Delhi Court April 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 11 of about 143 results (0.026 seconds)Magnum Steels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT759TriDel
1. After carefully examining the records of the case and hearing ld.Advocate Shri J.S. Agarwal for the applicants and ld. DR Shri MM. Dubey for the respondents, I am convinced of the existence of a strong prima facie in favour of the applicants and therefore allow this application unconditionally. Having regard to the particular facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage. Accordingly I am taking up the appeal for disposal.2. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, in adjudication of proceedings taken in pursuance of show cause notice dated 11-9-1997 against the appellants and another person, passed order dated 16-3-1999 confiscating certain quantity of finished goods of the appellants with option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 50,000/-. There was no demand of any duty or imposition of any penalty against the appellants under the order of adjudication. The order of the Assistant Commissioner was, how...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Satya Sai Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT139TriDel
1. The issue in dispute in this appeal relates to the correct classification of products "Jet Fresh" and "Jem Fresh" manufactured by the appellants herein - according to the assessees the products are classifiable under CET sub-heading 3808.10 as insecticides, while the authorities below have confirmed classification of the goods under CET sub-heading 3307.49 which includes "preparations for perfuming or deodorizing including ...". According to the appellants, the products which are air-purifiers conform to the definition of of insecticides, which under Section 3(e) of the Insecticides Act 1988 means : "(a) any substance specified in the Schedule or (b) such other substance (including fungicides and insecticides) as the Central Government, may, after consultation with the Board, by Notification in the Official Gazette, include in the Schedule from time to time; or (c) any preparation containing any one or more of such substance." They submit that both products are preparations of Para...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Kay Poly Plast Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT84TriDel
1. The Revenue seeks reference of the following question of law purported to have arisen out of Tribunal's Final Order No. A/312/97-NB dated 9-5-1997 [1999 (109) E.L.T. 687 (Tribunal)]: "Whether notional higher credit under Rule 57B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 can be taken at a later stage till indefinite period".2. Notice for today's hearing was issued to the respondents; however, none appears hence I heared the learned DR and perused the records.3. I find that a similar issue has already been referred by the Western Regional Bench in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Pune v.Serene Dye Stuff Industries Ltd. reported in 1994 (69) E.L.T. 665 to the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. The following question of law is, therefore, referred to the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court for its consideration: "Whether in the context of the provisions of Rule 57B, the Tribunal is justified in holding that higher notional credit can be taken at a subsequent stage, even beyond the period of six mont...
Tag this Judgment!Cce Vs. Escorts Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(94)LC71Tri(Delhi)
1. Revenue has filed the above application for making a reference to the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court on the ground that a point of law arises out of Tribunal's Final Order No. A/898/98-NB dt. 9.10.1998.The point of law has been formulated as under: 1. Whether Modvat credit can be availed under Rule 57A on the inputs used in the manufacture of Hydraulic Assemblies transferred to their other unit under Chapter X Procedure for use in the manufacture of exempted tractors. 2. Whether Rule 57C prohibits availment of Modvat credit on the inputs cleared under Chapter X Procedure without payment of duty and used in the manufacture of final product which is also exempted from duty.2. Arguing the case Shri S.K. Das, Ld. JDR submits that the respondents herein manufactured tractors. They have got two units. In one unit Hydraulic Assemblies are manufactured. These hydraulic assemblies are then transferred to their other unit under Chapter X Procedure. These hydraulic assemblies are use...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Tarun Castings Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT136TriDel
1. This reference application is filed by the Revenue to refer the following questions on the ground that question of law arises with reference to Order No. A/353/97-NB(SM), dated 30-6-1997. "1. Whether Modvat credit can be allowed by the CEGAT on the strength of endorsed gate passes, which were invalid documents after 31-3-1994 as per Notification No. 16/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 30-3-1994, and whether the Notification No. 16/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 30-3-1994 would stand extended, if the gate passes are issued prior to the date specified in the said Notification, but endorsed subsequently. 2. Whether the Modvat credit can be allowed on the invoice cum delivery challan, which was not prescribed document as per Notification No. 16/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 30-3-1994 when the law permits credit only on the basis of the prescribed documents? 3. Whether credit can be allowed on the documents which are not prescribed as valid documents under Rule 52-A? 4. Whether the Tribunal has the powers to go be...
