Delhi Court September 1999 Judgments

Batliboi and Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT673TriDel

1. The dispute in this appeal is about the classification of several items used in the manaufacture of humidifiers and dehumidifiers by the appellants. The contention of the appellant was that these are parts of machines and should get classified as such. The machines remained already classified under 8479, therefore, they submitted that there is no justification for classifying these components/parts under various other Tariff Headings like 7308, 8421, 8483 etc. During arguments, the ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that while the present dispute is for the period 1986-87, classification lists filed for that period remained approved classifying these items as claimed by the appellant under Heading 8479 (except for a few items). He also drew our attention to instructions of Central Board of Excise & Customs on the classification of these items from time-to-time. CBEC Circular No.353/69/97-C.E., dated 12-11-1997 relating to classification of parts and accessories of Refriger...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Lloyd Safe Company

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(68)ECC89

1. This appeal was filed by the Revenue aggrieved by the Order-in-Original No. 157/90-91 dated 25.2.91 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi in adjudication of show cause notice dated 27.2.89. The Adjudicating Authority had withdrawn show cause notice proceedings against the respondents herein as per the said Order-in-Original.2. In the aforesaid show-cause notice, the Additional Collector had alleged as follows: 2.1 Officers of Central Excise, on 15.7.87, visited the factory premises of the respondents at New Rohtak Road, New Delhi and the show room-cum-office premises at Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi simultaneously.The officers who visited the factory premises took the statement of one Shri R.M. Duggal, Foreman of the factory, who stated that he was working as Foreman for the last 3 years, hat the respondents were manufacturing steel furniture for the last 6 years, that the plant and machinery had been installed in the factory before his joining the firm and ...

Punjab National Bank Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal, preferred by the assessee, arises out of CIT(A)'s order dt. 28th January, 1993 relating to the asst. yr. 1989-90. As many as seven grounds were taken up by the assessee in this appeal but on the date of hearing the learned counsel pointed out that assessee approached the Committee on Disputes (Bharat Sarkar) Cabinet Secretariat, to resolve the inter se disputes in between different Departments of the Government of India and in the case in hand the said committee permitted the assessee to pursue ground No. 2 in the grounds of appeal alone and rest of the grounds were not allowed to be pursued by the assessee. Copy of order of committee on disputes as communicated to the assessee is appearing at pp. 1 to 3 of the paper book and perusal thereof shall show that ground No. 2 involving issue of taxability of interest on sticky advances alone was to be pursued by the assessee. In view of this learned counsel did not press ground Nos.3 to 7 and the same are rejected as such. G...

Kulvinder Singh Sethi Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)407; 82(1999)DLT617; 1999(51)DRJ406

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Punjab and Sind Bank, respondent No. 1 in this case, is a statutory banking Corporation created under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of undertakings) Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short). Under the provisions of Section 12 read with Section 19 the Act, service regulations are framed for its officers, namely 'Punjab and Sind Bank Officers Services Regulation, 1982'. Regulation 17 of these Regulations empowers the bank to frame promotion policy and accordingly, the respondent bank had framed promotion policy for its officers. This promotion policy was framed having regard to the guidelines of the government. 2. In this case, we are concerned with promotion of officers from Middle Management Grade Scale II (hereinafter referred to as Scale II, for short) to Middle Management Grade Scale III (hereinafter referred to as Scale III, for short). As per this policy, the selection was on the basis of the following criteria : confidentia...

Ram Gopal Kaushal and ors. Vs. Amar Kaur and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)336; 2000(52)DRJ641

ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. Defendants 1 & 2 in the suit are the petitioners in the revision petition. The learned Senior Civil Judge, pending the suit, granted injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC on the 16th of May, 1998 in the following terms :- 'Hence, the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is disposed of with the order that the defendants shall not interfere in the enjoyment of the property on the second floor of the plaintiffs....not legible...However, in order to protect the security of both the persons, one lock can be put on the main gate with two keys one given to the plaintiffs and the other given to the defendants. With these observations, the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC stands disposed of.'2. Defendants 1 & 2 preferred the appeal. On appeal by defendants 1 & 2, the learned Additional District Judge, by order dated 7.8.1999, dismissed the appeal. Against that order, the revision petition had been filed. 3. The respondents came forward with the...

