Delhi Court March 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 11 of about 221 results (0.020 seconds)Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Prakash Manufacturing
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT861TriDel
1. This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) who has classified plastic grills for air-conditioners under Heading 3926.90 on the basis of Trade Notice No.78/MP/86, dated 24-10-1986 of Bombay-l Collectorate. The contention of the Revenue is that the grills being part of the air-conditioners, fall for classification under Chapter Heading 84.15 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985.2. We have heard both sides. The respondents do not dispute the claim of the Department regarding classification, but submit that the Revenue cannot take a stand contrary to the Trade Notice. We find that a similar issue had come up for decision by the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bombay v. Pacific Industries - Final Order Nos. 1302-1303/99-B, dated 22-11-1999 wherein the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's claim for classification of steel frames for air-conditioners under Heading 84.15, on the ground that Trade Notice No. 67-C.E., dated 30-9-1...
Tag this Judgment!Yamuna Gases and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT854TriDel
1. The dispute in this case relates to excisability of three varieties of cable jointing kits namely, (1) Resin Cast, (2) Push on, and (3) Heat Shrinkable. All the three varieties consists of various components such as tubes, joining compounds, bushings, top cap, aluminium lugs, etc., which are packed for assembly of cable joints at the site of the customers. According to the department the item is excisable goods falling for classification under Heading 85.47 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985 while the assessees contend that the item is not excisable goods.2. On hearing both the sides, we find that the issue is no longer res Integra as it stands settled by the Tribunal's order in the case of Siechem v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh - 1999 (30) RLT 207 in which the Tribunal has followed the judgment of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Excel Telecom Ltd. and Ors. v.Superintendent of Central Excise (in Writ Petition No. 8282/98) in coming to its conclusion ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Akay Powerline Products (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT678TriDel
1. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai while disposing of the appeal filed by the Department had confirmed the view taken by the adjudicating authority that the mild steel, channels, angles, plates duly cut, drilled or painted/galvanized will not be considered as manufactured products. He relied upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Baroda v. Dodsal Pvt. Ltd., Baroda -1987 (28) E.L.T. 352 (Tribunal). He had observed that the matter was covered by the aforesaid Tribunal's decision wherein it has been held that the processes of straightening, cutting, bending, punching and galvanising of the steel angles, plates, channels and bars would not amount to manufacture.2. The respondents are not represented. We have heard Shri Satnam Singh, SDR and have gone through the records.3. The question for decision is whether the processes of cutting, drilling, punching, painting and galvanizing carried out on processed channels, angles and plates would ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Happy Forgings Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT769TriDel
1. The Revenue is in appeal in these two cases against the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh both dated 23-8-1999.In one order the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the Modvat credit under Rule 57Q on Tray Castings falling under tariff heading 7325.20.The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of rough steel forgings and M.V. parts. The amount of Modvat credit is of Rs. 35,633/- in this case. The original authority has held that goods namely Trays Casting falling under sub-heading 7325.20 could not be considered as capital goods since as per Rule 57Q the Modvat credit on goods falling under chapter 73 was not allowed. The Commissioner (Appeals), however, has observed that though the Tray casting has been cleared under the stated heading but are very much essential for handling of the material during process and this type of process of handling is held to be integrally connected with process of manufacture by the Tribunal's decision reported in 1997 (92) E.L....
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Apsom Computers Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT660TriDel
1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, who has ordered classification of "Desktop Sign Maker (PNC-900, 950)" and "large format sign maker PNC 1850" described as cutting plotters in the Bill of Entry under Customs Tariff Heading 8441.10 which inter alia covers cutting machines. According to the Revenue, the cutting plotters are special types of machines which perform dual functions of designing, etching and cutting vinyl and paper and as per Note 7 of Chapter 84 of the Schedule to the CTA, 1975, the machine is required to be classified under Heading 84.79 as it does not perform any principal function which is described in any Heading.2. We have heard Shri H.K. Jain, learned SDR and perused the records including the cross-objections filed by the respondents. Cutting plotters work in conjunction with automatic data processing machines for drafting/marking out of paper or vinyl. The function is to produce drawings or mark out vinyl ac...
