under Section 37B of the Act ordering classification of these products under Heading 39.26 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.3. We find that the classification of all the products involved in this matter have been finally settled by the Tribunal as under :- (i) In the case of Hariram Gobindram v. C.C.E., Bombay - 1997 (94) E.L.T. 574, the Tribunal classified the plasting moulding housing under sub-heading...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Moosa Haji Patrawala Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC126Tri(Delhi)
1. The Respondents vide letter dated 4-8-1999 made a request to decide the matter on merits.2. The Revenue filed this Appeal against Order-in-Appeal dated 30-8-1993 passed by the Collector (Appeals). In the impugned order the benefit of Notification No. 70/77, dated 7-5-1977 was granted to Ice Cub maker cabinet manufactured by the Respondents and supplied to M/s.Voltas Ltd. 3. Ld. DR submits that the benefit of exemption Notification No.70/77-C.E is available only in respect of Excisable goods (other than cigarettes) supplied as stores for consumption on board a vessel of the Indian Navy. He submits in the present case the goods manufactured by the Respondents are supplied to M/s. Voltas Ltd. Therefore, the goods, in question, could not be treated as ship stores for Navy vessel at the time of removal. He submits that in the present case tine goods were cleared by the Respondents M/s. Voltas under a contract to M/s. Voltas Ltd. thereafter M/s. Voltas Ltd. supplied the Goods to M/s. Gar...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Deepak Electric Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT421TriDel
1. The Respondents vide letter dated 12th August, 1999 made a request to decide the Appeal on merits. Therefore, the appeal is being taken up for disposal in the absence of the respondents.2. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 5-3-1993 passed by the Collector (Appeals). In the impugned order, the Collector (Appeals) held that Sodium and Mercury Vapour discharged lamps manufactured by the Respondents are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 67/83, dated 1-3-1983 as amended at Sl. No. 7.3. Heard ld. DR and perused the records. The contention of the Revenue is that Sl. No. 7 of Notification No. 67/83, dated 1-3-1983 covers sodium and mercury vapour discharge lamps other than sodium vapour lamps whereas the Sl. No. 10 covers of the goods which are not mentioned at Sl. No. 1 to 9 of the said notification. Therefore, high pressure mercury vapour lamps are covered under Sl. No. 10. The Notification No. 67/83, dated 1-3-1983 as amended by 78/89, dated 1-3-1989 ...
Tag this Judgment!Ruby Mills Co. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT423TriDel
1. Matter called. None for the appellants. However, by their letter dated 18-6-1999, they have requested for deciding the case on merits on the basis of available records. Hence, we have heard the ld. JDR for Revenue.2. Question before us is classification of processed textile. The process of manufacture is described as below :- "The party is using screen printing process for printing of fabrics. The screens are made out of bought-out nylon bolting cloth and the manufacturing process for the screen consist of coating the cloth with photographic chemicals, covering the non-sensitised cloth with tracing paper containing designs and exposing the covered cloth to light when the design on the tracing paper gets imprinted on the sensitised cloth. The screen so made are used for the printing of fabrics." It is therefore, clearly seen that the sensitised textile is developed and not simply exposed inasmuch as the design on the tracing paper gets imprinted on the sensitised cloth.3. Lower auth...
Tag this Judgment!Jay Pee Bela Cement Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC335Tri(Delhi)
1. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the applicants herein for not pre-depositing the amount of duty of Rs. 23,22,324/- as directed by him vide his interim stay order, dated 24-5-1999. Ld. Advocate Shri G. Shiv Das submits that the interim order has been passed without giving an opportunity for personal hearing.Even if it is admitted that personal hearing is not required to be given in view of Supreme Courts judgment in the case of U.O.I, v. Jesus Sales Corpn. [ 1996 (83) E.L.T. 486]. Even so the said authority was required to pass an interim stay order after taking into account all the pleas of the appellant even for arriving at a prima facie view.That has not been done by the lower appellate authority. The impugned order, therefore, he submits, is bad in law and deserves to be set aside on this ground alone.2. Coming to the merits, ld. Advocate submits that the appellants herein are manufacturing cement concrete blocks using duty paid inputs.They...