Surinder Kumar Jhamb Vs. Mr. Om Parkash Shokeen

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)579; 82(1999)DLT569; 1999(51)DRJ704

ORDERUsha Mehra, J.1. The appellant was inducted as a tenant by the respondents in suit property bearing No. 487/31, measuring 2 bighas 10 bids was within phirni (extended abadi) of Village Peera Garhi, Delhi. Each of the respondents herein (plaintiffs before the Trial Court) is 1/3rd share holder of the said property. Their respective shares in the property were let out to the appellant vide three separate lease deeds of the same date i.e. 15th October, 1979. The appellant was to pay separate monthly rent of Rs. 1,67/- to each of the respondent. The lease was for a period of five years with a right to the appellant to raise temporary structure over the plot in order to carry out his business activities. The appellant, as per the version of the respondents did raise temporary super structure on the plot. However, w.e.f. 15th October, 1983 the appellants failed to pay the monthly rent to the respondents, thereforee, notices terminating the tenancy of the appellant were issued by respond...

Roweena Sharma Vs. State and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)737; 84(2000)DLT91; 2000(52)DRJ788

ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.Crl. W. 900/1999 & Crl. M. 9091/991. On 19.4.1999 a complaint was filed with the Police Station Greater Kailash I against Kuber Group of Companies and their officials. On the basis of the complaint an FIR was registered under Sections 406/409/420/120 IPC. In the complaint it is stated that the officials of the Kuber Group of Companies approached the complainants & asked them to keep their personal savings as fixed deposits in the various schemes launched by the aforesaid Group. The further allegation in the complaint is that the officials of the Kuber Group of Companies persuaded them to influence their relatives and friends to keep their savings in fixed deposit schemes of Kuber Group of Companies. It is also averred that representations were made to the effect that the Kuber Group of Companies were doing extremely well. Acting upon the aforesaid representations, deposits were made by the complainants in October 1988. When the deposits were at the stage of matur...

Punjab National Bank Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2000)66TTJ(Del)847

ORDERPhool Singh, JM.This appeal, preferred by the assessee, arises out of Commissioner (Appeals)'s order dt, 28-1-1993 relating to the assessment year 1989-90. As many as seven grounds were taken up by the assessed in this appeal but on the date of hearing the learned counsel pointed out that assessed approached the Committee on Disputes (Bharat Sarkar) Cabinet Secretariat, to resolve the inter se disputes in between different departments of the Government of India and in the case in hand the said committee permitted the assessed to pursue ground No. 2 in the grounds of appeal alone and rest of the grounds were not allowed to be pursued by the assessee. Copy of order of committee on disputes as communicated to the assessed is appearing at pp. 1 to 3 of the paper book and perusal thereof shall show that ground No. 2 involving issue of taxability of interest on sticky advances alone was to be pursued by the assessee. In view of this learned counsel did not press ground Nos. 3 to 7 and t...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Indian Standard Metal Co. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(68)ECC605

1. This is an appeal by the Revenue against Order-in-Original No.90/92, dated 6-5-1992.2. Show cause notice issued on 7-7-1983 demanded duty for the period from August, 1981 to February, 1983 and no fraud or wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts etc. were found to be involved in the case. The Additional Collector dismissed the demand as totally time barred. The Revenue has submitted that part of the demand was within the time limit of six months and the adjudication order is erroneous to this extent. The appeal points out that the time limit is to be reckoned with reference to Section llA(3)(ii). In the instant case, when time limit of six months is worked out in terms of the definition of "relevant date" contained in the Section, part of the demand becomes within the time limit of six months i.e., the clearances of December, 1982, January, 1983 and February, 1983.3. None has appeared for the respondent despite notice. Therefore, we are disposing of this appeal after hearing th...

Cce Vs. Glass Machine Spares

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(68)ECC606

1. This is an appeal by the Revenue. Under his adjudication Order 119/92 dated 7.5.92, the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I held the show cause notice dated 5.6.87 to be time barred in respect of demand prior to 5.1.87 on account of the show cause notice being issued beyond a period of six months. The Revenue has contended in the appeal that the Collector's order is erroneous inasmuch as it is in violation of the provisions regarding "relevant date" stipulated in Section 11A(3)(ii) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944.2. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent despite notice.Therefore we are deciding this case after hearing the Departmental Representative.3. The issue that has come up for decision in this appeal is 'relevant date' for the purpose of raising demand under Section 11A. Section 11A itself defines 'relevant date' and it reads as under: (a) in the case of excisable goods on which duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short levied o...