Delhi Court May 2000 Judgments

Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT400TriDel

1. These are eight appeals - two filed by M/s. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'OWM'), two filed by M/s. Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'NSM'), and four appeals filed by the Revenue being aggrieved with the common Order-in-Original Nos.130-133/CE/98 dated 29-7-1998 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh. They were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. M/s. OWM and M/s. NSM were engaged in the manufacture of knitted fabrics/knitwears and were using worsted woollen yarn. Yarn of wool in plain (straight) reel hank, whether single or multifold (hereinafter referred to as 'Hank Yarn') enjoyed full exemption from central excise duty under notification no. 24/95-CE dated 16-3-1995. Both M/s. OWM and M/s. NSM were using exempted woollen worsted yarn in hank form and were converting the same into cone yarn for use in the manufacture of knitted fabrics. Under Note 3 of Chapter 51 of the Central Excise Tarif...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Technico Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT516TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. Shri Ashok Kumar, ld. JDR while reiterating the grounds submitted that projection welding machine and CNC wire cut electric discharge machine were not used in the process of manufacture of final product and accordingly Modvat credit cannot extended to such items. On the other hand, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that projection welding machine is eligible as capital goods as per its use and function. The adjudicating authority did not specify as to how the use/function is not a process of manufacture. Further, he observed that CNC wire cut Electric discharge machine has the dual function of manufacture of 'Sector for Window Regulator' and Press Dies. As Sector for Window Regulator is an auto part the machine is a capital good and credit is admissible on it. In view of categorical finding and since it is a matter of appreciation of evidence, I am not inclined to interfere with this order. Accordingly, appeals are dismissed....

Vikram Detergents Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT56TriDel

1. The reference required to be considered by this Bench in these appeals. "Whether in the facts and circumstances the appellants transaction satisfied the requirement for returnability of the packing by the buyer to the assessee for entitlement of deduction of cost in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(i) of the Central Excises Act, or transaction does not satisfy the requirement for returnability of the packing, and not eligible for deduction".2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of detergent powder and they have an arrangement with M/s Hindustan Lever Ltd. for repacking of bulk detergent powder received by them into small consumer packs which are thereafter delivered "in HDPE bags" on payment of duty on the basis of assessable value derived from Hindustan Lever's (hereinafter referred to as trader) sale price. Admitted position is that there is no buyer at the time when goods are removed from the assessee (appellant) factory. The issue involve...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Asseone Tools (P) Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT183TriDel

1. In this appeal, the Revenue has challanged the order-in-appeal dated 9-1-1995 of the Collector (Appeals) vide which he had reversed the order of the A.C. dated 7-9-1994 regarding duty demand against the respondents.2. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of hand tools falling under chapter heading 82 of CETA. They filed classification list classifying their product screw driver special with Nean Bulb and with extension Cord, under chapter heading 82.05. The Assistant Collector however modified their classification list and classified product under chapter heading 85.43 by treating it as an electrical apparatus. This order of the AC, in an appeal filed by the respondents, was set aside by the Collector (Appeals) vide order dated 20-9-1994. Mean while, demands were raised from the respondents by the A.C. on the basis of his original order dated 12-4-1994 and he confirmed the same through order-in-original order dated 7-9-1994. The respondents challanged this order of AC in ...

Sanjay Kapoor Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT447TriDel

1. This appeal by Shri Sanjay Kapoor is directed against imposition of penalty of Rs. 7 lacs on him vide Order-in-Original No.2/Commissioner/97, dated 26/27-2-1997 of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Gujarat. The learned Counsel representing the appellant submits that in the present case, the import was made by Shri Ram Kirpal, Proprietor, Sunder Brij Ayurvedic Pharmacy. Shri Sanjay Kapoor was only a co-accused in the offence. The penalty imposed on the importer, viz. Shri Ram Kirpal was only Rs. 1,000/- while a penalty of Rs. 7 lacs has been imposed on the co-accused, Shri Sanjay Kapoor. The learned Counsel submitted that such disproportionate penalties cannot be imposed on conspirators in the same case and who are equally guilty in the offence. He, therefore, submitted that the penalty imposed on Shri Sanjay Kapoor is arbitrary and is required to be reduced. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel drew our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in...

