Delhi Court May 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 2 of about 254 results (0.021 seconds)Chandan Metal Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT506TriDel
1. In this appeal, the appellants, M/s. Chandan Metal Products Pvt.Ltd. have challenged the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) dated 10-11-1994 vide which he had affirmed the order of the Asstt.Collector regarding the classification of their products as detailed in the order itself except one product known as 'Letter Rack with Shelves'.2. The appellants filed four classification lists bearing Nos. 31, 36, 37 & 40 of 92 classifying their various products as detailed in the impugned order itself, under various tariff headings attracting different rates of duty. The Asstt. Collector classified their products - Letter Rack with Shelves under Tariff subheading No. 9403.00, Bin Cabinet and Bin Cabinet set under Tariff Heading No. 83.03/ Cab Steel Fronts (frame with doors) under Tariff Heading No. 94.03, Single Shutter Grill Gate under Tariff Heading No. 83.03 and Corner plates/gussets/panels, panel plates, partitions, partition plates and slotted angles, slotted channels, et...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Sukhjit Starch and Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT506TriDel
1. The respondents herein are engaged inter alia in the manufacture of Sorbitol (Diglucital), Commercial and I.P. Grade. They hold a drug licence for the manufacture of Sorbitol IP Grade. They cleared Sorbitol manufactured by them on payment of duty at the rate of 10% ad valorem in terms of Notification No. 6/94, dated 1-3-1994 (upto 15-3-1995) and thereafter under Notification No. 8/95, dated 16-3-1995.2. The Department was of the view that Sorbitol in liquid form manufactured by the respondents fell for classification under GET sub-heading 3823.00 attracting duty at the rate of 20% ad valorem and not under GET subheading 2905.90 attracting concessional rate of 10% ad valorem as availed. Hence a show cause notice proposing classification under GET sub-heading 3823.90 and raising a duty demand of Rs. 16,02,76s/- was issued on 26-7-1995.3. The Adjudicating Authority accepted the assessees' claim for classification under GET sub-heading 2905.90 read with Notification No.6/94 and No. 8/9...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Control Tech Electronics
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT369TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order dated 28-2-1994 passed by the Collector (Appeals) vide which he had reversed the order in original dated 15-6-1993 of the Assistant Collector who denied the benefit of exemption Notification No.175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 to the respondents and confirmed the duty demand on them besides imposing penalty of Rs. 25,000/-.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be stated as under :- 3. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of membrane switches as per the drawings and specifications given to them by their customers. They filed classification lists claiming benefit of exemption Notification No. 175/86-C.E. as SSI unit. Their classification lists were approved by the Assistant Collector but they were issued show cause notice by the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise that they were not entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification as they were manufacturing and clearing membrane s...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ramatronics (i) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT492TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue the matter relates to the classification of the Chip on Board which were specifically designed to fit into the clock of the watch movements. This chip on board generates basic time signals of one second after stepping up the time signals of the quartz crystals. Subsequently the signal of one second is used to generate minute and hour signals mechanically by means of gears. This description finds place in the order in appeal.2. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) has taken a view that as the chip on board was an article suitable for use solely or principally as part of the clock/watch movement and it was not specifically described elsewhere; as such they were correctly classifiable along with the clock/watch under Heading No. 91.14 as other clock or parts.3. No one is present for the respondents. The notice for today's hearing had been issued to them on 10-4-2000. As the matter is old we have considered the matter after hearing Shri Satnam S...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Jayana Times Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT514TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue the issue involved is regarding the availability of exemption Notification No. 72/86 in respect of watch straps. The Assistant Collector through order in original dated 15-4-1994 took the view that the watch straps having been separately mentioned under sub-heading 9113.00 of the CETA, were not entitled to the benefit of this notification which applied only to the watch components. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) had reversed the order of the Assistant Collector by holding that the chapter sub-heading 9113.00 of Chapter 91 bears the description as clocks and watches and parts thereof and the watch straps have not been mentioned under sub-heading 9113.00 of the Chapter, must be construed as parts/components of watches.2. None has come present on behalf of the respondents although notice for today's hearing was sent to them on 20-4-2000. The respondents are from Sahibabad/Ghaziabad but no response has been received from them.The matter being ol...
