Delhi Court March 2000 Judgments

Sucro Filters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT107TriDel

1. The appellants, M/s. Sucro Filters Pvt. Ltd. have prayed for decision on merits.2. We have heard Shri Satnam Singh, SDR and have gone through the facts on record.3. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Fruit Juice Filters of Nickel, Nickel Screens for domestic chakki, collector tube of nickel for tobacco, etc. They were bringing duty paid nickel in the form of pellets, rounds, strips, etc. During the course of manufacture of their final products, certain wastages occured which they used again in the manufacture of their finished product again and again.4. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had taken a view that the waste and scrap arising in the process of manufacture was in the nature of off-cuts of Nickel Screen and as such it could be considered as article of nickel. We find that the appellants were not a manufacturer of nickel but of the various products, which were classifiable under Chapter Heading Nos. 75, 83, 84 and 85 of the Central Excise Tariff.The wa...

Hytronics Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT888TriDel

1. In this appeal, the main question for consideration is whether the Relays manufactured by the appellants were parts of apparatus or were apparatus themselves.2. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) has referred to Chapter Heading No. 85.36, where Relays have been specifically described. He has held that the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise has rightly decided to call them an apparatus finding a mention in Chapter Heading 85.36 of the Tariff.4. We have gone through the impugned order and on careful consideration, we agree with the view taken by the ld. Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Hyderabad that once the Relays was specifically described, it could not be considered that they were parts of the apparatus. Wherever the Legislature wanted to refer to the parts, they have been so mentioned in different Tariff Headings.5. On careful consideration, we do not find any merit in this appeal filed by the appellants and the same is rejected. Ordered accordingly....

Deep Tools (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT141TriDel

1. In this case, the adjudicating authority whose order is in challenge, has held that the appellants herein were not eligible to claim exemption under Notification 175/86 since they were clearing hand tools affixed with the brand name "Deeps" belonging to M/s. Raj and Sandeeps (P) Ltd., who were not eligible to the benefit of SSI exemption. On the above basis, he has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 3,93,750/- under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules read with proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 75,000/- on the appellants.2. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the records.3. The appellants had entered into an agreement on 9-3-1990 with M/s.Raj and Sandeeps (P) Ltd., Ludhiana for purchase of plant and machinery required for manufacturing open-end and ring spanners, etc. There is no agreement for transfer of ownership of brand name "DEEPS" from M/s. Raj and Sandeeps (P) Ltd., to Deeps Tools. The con...

Atma Tube Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT93TriDel

1. Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Cold Rolled Strips and Steel Tubes classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 7306.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They sold the goods manufactured from their factory to dealers. Appellant transferred certain quantity of the goods to their depot at Ludhi-ana. The stock transferred to Ludhiana Depot were sold to dealers after carrying out some work of cutting of the tubes depending on the requirements of the dealers. Cutting charges were realised by the appellant. In assessing the amount payable by way of duty the cutting charges realised was not reckoned. It was the Department's stand that, the cutting charges also form part of the manufacturing expenses and duty payable accordingly.Show cause notice was issued demanding differential duty of Rs. 5,65,989.90, for the period from August 1994 to December 1994. The show cause notice was objected to on the ground that the cutting charges recovered cannot be taken as liabl...

Dinkar Khindria Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(83)ECC875

1. While hearing the two appeals filed by (1) Shri Dinkar Khindria and (2) Shri Dinesh Khindria (against the common order-in-original, dated 17-8-1993 passed by the Collector of Customs, New Delhi), the following question has been referred by the Bench to the Larger Bench : "Whether the Mohit Thakor's case as reported in 1994 (72) E.L.T. 865 is required to be recalled. the appeal of Mohit Thakor (No. C/1036/93 NRB decided by Final Order No. A/458/1994 NRB dated 6-5-1994) is required to be reheard along with these appeals as all the cases arise from the same facts and decided by a common adjudication order and as vital questions of law and fact have not been answered in Mohit Thakor's order." Under his common order-in-original, dated 17-8-1993, the Collector of Customs, New Delhi had absolutely confiscated two kgs. of foreign marked gold, which had been seized from Shri Dinesh Khindria. Two Kgs.of foreign marked gold brought by Mohit Thakor, a passenger coming from abroad, which was so...

