Delhi Court September 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.
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Hvr Alloys and Steels Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1999
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT756TriDel
1. Concerned Commissioner has raised the following question which according to me is a question of law and arises out of Tribunal's order dated 19-6-1998 1998 (103) E.L.T. 132 (Tri.) :- "Modvat credit will be admissible under Rule 57-A on "lubricating oil, and Welding Rods" which do not go in the streamline of production of final product and the use of lubricating oil was only lubrication of machines and Welding Rods were used for the purposes of maintenance and repair work." 2. Before dealing with the aforesaid question, I would like to reproduce the Tribunal's finding giving the relief to the respondents (appellants in appeal) herein which are set out in para 5 of the Tribunal's order :- "5. I have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both the sides. I am impressed by the plea of the learned Advocate for the appellants that a very categorical finding has been given by the lower appellate authority that Modvat credit is admissible on both the products involved herein namely '...
Jagdamba Spinning and Wvg. Mills Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT353TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 12-1-1999 of Commissioner (Appeals) who dismissed their appeal referred against the order in original of Assistant Commissioner dated 8-8-1997.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be stated as under :- 3. The Central Excise Preventive Staff on 5-10-1995 seized the stock of 1648 kgs. wool tops valued at Rs. 2,96,640/- involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 34,113.60 which was found in excess of recorded stock as per RG 1 Register from the premises of the appellants. They were served with a show cause notice which was contested by them by alleging that the production was recorded on approximation and not on actual weighment of the goods and the excess stock went on accumulating over a period of time and gained moisture resulting in excess weight. They also averred that the ratio of the raw wool is maintained and is entered in the raw material register and there was no mala fide intention on their part t...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. J.K. Synthetics Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT787TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) who set aside the order-in-original of the Assistant Commissioner and allowed the appeal of the respondents.2. The facts giving rise to this appeals may briefly be stated as under : 3. The proceedings were initiated against the respondents in pursuance of the show cause notice dated 27-2-1997 by alleging that they have wrongly availed the Modvat credit to the tune of Rs. 1,44,942/- on the item. Furnace Oil in contravention of Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules for having taken the credit on the strength of the invoice of the dealer M/s. IOC, Kota which was issued unauthorisedly in contravention of the Rule 57G, as the goods were not received by the dealer under proper duty paying documents i.e. duplicate copy of the manufacturer's invoice. The respondents contested that notice on the ground that the IOC at the relevant time permitted the dealer to raise invoices by mentioning a dummy numbers ins...
Paharpur 3p Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1999
Reported in: (2000)LC287Tri(Delhi)
Assessee - One of the appellants in these two appeals herein is having a factory at Calcutta and it has registered office and head office at Calcutta named and styled as Paharpur Cooling Towers. They intended to set up the flexible packaging plant at Sahibabad in the district of Ghaziabad. For this purpose the head office placed orders for import of goods. Bills of entry were therefore filed in the name of the head office at Calcutta. However, on clearance from ICD, Delhi, the goods were taken to their Sahibabad factory for installation there. Lower authorities have denied the benefit of Modvat credit on countervailing duty paid on the goods on the ground that the goods had been imported by Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd., Calcutta, and therefore the Modvat credit cannot be granted to the appellants herein which may be a division of the said Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. The bill of entry should have shown the appellants, according to the lower authorities, as the importers of the said go...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Sai Electricals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT627TriDel
1. Question posed in the subject Reference Application filed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Meerut-I is as follows :- "Whether Modvat credit can be allowed on declaration not filed with the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction over the assessee unit as per provisions of Rule 57G(1) of Rules." Before I deal with the aforesaid question, it is appropriate to' set out the facts of this case and the findings of the Tribunal. In this connection, I refer to paras 1, 2, 5 & 6 of Tribunal's order.2. It is now urged by the ld. JDR Sh. S. Ramanathan that Rule 57G(1) mandates that a declaration has to be filed with the Assistant Commissioner and a dated acknowledgement is required to be taken from him. Therefore, the entire procedure followed by the respondent in this case is wrong. Tribunal's order, therefore, raises an important question of law as mentioned above.3. Opposing the contentions, ld. Advocate Sh. Surinder Mullick submits that a declaration was duly filed by the respo...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Kuchhal Udyog
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT778TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order dated 21-10-1998 of the Commissioner (Appeals) who modified the order-in-original of the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad by reducing the penalty amount of Rs. 1,09,666.89 to Rs. 50,000/- on an appeal filed before him by the respondents.3. The respondents are registered with the Central Excise department for manufacture of PVC pipes. They had been availing credit facilities of Central Excise duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of those pipes. However, on 6-8-1997 when surprise check was made by the Preventive Officers of the Central Excise, shortage in the stock of certain varieties of PVC pipes involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 7015.57 and in the stock of PVC Resin involving Modvat credit of Rs. 1,02,651.32 was detected. The respondents could not offer any plausible explanation of this shortage and they were served with a show cause notice dated 29-9-1997 wherein all these facts were bro...