Tag this Judgment!Gurcharan Singh Sethi Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)527
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner has challenged his retirement from service w.e.f. 30.11.1989 on the ground that he has wrongly been retired as his date of birth is 29.11.1931 as per which he would have attained the age of superannuation on 30.11.1991. According to him Respondent-Bank had wrongly recorded his date of birth as 29.11.1929 which led to the aforesaid error in retiring him w.e.f. 30.11.1989 instead of 30.11.1991. 2. Petitioner joined Respondent No. 2/State Bank of Patiala on 8.2.1949. According to his averments in the petition, at the time of his initial appointment in the Bank he had submitted School Leaving Certificate to the Respondent-Bank as per which his date of birth had been specified as 29.11.1931. However, the Respondent-Bank wrongly recorded in the Regional Office petitioner's date of birth as 29.11.1929. Just before his retirement as per wrongly recorded date of birth i.e. 29.11.1929, he came to know that his date of birth had been wrongly recorded and, ther...
Tag this Judgment!A.S. Saharan (Brig.) Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)597; 2000(53)DRJ614
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Both these writ petitions are filed by the petitioner which were heard together. CW No. 2651/98 was filed by the petitioner on 25.5.1998 in which he has claimed the following reliefs: (A) Quashing impugned annual confidential report for the year 1984-85 and reports endorsed by the reviewing officers(ROs) and senior reviewing officers(SROs) in reports rendered during the period 01 June 1985 to 21 September, 1987. (B) Upgrading the report rendered by the initiating officer from 'Above average' to 'Outstanding' in annual confidential report 1994-95. (C) Modifying petitioner's records attached to the proceedings of promotion board held on 27 March, 1998 for objective assessment since partial relief has been granted by respondent No.1 vide order No. A/45501/45/98/SC/MS(x)/205/SC/D(MS) dated 08 May 1998. (D) Restoring original seniority (27 June, 1965) to the petitioner for promotion. 2. The petitioner in this writ petition also filed CM No.6409/98 in which he, inter...
Tag this Judgment!Naresh Kumar Singh and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)1044; 2000CriLJ3431; 85(2000)DLT645; 2000(54)DRJ104; 2000RLR300
ORDERUsha Mehra, J.1. Joint petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the FIR No.416/98 under Section 408 IPC lodged by petitioner No.2 against petitioner No.1 with Police Station in Chitrajan Park, New Delhi. 2. In order to appreciate the contention raised in the petition, lets acquaint with the facts of the case. The petitioner no.1 was employed as Peon with petitioner No. 2 Hiten Industrial Textile Ltd. (hereinafter called the Company). On 30th, September 1998 petitioner No. 1 was deputed to collect a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- in cash from Fateh Puri on behalf of the Company. Petitioner No.1 collected the cash amounting to Rs. 1,80,000/- but neither came to the office nor deposited that amount. Petitioner No. 1 was also not found at his residence, thereforee, Company suspected he had misappropriated the amount which belonged to the Company. Accordingly, the Company lodged a written report with the Police dated 8th October, 1998 on the basis of which FIR No. 416/98 d...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Administration and Another Vs. Constable YasIn Khan
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)721; 86(2000)DLT144; 2000(54)DRJ905
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. The petitioners seek to challenge the judgment of the Central Adminis-trative Tribunal' Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal') dated 17th March, 1990 in O.A. No. 1514 of 1993 whereby the learned Tribu-nal has allowed the O.A., quashed the impugned order of punishment as well as the appellate order and directed the petitioners herein to reinstate the respondent while directing that the respondent will not be entitled to any wages for the intervening period though he will be entitled to count the period between the date of passing of the impugned punishment order and the date of reinstatement for all other purposes. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent a Constable in Delhi Police, was served with the Memo of Charge under the Delhi Police (Punish-ment and Appeal) Rules (for short 'the Rules') on 26th June, 1991 on the allegation that he had absented himself unauthorisedly from 6th December, 1990 to 10th May, 1991 intermittently. An Enquiry Off...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Police Vs. Jorawar Singh and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)873
ORDERR.S. Sodhi, J.1. The petitioner, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks to challenge the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Principal Bench), Delhi, (for short 'the Tribunal') dated 22nd January, 1999 in O.A. No. 901 of 1995, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the Original Application and quashed the order dated 29th April, 1993, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, 9t Bn. DAV, New Delhi, and directed reinstatement of respondent No. 1 in service. However, the Tribunal did not deem it fit to grant backwages for the period the petitioner was out of job, but directed that this period should not be treated as break in service for other purposes. 2. The facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 was working as Constable in Delhi Police prior to his dismissal from service by order dated 29th April, 1993, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, 9th Bn. DAV, New Delhi. The charge against respondent No. 1 was that he absen...
Tag this Judgment!