Dinesh Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant is aggrieved by the oral order given by the respondents in March, 1998 terminating his services as Peon and also not conferring on him the benefits in terms of the DOP&T O.M, dated 10.9.1993.2. This case is a part heard case. The departmental representative Shri Mahender Chaudhary, has produced the relevant documents called for by the Tribunal's order dated 18.2.2000, viz, the orders showing the position of the applicant when attached to the Members of the Planning Commission, namely, Dr. D. Swaminathan and subsequently with Dr. M.R.Srinivasan. The learned Counsel for the parties had also been heard on 18.2.2000 when the relevant records had been called for. In the circumstances, I have carefully perused the pleadings and the relevant records, including those produced by the departmental representative and I have also taken into account the submissions made earlier by the learned Counsel.3. The brief relevant facts of the case are that the respondents had appointe...

M/S. G.M. Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. M/S. Shyam Ahuja Limited.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)187

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. The present suit was filed in May, 1996 for Ejectment and for Recovery of Rs. 13,37,928/- (Rs. Thirteen Lakhs Thirty Seven thousand Nine hundred Twenty Eight only) towards mesneprofits and for determination and grant of future mesne-profits. During the pendency of the suit, possession of the demised property was handed back to the Plaintiff on 7.1.1999. While resuming possession the Plaintiff had issued a written receipt mentioning inter alia, that the Security Deposit of Rs. 14,40,000/- (Rs. Fourteen Lakhs Forty Thousand only) would be returned, if still found due after adjudication of mesne profit, together with interest thereon at the rate of 15% per annum with half-yearly rests. The Plaintiff had agreed that the interest would be calculable from 7.1.1999. 2. Both the parties have led evidence through affidavits. The Plaintiff has filed an affidavit of Shri Hakumat Rai Malik, Director-in-Charge and Manager Shareholders of the Plaintiff dated 22.1.1999 and a...

Sh. Vipon Sanduja Vs. Registrar, Delhi High Court and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)249; 85(2000)DLT471; 2000(54)DRJ459

ORDERA.K.Sikri,J.1. Petitioner appeared in Delhi Judicial Service Examination 1996 con-ducted by Delhi High Court for 40 posts of Delhi Judicial Service. Examina-tion was conducted from 17.8.1996 to 19.8.1996 and result thereof was declared on 24.4.1997. Only 16 candidates were declared successful. Peti-tioner was not amongst successful candidates. On 9.8.1997, he received mark sheet dated 30.7.1997 as per which petitioner got 72 marks out of 200 in Civil Law-I paper. Petitioner was not satisfied with the evaluation in respect of this subject and he made representation dated 22.8.1997 to Hon'ble the Chief Justice, Delhi High Court and the Registrar (Exams) Delhi High Court requesting for rechecking/revaluation of Civil Law-I paper. This representation was rejected by Registrar vide communication dated 6.9.1997. Petitioner filed the instant petition, after a gap of about 14 months challenging the communication dated 6.9.1997 rejecting his representation. He submits that he has now disco...

Bausch and Lomb India Ltd. and ors. Vs. Registrar of Co., Delhi and Ha ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)334; 85(2000)DLT409; 2000(53)DRJ819

ORDERD.K. Jain, J.1. A short but interesting question that arises for consideration in the instant case is whether the offence under Section 73(2B) read with Section 72(2A) of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') is a continuing offence within the meaning of Section 472 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') for that if it is held to be so, then the bar of limitation under Section 468 of the Code, to take cognizance of the offence alleged, would not apply. 2. In November 1991, petitioner No. 1, an incorporated company, (of which petitioners No. 2, 3 and 4 are the Chairman, Managing Director and the Company Secretary respectively) came out with a public issue of 14% partially convertible debentures and 17% non-convertible debentures. Subscription list of the issue was to close on 18th November, 1991. Permission under Section 73 of the Act was granted to petitioner No. 1 by the Delhi Stock Exchange for dealing in the said debentures on 27th January 1992 a...

Ex. Chera Balwan Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)957

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Petitioner was recruited as Artificer Apprentice (Under-trainee) on 2nd August, 1979 in the Indian Navy and promoted to ERA-5, the first rank in the Artificer cadre on 6th August, 1983 after completion of 4 years of Artificer Apprentice training period. He was promoted to the rank of CHERA (Chief Engine Room Artificer) w.e.f. 26.5.1992. He claims that during period he acquired certain technical qualifications and inspire of acquisition of these higher qualifications, he was not promoted in Navy. To make his career better in the civil services suitable to his qualification he asked for premature retirement. His request was acceded to by the respondents and petitioner was prematurely released at his own request on 28.2.94 for taking up a civil employment. As on the date of his release he had completed 10 years 6 months 26days service excluding Apprentice training period of 4 years and 14 years 6 months and 26 days service if the Apprentice training period is include...