Tag this Judgment!Balwant Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1; 2000(55)DRJ22
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. There are canteens in Parliament House and Parliament House Annexe and petitioners are working in these canteens. They are the employees of these canteens on casual basis which are being run by Canteen Committee of Lok Sabha Employees Union. These petitioners have been working in these canteens for number of years. Their demand in this writ petition is for regularisation of their services and treating them as employees of Lok Sabha Secretariat on the ground that they are serving in these canteens for last several years. 2. The case of the petitioners is that although the canteens are being run by the Canteen Committee, which is arrayed as respondent No. 3, Chief Patron of respondent No.3 is the Speaker of Lok Sabha and Patron is Secretary General of Lok Sabha. Other office bearers of this Committee are all employees of Lok Sabha Secretariat that is respondent No. 2 Respondent No. 2 even pays 70 per cent of the share of salaries of the petitioners and 30 per cent i...
Tag this Judgment!Dharambir Vs. State of Nct of Delhi and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1145a; 2000(57)DRJ60
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Facts are brief and undisputed it will be useful to state these facts first:Petitioner was employed as chowkidar in Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'MCD', for short) school in Khera Kalan, Delhi on 2.12.1985. His services were terminated on 25.2.1992. He kept quite and did not challenge his termination for long. However in April 1996 he started making representations to the Office of Chief Minister, Delhi. Private Secretary of Chief Minister wrote to Director of Primary Education, MCD for taking sympathetic view. But, no favourable response was received. This all happened in the year 1996. Thereafter on 20th February, 1997 petitioner raised alleged dispute by filing statement of claim before Conciliation Officer, in the Office of Labour Commissioner, Rajpur Road, Delhi. MCD was summoned and it filed its reply showing inability to reinstate the petitioner. Conciliation proceedings accordingly ended in failure. Conciliation Officer submitt...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak Tandon Vs. J and K Bank Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)196
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner in this case is challenging his transfer from Delhi to Mumbai office of respondent bank and seeks quashing of transfer order dated 20.10.1999 by which this transfer was effected. The transfer is challenged on twin grounds : (a) it is mala fide and (b) it is in contravention of his terms of appointment. The averments made in the petition forming the basis of aforesaid challenge may be summarised in the first instance. On 16.9.1992, respondent No.1 bank applied to the Securities Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as the SEBI) for grant of registration as a Merchant Banker under the provision of SEBI (Merchant Bank) Rules and Regulations 1992. In 1993 the respondent bank submitted curriculum vitae/bio data of its various personnel working with the bank to the SEBI for approval of its Merchant Banking Division. Vide its communication dated 1.11.1994, SEBI informed the respondent bank, that although the bank was eligible for grant of certif...
Tag this Judgment!Gyan Singh (Dr.) and ors. Vs. National Institute of Health and Family ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)242; 86(2000)DLT595; 2000(54)DRJ908
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. This petition is filed by 3 petitioners. Respondent is National Institute of Health and Family Welfare (NIHFW for short). All 3 petitioners joined NIHFW as Medical Officers w.e.f. 24.4.1982, 30.7.1986 and 16.10.1986 respectively. It is the case of the petitioners that in the year 1989, Memorandum of Settlement was signed between the Central Government on the one side and representatives of Doctors on the other side which, interalia, provided for the constitution of high powered committee to look into all aspects of career mode and cadre restructuring and make proposals with a view to enable service Doctors to take their due place among the best of Group-A service of the Central Government and ensure similarity in career prospects among the 4 sub-cadres of Central Health Scheme (CHS for short). Committee was formed under the Chairmanship of Sh.R.K.Tikku, Secretary (Coordination) in the Cabinet Secretariat which submitted its report and recommendations to the Govern...
Tag this Judgment!R.P. Sharma Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)232; [2000(87)FLR668]
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Petitioner in this case was working as Sanitary Inspector/Health Inspector with the respondent- Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as MCD, for short) On 17th November, 1992 he was placed under suspension as he was arrested for allegedly committing an offence u/Ss. 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short). Chargesheet was filed in the Court and trial took place which resulted in order/judgment dated 30th October, 1995 delivered by Special Judge u/Ss.7 and 13(2) of the Act. Vide order dated 1st November, 1995 Special Judge sentenced the petitioner to two years rigorous imprisonment and Rs.15,000/- as fine u/Ss.7 and 3 of the Act plus half year rigorous imprisonment and Rs.2000/- as fine u/S. 13(2) of the Act. Petitioner filed appeal against the conviction and sentence to this Court vide Criminal Appeal No. 207 of 1995 which was admitted on 28th November, 1995 and order of conviction and sent...
Tag this Judgment!