Delhi Court February 2000 Judgments

Eee Cee Pressing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. None has come present on behalf of the appellants in spite of service of notice to them on the correct address. There is no request for adjournment also from their side. The matter is an old one as it pertains to the year 1992 and therefore, we proceed to decide the same on merits after hearing the SDR, Shri Satnam Singh.2. The issue involved is regarding the classification of items, namely, Tray with inspection cover, tray, Lower Spring Beam, Body Bolster, Bogie Bolster, Head stock complete etc. in the manufacture of which the appellants are engaged. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise had classified these items under Heading 86.07 of the Central Excise Tariff which covers parts of railway or tramway locomotives or rolling-stock.The classification made by him had been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) through the impugned order.2. We have gone through the order of the Collector (Appeals). It shows that he had confirmed the Assistant Collector's order holding the classific...

T.T.K. Pharma Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT320TriDel

1. In these four appeals arising out of a common order the issue invovled is whether the product 'OSSOPAN' manufactured by M/s. T.T.K.Pharma Ltd. is classifiable as a medicament under Sub-heading 3003.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act and whether penalty is imposable on all the appellants.2. Briefly stated the facts are that M/s. T.T.K. Pharma Ltd., appellant No. 1, manufacture a product, namely, 'OSSOPAN' which was declared by them as "Meat or Meat Offal" classifiable under Chapter 2 of CETA. The Collector under the impugned order, dated 23-6-1994, held that the impugned product is classifiable under Sub-heading 3003.10 of CETA, confirmed the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 1,95,78,811/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on appellant No. 1, and penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on Shri M.V. Kumar, Managing Director, Rs. 10,000 on Shri Ramamurthy, Manager and Rs. 5000/-on Shri V.R. Sundaraman, Executive (Excise). The Collector also ordered confiscation of Plant & Machi...

Modern Hosiery Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC279

1. In the impugned order, the Ld. Commissioner held that "however, on perusal of L/C submitted by the party, the expiry date for shipment is 30.4.99 and the goods do not appear to have been shipped before that, as the date of landing is 7.5.99, the goods, therefore, have become restricted as per para 5.3 of EXIM Policy and are liable to confiscation under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962".2. Arguing the case, Shri Ashutos, Ld. Counsel submits that the appellant imported old, used and reconditioned machines (second-hand knitting machines) which is within original validity of irrevocable Letter of Credit dated 10.3.99; that this Letter of Credit was valid upto 15.5.99. He submits that with effect from 1.4.99, EXIM Policy was amended under which import of old, used and reconditioned machinery became a restricted item. He submits that the goods in question were booked on 28.4.99 as per Airway Bill but due to mistake of the Airlines, the shipment could not be loaded as the same was not tra...

V.K. Mittal Vs. Dda and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)345

ORDERMukul Mukgal, J. 1. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Contractor and is carrying on the business of construction works for the Delhi Development Authority. The petitioner was awarded Contract No. 58/EE/HDXIII/81-82 by respondent No. 1/DDA for the construction of 32 Category-II, 16 Category-I Flats, 32 Scooter Garages under S.F.S. Scheme at Naraina S.H.; and construction of 16 Category-II, 8 Category-I Flats and 16 Scooter Garages i/c Internal Development of Block G, Pocket I. That certain differences and disputes had arisen between the parties and as per the Agreement Clause, Mr. Banarasi Dass (respondent No. 2 herein), Superintending Engineer of respondent No. 1/DDA was appointed as an Arbitrator, who made and announced his award granting a sum of Rs. 1,64,620.76/- to the petitioner on 5th January, 1990 after giving full opportunity to both the parties. 2.The present suit is filed by the petitioner for making the said Award a Rule of the Court. Thereafter t...

Sh. Umesh Chakravarti Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)446; 2000(53)DRJ311; [2000(87)FLR246]

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J. 1. The petitioner, being aspirant for the post of Airman in technical trade of Indian Air Force applied for the said post pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent and appeared in the written test. After the written examination, he was required to undergo medical test at Army Selection Centre, Bihta (Patna). Thereafter he was instructed to appear before Army Hospital Allahabad for further test as he was declared temporarily unfit. However he was served with medical unfitness certificate dated 12.5.1997 and thereforee he was not selected for appointment. The case of the petitioner is that he got himself checked up by two known and famous Doctors and both the Doctors declared the petitioner medically fit and on that basis he submitted an appeal to the Central Airman Selection Board, New Delhi on 20.5.1997. He was re-examined on 12.8.1997 on the basis of his appeal but was again declared medically unfit and thereforee refused appointment. In these circumst...