Tag this Judgment!Jeet Lal Sharma Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court - Iv and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)1; 84(2000)DLT706; 2000(53)DRJ735; [2000(85)FLR268]; (2000)ILLJ1472Del; 2000(5)SLR9
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. The question which is to be decided in this case relates to the ambit and scope of the powers of the Labour Court Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short). In fact, law on this point is well settled by series of judgments of the apex Court resting with the judgment in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs . Ganesh Razak : (1995)ILLJ395SC . However, it is the application of principles enunciated in these cases, when applied in specific cases that has caused confusion in the mind of Presiding Officer of Labour Courts. Present case is also one such example whereby the Labour Court has dismissed the application vide impugned order dated 1st June, 1998 holding that the said application was not maintainable. thereforee, it has become necessary to restate the ambit and scope the provision of Section 33-C(2) of the Act in the light of various pronouncement of the Supreme Court and also to specify how the ...
Tag this Judgment!Deo Sunder Jha and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)194; 86(2000)DLT616; 2000(54)DRJ6; [2000(87)FLR371]; (2000)IILLJ951Del
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. This batch of writ petitions raise common question of law and arises from almost identical facts and thereforee can be disposed of by one common judgment. In all these writ petitions, interpretation of notification dated 9.12.1976 issued by Central Government in exercise of powers under section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 is involved. The said notification reads as under: 'In exercise of the power conferred by Sub section (1) of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 ( 37 of 1970), the Central Government after consultation with the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board, hereby prohibits employment of contract on and from the 1st March, 1977, for sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings owned or occupied by establishments in respect of which the appropriate Government under the said Act is the Central Government. 'Provided that this notification shall not apply to the outside cleaning an...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Container Leasing Company Vs. M/S. Kochar Freight Carries (P) L ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)703; 86(2000)DLT173; (2000)126PLR36
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J. 1. Pursuant to orders dated 22.4.1997 service on the Defendant was effected by the clerk of the advocate for the Plaintiff on 2.5.1996. The original summons were, however, misplaced. It is further stated that when the case came up for hearing on the next date, i.e. 10.9.1997 fresh notice was ordered for 9.12.1997. The misplaced summons were thereafter discovered. It is not in controversy that appearance on behalf of the Defendants was entered on 5.12.1997 after they were served on 27.11.1997. 2. It was on 24.4.1997 that summons were first issued to the Defendants in the prescribed form for 10.9.1997. It is necessary to underscore that dusty orders were not passed in this context. Orders permitting service, Dasti, are normally granted where urgency and expedition is necessary. It is only an adjunctory and ancillary from of service. Even where dusty service are ordered, there is no justification for not simultaneously also following the ordinary procedure of servi...
Tag this Judgment!G.L. Pahwa Vs. the Chairman, the New India Assurance Company Limited
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)922; 85(2000)DLT294; 2000(53)DRJ810; [2000(85)FLR730]; (2000)IILLJ114Del
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Petitioner was appointed as Trainee Inspector with Anand Insurance Company Limited, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi w.e.f. 1st April, 1971. This Company later on got merged with New India Assurance Company Limited respondent No. 2 on 1st January, 1973. Consequently, the Petitioner's services were taken over by respondent No. 2 Company. While the petitioner was working with respondent Company, on 21st June, 1980 he was suspended on ground of detection of serious irregularities allegedly committed by him. Charge-sheet dated 3rd July, 1980 was thereafter served upon him. Petitioner replied denying said charges. Enquiry Officer was appointed at this stage supplementary charge-sheet dated 9th March, 1981 was also served upon petitioner and the same enquiry officer was asked to conduct the enquiry in respect of these charges also. Enquiry was conducted as per which charges stood proved against the petitioner. Petitioner was, consequently dismissed from service vide order dated...
Tag this Judgment!Thompson Press (India) Ltd. Vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)113; 86(2000)DLT85; 2000(54)DRJ705; (2000)126PLR27
ORDERJ.B. Goel, J.1. This is a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act') filed by M/s. Thompson Press (India) Ltd. (hereinafter called the petitioner) against U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow (hereinafter called the respondent). 2. The case of petitioner is that in pursuance to the tenders invited by the respondent for the printing and supply of 'Blank Ticket Books', the petitioner 's tender offer dated 20.10.1994 (Annexure B-1) was accepted by the respondent vide their letter dated 15.12.1994 (Annexure B) on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. An agreement (Copy at Annexure A) is also alleged to have been entered into on 5.4.1995. In pursuance of this contract, the petitioner had supplied the requisite number of blank ticket books as and when ordered by the respondent. The petitioner had submitted their bills for payment for the price thereof but the respondent unreasonably withheld and delayed the payments for a long time in sp...
Tag this Judgment!