Mohd. Azaj Khan and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The learned Counsel for the parties in the aforesaid three Original Applications (O.A. 1311/97, O.A. 1312/97 and O.A. 1313/97), have submitted that the issues involved in these cases are identical and so they have been heard together. Accordingly, these cases are being disposed of by a common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts in Satya Prakash Tripathi and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (OA 1312/97) have been referred to.2.The grievance of the applicants in the aforesaid three applications arises out of the action taken by the respondents in respect of recruitment for the posts of Assistant Station Master (ASM)/Enquiry-cum-Reservation Clerk (ERC) in the Northern Railways against Category Nos. 1 and 2 of Employment Notice No. 1/79-80 (Annexure A-I). According to the applicants, for no fault of theirs, the respondents are giving them seniority from the date they had been selected and posted as Clerks, that is 1.9.1994, although they had been selected by the aforesaid Empl...

State Bank of India Vs. M/S. Glavkosmos and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)634

ORDERVikramjit Sen, J.1. In the case of ONGC Vs . Collector of General Excise : 1992(61)ELT3(SC) the Apex Court had observed that it had 'on more than one occasion pointed out that Public Section Undertakings of Central Government and the Union of India should not fight their litigations in Court by spending money on fees of counsel, court fees, procedural expenses and wasting public time. Courts are maintained for appropriate litigations. Court's time is not to be consumed by litigation which are carried on either side at public expenses from the source. Notwithstanding these observations repeated on a number of occasions, the present cases appear to be an instance of total callousness. The letter of October 3, 1988, indicated that the Cabinet Secretary was looking into the matter. That has not obviously been followed up. As an instance of wasting public time and energy this matter involves a principle to be examined at the highest level'. Five years later the Court explained this dec...

Dr. (Mrs.) Usha Puri Vs. Governing Body, Aditi Mahavidhyalaya, Univ. o ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)639; 2000(55)DRJ98

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. A neat and interesting question of law falls for determination in the present writ petition. There are certain allegations against the petitioner who is working as Principal of Respondent No.1 College relating to financial and other irregularities. In view of these allegations, governing body of the Respondent No.1 College, namely, Aditi Mahavidhyalaya which is affiliated to University of Delhi has passed Resolution dated 5.3.2000 deciding to hold an enquiry into the allegations of irregularities and to place the petitioner under suspension during the pendency of this. However, as per the provisions of Ordinances XII & xviii of the Calendar of University of Delhi, prior approval of the Vice-Chancellor, University of Delhi is needed to suspend the petitioner. thereforee, this suspension cannot come into effect unless prior approval is accorded. However, vide Resolution dated 5.3.2000 itself while deciding to suspend the petitioner and seeking approval of the Vice-C...

M/S. R.S. Gupta Vs. Executive Engineer, Dda and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)784

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. These Objections have been filed on behalf of Delhi Development Authority against the Award dated 5.8.1994. It is yet another instance of the DDA filing Objections against Awards in a mechanical manner. The first ground is that the Arbitrator was to give a valid reasoned award. Having perused the impugned Award I find that the Arbitrator has given reasons and in such minute details as is uncommon in Arbitrations. There is, thereforee, no justification for this Objection being raised at all. It shows a total non-application of mind. As regards the other claims, the perspicuous decision of his Lordship B.N. Kirpal, J. in Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board v. R.J. Shah & Company 1999 (2) Arb. LR 316 is a complete answer. 2. The challenge in this Objections is to the Award in Claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 10 and 11. The following Table will illustrate the details: S. Amount Claimed Award Towards No. 1. Rs.2855/- Rs.2445/- 0.5% rebate 2. Rs.35,000/- Rs.560/- Work done ...

Dharampal Vs. General Manager (Adm.) Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)801

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. The father of the petitioner was working with the respondents who died on 17.12.1987 while in employment. After his death petitioner's mother submitted an application dated 25.02.1988 to the respondents requesting that petitioner be given employment by respondents on compassionate grounds. Some information was obtained from the petitioner by the respondents regarding details of agricultural land and income of elder brother. Thereafter, Screening Committee of the respondents considered the request but rejected the same on 10.02.1993. Petitioner, thereafter, made requests to higher authorities but as these representations do not yield any results, present petition was filed in December,1994 seeking quashing of impugned order dated 2.12.1993 by which petitioner was informed that his request was rejected and mandamus is sought directing the respondents to give him job. Respondents have the scheme of appointment on compassionate basis and as per the respondents, reques...