V. Sekhar Vs. Food Corporation of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)710

ORDERA.K. Sikri,J. 1. Rule. With the consent of the parties the matter is taken up and finally disposed of at this stage. 2. Petitioner was appointed as typist on temporary basis w.e.f. 26.6.1970 . The said temporary appointment was extended from time to time and on 15.4.1971 the petitioner was regularised in the said post. The case of the petitioner is that his initial appointment on temporary basis was against a permanent post. The petitioner in this petition is claiming the benefit of service rendered as typist on temporary basis w.e.f. 26.6.1970 to 15.4.1971. The relevant regulation of Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as FCI, for short) for this purpose are Regulation 15(5) which reads as follows:- 15. Probation- (5) Where an employee has rendered continuous temporary service or continuous service on deputation in any post immediately proceeding his regular appointment to such post, the period of service so rendered temporarily or on deputation may be counted agai...

Mohan Arora Vs. Mrs. M. Panat

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)140; 85(2000)DLT324

ORDERMadan B. Lokur, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 12th September, 1985 passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal in RCA No. 560 of 1985. By the impugned order, the learned Tribunal dismissed the first appeal of the Appellant and ordered his eviction from the suit premises. 2.The facts of the case are not in serious dispute. According to the Appellant, he and the Respondent entered into a lease deed dated 1st, September, 1978. In terms of Clause 5 of this lease deed, the Appellant was entitled to sub let, assign or otherwise part with the possession of a part of the whole of the demised premises. The admitted position is that the lease deed was not a registered document. It is also admitted that in view of Clause 5 of the lease deed, the Appellant had sublet a part of the suit premises. 3.The question that, thereforee, arises for consideration is whether the sub letting of a part of the suit premises was permissible or not. The question raised in this appeal i...

Mohan Sales (India) Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT156TriDel

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 2-9-1998 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). In the impugned order, the value of cordless telephones imported by the appellants, was enhanced.2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that in this case the appellants made an import of cordless telephones of various models and filed three different bill of entries. He submits that the re. enue had not accepted the value declared by the appellants. Therefore, the value was enhanced. He submits that the matter was adjudicated by Shri S. Nandi, Addl. Commissioner and, thereafter, the adjudication order was passed by Smt. I Dutta Majumdar, Addl. Commissioner without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants. He submits that the adjudication was conducted by one officer and the adjudication order was passed by another officer. He relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Komal Offset v.C.C., New Delhi reported in...

Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S Premier India

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT136TriDel

1. This is an application filed by CCE Chandigarh for referring the following question of law arising out of Tribunal's Final Order No.A/750-751-98/NB dt. 6-7-98 to the Hon'ble High Court. "Whether gate passes issued prior to 1-4-94 but endorsed after that date would fall under coverage of Entry No. 10 in the table to the Notification No. 16/94-CE (NT) dt. 30-3-94 and would consequently become eligible document for taking credit under the modvat scheme?" 2. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the Respondents. I also observe that no one has appeared on behalf of the Respondents at the time of earlier hearing. I, therefore, heard Shri S.C. Puskarna, Ld. D.R., and persued the records.3. I have considered the submissions of the Ld. D.R. and persued the records. The question of law proposed to be referred to Hon'ble High Court is whether the modvat credit was available to the Respondents on the strength of gate passes issued prior to 1-4-1994 but endorsed on or after...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Bhusan Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT129TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the disallowance of Modvat credit on mortar, orcast, castable refractory, ramming mass, foundry fluxes and chemicals, grinding wheel and D.C. Motor.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants manufacture M.S. Ingots and Billets. They claimed Modvat credit on mortar, orcast, castable refractory, ramming mass, foundry fluxes, chemicals, griding wheel and D.C. Motar. The Commissioner (A) has allowed the benefit of Modvat credit on all the above items. However, on review of that order an appeal was filed by the Revenue against the decision of the Commissioner (A).3. Shri Y.R. Kilania, ld. JDR submits that the Addl. Commissioner has rightly disallowed the Modvat credit and has given detailed reasoning for that. Reiterating the findings of the Addl. Commissioner, he submits that the appeal may be allowed.4. Shri J.S. Agarwal, ld. Advocate submits that their case is fully covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Bhusan Industries Limi...