Anand Singh Adhikari Vs. Bank of Baroda
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)199A; 82(1999)DLT639; [2000(85)FLR35]
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner workmen had raised the dispute which was referred for adjudication by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal vide reference under dated 15.7.1992 with the following terms of reference:- 'Whether the claim of Shri Anand Singh Adhikari that he had worked in the Bank of Baroda, Gandhi Nagar, Ghaziabad Branch, for 7 months from 10.5.90 to 10.12.90 on daily wages and was forced to sign on payment vouchers in different names during the period is correct Is he eligible for consideration for permanent appointment in terms of the Bank's advertised in Nav Bharat Times dated 24.8.1991 What relief, if any is the workman entitled to 2. It is clear that the reference order is in two parts namely : 1. Whether the workman had worked for 7 months i.e. from 10.5.90 to 10.12.90 and he was forced to sign the payment vouchers in different names during this period and (2) whether the workmen was eligible for consideration for permanent appointment in term of the Bank...
Chander SaIn JaIn Vs. Shri Sumer Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)75; 82(1999)DLT394; 1999(51)DRJ671
ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller passing an order under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short 'DRC Act') respondent-tenant has preferred this revision petition. The impugned order was passed on 17.1.1989. For the last ten years in view of the injunction order granted by this Court, the order of eviction has not been executed.2. Mr .R.M. Bagai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has contended that the present respondent has acquired and built a Palatial house at Rishab Vihar, Delhi after passing of the order of eviction. At the outset, I must say that when eviction petition was filed in the year 1983, leave to defend was filed by the petitioner-tenant and for six long years, trial took place before the Additional Rent Controller. Petitioner tenant disputed ownership and purpose of letting as well as requirement of the respondent. By a well reasoned order, the Additional Rent Controller in view of the ...
T.C. Sharma (Dr.) Vs. Lt. Governor and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)741; 82(1999)DLT289
ORDERUsha Mehra, J.1. The petitioner has been working with respondent No. 3, State Council of Education Research and Training (in short SCERT). He was appointed as Senior Lecturer with SCERT on 25th March, 1989. The post of Senior Lecturer falls in the category of academic staff of the SCERT. Respondent No. 3 informed the petitioner that he would stand superannuated at the age of 60 years which happened to be on 31st January, 1999. The petitioner in this petition has assailed the order of superannuation passed by respondent No. 3, inter alia, on the ground that the staff of SCERT shall have the same terms and conditions of service as are available to the National Council of Educational Research & Training (in short the NCERT). The academic staff of NCERT has to superannuate at the age of 62 years whereas petitioner has been made to retire at the age of 60 years. Petitioner's service conditions and tenure being the same as that of the NCERT hence he cannot be denied the age of superannu...
Municipal Employees' Union Vs. Secretary (Labour), Govt. of N.C.T. of ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1999
Reported in: 82(1999)DLT854; 2000(52)DRJ787
A.K. Sikri, J.1. Petitioner had raised industrial dispute by filing claim with the office of the Labour Commissioner, Delhi claiming appointment on compassionate basis, which was denied by the MCD. Respondent No. 1 has rejected the reference vide order dated 15th June, 1998 on the ground that petitioner was not a workman as defined in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The present writ petition has been filed challenging this order of respondent No. 1 dated 15th June, 1998. An identical question came up for consideration in this Court in the case of Delhi Municipal Workers Union (Regd.) v. Management of MCD and Ors., CWP No. 2840/97 decided on 26.11.1998 and in the case of Municipal Employees Union v. The Secretary (Labour) and Anr., CWP No. 4024/97 decided on 3.8.1999 and it is held in the aforesaid judgments that the expression 'person' appearing in Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act defining 'Industrial Dispute is wide enough to commission such persons.'2. T...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »