Delhi Court April 2000 Judgments

Kumar Printing Ink (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT125TriDel

1. After hearing for some time with reference to the stay petition filed by the party, I felt that the matter itself can be disposed of.Accordingly, the matter was taken up for regular hearing.2. It was submitted on behalf of the party that the order suffers from denial of principles of natural justice inasmuch as it is not a speaking order. No opportunity has been granted with reference to the appeal filed by the party.4. I have considered the matter. Para 4 of the impugned order is as under :- "The stay application was heard on 9-4-1999. Shri V.C. Bhartiya, Consultant and Shri T.K. Jain, Authorised signatory appeared for personal hearing and also submitted a written brief in support of their cases." 5. It appears that hearing was granted with reference to the stay petition filed by the party. The Commissioner (Appeals) should have passed an order with reference to the stay petition and if he was not convinced prima facie, the only course open to him was to direct the party to deposi...

Apsara Mettalica Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT134TriDel

1. These appeals have filed against the common order-in-original dated 25-9-1992 passed by the Collector of Central Excise. Ld. Counsel again on behalf of the appellant submits that the impugned order is passed in violation of the principle of natural justice. He submits that the adjudicating authority while deciding the issue of classification in respect of covered yarn against the appellant relied upon the test report dated 18-8-1992 of the Chemical Examiner. He submits that Show-Cause Notice was issued on 22-10-1999 and the personal hearing was given by the adjudicating authority on 2-7-1992 and the test report of the Chemical Examiner is dated 18-8-1992 hence the same was received after the personal hearing. The test report was relied upon by the adjudicating authority. The test report was never supplied to the appellant nor appellants were put to notice regarding this test report during personal hearing. He therefore, submits that impugned order is passed against the principle of...

National Winder Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)LC937Tri(Delhi)

"Whether the refund claim filed by the purchaser after six months of the date of purchase would be hit by the bar of limitation under Section 11B(1) of the Central Excise Act, even if the payment of duty by the manufacturer was made under protest." The reference of this issue has been made by the Single Member Bench of the Tribunal in Appeal No. E/199/95-B and E/CO/233/95-NB, National Winder v. C.C.E., Ahmedabad vide order dated 15-4-1998 in the face of the divergent views expressed by two Benches of the Tribunal in two different cases. In National Winder v. C.C.E., Ahmedabad (decided vide Order No. 38/94-NRB) the Single Member while sitting on the Northern Bench (Single) had taken the view that the bar of limitation of six months as embodied in Section 11B(1) of the Central Excise Act, would be attracted if the claim is not filed by the purchaser within six months from the date of purchase and that the benefit of the second proviso to the said Section, which enacts that the period of...

Rina Metal Syndicate Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT885TriDel

1. In this case, the Adjudicating Authority has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 3,10,551/- on 89.625 MTs of Brass Scrap classifiable under CET sub-heading 7402.00 manufactured and cleared during the period January 1987 to May 1987 and has imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the appellants herein.2. The learned Counsel Shri A.C. Jain states that the appellants purchase Brass Dross falling under Chapter 26 of the Central Excise Tariff and clean/wash/seive the same, as a result of which no final new product emerged so as to be liable to duty. He submits that in the case of other as-sessees who had imported Brass Dross and carried out similar processes, in the Jamnagar Area, the Tribunal has held that the processes adopted by such assessees does not amount to manufacture so as to result in emergence of a new marketable commodity with a separate, distinct name and separate physical or chemical composition or characteristics and has set aside the demands raised on this basis.He cites the de...

Mohan Lal Sharma and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By the present OA the applicants seek to impugn an order dated 13.11.1996 passed by and on bahalf of the Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Kota, respondent No. 2 herein whereby a panel for promotion to the posts of Chief Booking Clerks/Chief Parcel Clerks in grade of Rs. 1600-2660 has been prepared. Whereas respondents 3 to 18 have been empanelled the applicants who were aspirant for the said promotional posts have not been included in the panel.2. The applicants were initially appointed as Commercial Clerks Grade Rs. 260-400. They were granted promotions at different levels and were ultimately promoted as Head Booking Clerks/Head Parcel Clerks in the grade of Rs. 1400-2300. Respondents 3 to 18 were also similarly promoted as Head Booking Clerks/Head Parcel Clerks in the aforesaid grade of Rs. 1400-2300. Aforesaid posts of Head Booking Clerk/Head Parcel Clerk is a feeder post for the promotional post of Chief Booking Clerk/Chief Parcel Clerk in the grade of Rs. 1600-2660...

A.H.Q. Canteen Employees Association Vs. U.O.i.and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2000(86)FLR448]

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J. 1. Rule. In this case petitioner which is association of AHQ canteen employees has prayed for the following directions: a) direct the respondents by way of an order/writ/direction in the nature of mandamus to declare the civilian employees of the petitioner canteen as Central Government employees; b) direct the respondents to pay all the benefits such as salary/allowances etc. to the civilian employees of the petitioner canteen at part with other Central Government employees w.e.f. 1.10.1991 i.e. the w.e.f. the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted benefits to the civilian employees of the non-statutory canteens. 2. In the case of Layak Ram Vs . Quarter Master General & Ors. : 81(1999)DLT395 , a view has already been taken that such canteens are not amenable to writ jurisdiction. Petitioner disputes this position. However even if it is presumed that writ petition is maintainable, admittedly petitioner has alternate efficacious remedy open to it under the provisions of Indu...

Rattan Lal Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(55)DRJ76; [2000(86)FLR677]

A.K. Sikari, J.1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order No. F.24(1619)/95/Lab-32991-95 dated 27th October, 1995 by which the 'appropriate Government' has refused to refer the matter for adjudication stating that it was not a fit case for reference to the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court, Delhi for adjudication. Reasons for refusal as stated in the said order are mentioned as under:'Shri Rattan Lal has been regularised on the post of Beldar w.e.f. 1.4.89 after obtaining his acceptance. He does not fulfilll the requirement of R... Rs. for the post of Driver.'2. The petitioner had raised the dispute with the allegation that he was employed with Respondent No. 2 on 1st June, 1982 and right from the date of initial appointment he was working as Driver. However, respondent regularised him in the post of Beldar w.e.f. 1st April, 1989. During this period he was treated and paid as daily rated Driver on muster roll. On 25th January, 1994 the demand notice was serve...

Cce Vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(94)LC77Tri(Delhi)

1. Revenue has filed the captioned appeals. Being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi, Ld. Commissioner in his order had held that sodium sulphate is a necessary input for the manufacture of paper and paper board. To support this view, he cited and relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of appellant himself reported in 1989 (43) ELT 805 : 1990 (27) ECR 279 (SC). Ld. Commissioner held that Sulphuric Acid is used in the manufacture of paper and paper board and thus, it was an input in the manufacture of paper and paper board. Regarding Hydrazine Hydrate Acid Ld. Commissioner held that it is used partly for manufacture of paper and partly for purifying water by removing chlorine and oxygen in the water; that purified water is used partly for manufacture of paper and partly for producing steam for generation of electricity. He, therefore, discharged the SCN issued to the appellants.2. Arguing the case for R...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bhilwara Spinners

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT248TriDel

1. These appeals have come before us in the Larger Bench on account of reference made by a Bench consisting of a single Member. The reference is reproduced below : "Since the amount adjudicated upon exceeds the competence (according to the scale of adjudicational powers) of the Assistant Commissioner, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise Commissionerate (Hqrs.) Jaipur (Raj) for earliest re-adjudicating the matter after issuing proper corrigendum/addendum to the Show Cause Notice and after following the principle of Natural Justice." 2. Arguing the appeal, ld. D.R. explains that the order has been passed on a wrong appreciation of adjudication powers of Assistant Collector in respect of Modvat disputes. He submits that the Board had issued separate orders fixing powers of Field Officers with regard to recovery action under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act and Modvat disputes under Rule 57-1 & U. M...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Video Sonics Company

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT96TriDel

1. This appeal has come before us in the Larger Bench in view of referral order, Miscellaneous Order No. M/22/1987-B2 passed by a Bench of two Members. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows.2. Respondent imported Video Cassette covers without tapes and parts.According to the importer, it was to be classified under Tariff Item 39.07 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and not under Item 92.01/13, as contended by the department. Assistant Collector rejected the assessee's contention and classified it under Heading 92.01/13. He was of the view that it is part of identifiable article covered by Heading 92. Respondent took up the matter in appeal. Appellate Authority took the view that the imported items fall under Heading 39.07. Revenue in this appeal challenges the stand taken by the appellate authority.3. When this case was argued, Board's Section 37B Notification No.4/97-C.E. was brought to our notice. For a proper understanding of that notification, we re...