Tag this Judgment!Lalit Kumar (Retd.)(ic-23972 Lt. Col.) Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)640; 81(1999)DLT496
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Petitioner, who appears in person, has filed this writ petition challenging recoveries sought to be made from his pension. It is the case of the petitioner that after serving for nearly 32 years in the regular army he was retired from service on 1.4.1995 and a monthly pension of Rs. 1459/- was granted to him. This pension was required to be paid to him through savings bank account No. SB-16152 opened with State Bank of India/respondent No. 4. It is further stated by the petitioner that he had cleared all dues and claims against him and produced clearance certificate and only thereafter the pension was granted to him. However, on 9.9.1996 petitioner received a copy of amended PPO informing him that an amount of Rs. 10144/- was to be recovered from his pension @ 1/3rd of pension until the said amount was fully liquidated. When the petitioner contracted his banker on the next day i.e. on 10.9.1996 he came to know that on the basis of amended PPO received by the bank ...
Tag this Judgment!islamuddIn @ Chottey Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)765; 2000CriLJ108; 82(1999)DLT449; 1999(51)DRJ558
ORDERCyriac Joseph, J.1.This is a petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure red with Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Sub-stances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act') for interim bail for a period of two months. The petitioner is the accused in FIR No.17/98 registered at Police Station, Narcotic Branch, Kamla Nagar, Delhi under Sections 21/61/85 of the NDPS Act. The case against the petitioner is at the trial stage. The petitioner had earlier filed an application for regular bail but it was dismissed by this Court on 20th May, 1999 holding that it was not possible to say that this Court was satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner was not guilty of the offences under Section 21 of the NDPS Act or that he was not likely to commit any offence while on bail. While dismissing the petitioner's application for bail this Court had pointed out that the petitioner was involved in as many as 21 other cases under the ...
Tag this Judgment!G.D. Sharma Vs. University Grants Commission and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)917; 81(1999)DLT731; 1999(51)DRJ160
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J. 1. By this order I shall dispose of CM Nos. 7842/99 and 8025/99. 2. Let me state the facts in brief first. Petitioner is working as 'Senior fellow and Head' Higher Education Unit, National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration (hereinafter referred to as 'NIEPA', for short) New Delhi. He applied for the post of Secretary, University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'UGC' for short) and on being selected to the said post he was offered the appointment vide communication dated 4th July, 1996 which is inter alias stated as under:- 'On the recommendations made by the Selection Committee, the Commission in pleased to offer you appointment to the post of Secretary, University Grants Commission. The tenure of the post is a period of 5 years from the date you assume charge of the post, or till you attain the age of superannuation in your parent organisation, whichever is earlier.' 3. Along with this communication dated 4th July, 1996 terms and co...
Tag this Judgment!All India General Mazdoor Trade Union (Regd.) Vs. T.C.i.L. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 81(1999)DLT225
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. Petitioner is a trade union. Present petition is filed by it on behalf of nine persons, the particulars of whom are given as Annexure 'A' to the writ petition. It is stated that they were the employees of respondent No. 1 namely, Telecom Consultants India Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'TCIL', for short) and they are working for a long period as sweepers and are entitled to regularisation. It is stated that they were employed as contract workers through M/s. Everest Enterprises/respondent No. 3 which was not permissible. Prayer is made that they should be regularised in service.2. Respondent No. 1 filed counter-affidavit contesting the claim of the petitioner. However, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the case inasmuch as it is admitted by the petitioner union that petitioner has raised industrial dispute regarding regularisation of these very workmen and the same stands referred to the Industrial Tribunal and is pending adjudication. It is thereforee...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. P.B. Textile Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT624TriDel
(i) "Whether the provisions of interest of Section 61(2) of Customs Act, 1962 is applicable on the amount of duty withheld by the importer of W/H goods due to stay of Court where the W/H goods were cleared during the permitted period without payment of that amount of duty." (ii) "Whether interest on withheld amount of duty is chargeable in terms of Section 61(2) read with Section 59 of Customs Act, 1962 in absence of any specific provisions or charging interest under C.A. 1962." 3. The question for consideration before the Bench was whether interestywas payable on delayed payment of auxiliary duty arid" additional duty of Customs on warehoused goods at the time of their removal. When the goods were actually removed these duties were not collected, in view of an injunction of the Delhi High Court issued in a writ petition before it challenging the levy of such duty. The Court ultimately decided that the duty was payable, upon which the person who cleared the goods from bond paid the du...
Tag this Judgment!