Delhi Court September 2000 Judgments

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Shinghai Re-rolling Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT182TriDel

1. This reference application is filed by the Revenue on the ground that question of law arises with reference to the final Order No.A/853/97-NB, dated 24.07.1997. "Whether the facility of Deemed Modvat credit under Ministry of Finance Order No. MF(DR) order/TS/36/94-TRU, dated 01.03.1994 would be available to the Re-rollers even after crossing the monetary limit of Rs. 75 lacs in respect of value of clearances, in terms of Notification No. 1/93, dated 28.02.1993".3. On going through the submissions made by both sides and taking into consideration that point of law involved herein and particularly in view of the Larger Bench decision in the case of Digambar Foundary v.CCE, Allahabad reported in 2000 (118) E.L.T. 85 (Tribunal - LB), we are of the view that this question is required to be answered by the High Court. Accordingly, we are referring the following question to the High Court of M.P. for its considered opinion. "Whether the facility of Deemed Modvat credit under Ministry of Fi...

Leeds Kem Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT294TriDel

1 M/s. Leeds Kem (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessees') were engaged in the manufacture of products including "plantozyme" which was classified by them as bio-fertilizer under Central Excise Tariff Heading No. 31.01 attracting NIL rate of duty. Their classification lists, filed from time to time, claiming classification of the product under the said Tariff Heading were approved by the Department and, accordingly, the assessees were manufacturing and clearing the goods.While so, the Department wanted to change classification of "plantozyme" from TH 31.01 to TH. 38.08 and demand duty at the rate applicable to the latter heading. Accordingly, five show cause notices (SCNs) were issued to the assessees as below :-__________________________________________________________Sl. Date of SCN Period for which Amount of dutyNo. duty was demanded (Rs.)__________________________________________________________3. 18-9-1992 4/92 to 8/92 79,020.00 (Corrigendum In adjudication of the SCN at Sl. N...

Pt. Madan Lal and Sons Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001ACJ1456; 2001(2)ARBLR232(Delhi)

ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. The petitioner, a partnership firm, assails the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal (for short 'Tribunal') dated September 24, 1991. By that order the Tribunal decided that it had jurisdiction to deal with the dispute between the petitioner and Railway Administration, respondents No.1 and 2. The petitioner in this writ petition also seeks a declaration that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to proceed with transfer of case No. TA-I- 584/90 which was originally pending in this Court before coming into force of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short 'the Tribunal Act'). Besides the petitioner seeks transfer of the case from the Tribunal to this Court. 2. The facts lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner claims to be a partnership firm registered with the Registrar of Firms, Delhi under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. On October 26, 1986 petitioner instituted a suit, being Suit No. 841/86, for recovery of Rs. 1,28,520/- with interest at the rate of 12...

Sanjay Kr. Sharma Vs. National Centre for Trade Information and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001(88)FLR352]

ORDERN.G. Nandi, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner-Fixed term employee prays for regularisation of his service and emoluments as per the grades applicable to Government employees. 2. The say of the petitioner is that the petitioner was selected and appointed for the post of Office Attendant/Messenger initially for a period of three months on a consolidated salary of Rs. 2125/- per month vide order dated 9.4.1999; that the petitioner as such worked from 12.4.1999 to 11.7.1999 in the first instance; with renewal of the appointment from 14.7.1999 to 13.1.2000; that the petitioner's appointment was further extended from 17.1.2000 to 31.8.2000. According to the petitioner, the appointment was made in response to advertisement for regular vacancy; that his appointment was against regular vacancy and the work rendered was of a permanent nature and that the petitioner is entitled for regularisation of his service. 3. Respondent nos.1 & 2 filed counter-affidavit and refuted the claim o...

A.C. Gupta and Another Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd and Others.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ724

ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated April 30, 1990 in FAO No. 99/90. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows:- 2. On March 27, 1984 at about 9.15 a.m. Shri Vivek Gupta, who was riding a two wheeler was hit by a Matador driven by the fourth respondent and belonging to the second and third respondents. Shri Vivek Gupta sustained serious head injuries. He succumbed to his injuries in the hospital on the sixth day of the accident. The deceased Shri Vivek Gupta at the time of the incident was only 24 years old. He was a bachelor and was the only son of his parents. He was survived by his father aged 58 years, mother 50 years old and four younger sisters. Shri Vivek Gupta was B.E. (Mechanical) and was working as a Trainee Engineer with M/s. Batliboi & Co. He was drawing a stipend of Rs. 1,300 per month. On completion of the training, he would have received about Rs. 2,300 per month from the co...

M/S. Sony India Limited Vs. Uoi and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(144)ELT294(Del)

ORDERArun Kumar, J.1. This petition is directed against an order of the Customs Excise and Gold (Appellate) Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the CEGAT) dated 17th September, 1999 whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 20 crores towards duty within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the said order as a condition precedent for hearing the appeal filed by the petitioner before the CEGAT against the order dated 30th January, 1999 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, ICD, New Delhi impos- ing a duty in the sum of Rs. 42,89,75,196/- and a penalty of Rs. 30,19,92,183/- on the petitioner. 2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioners are engaged in the manufacturer of colour television (CTV) sets under the 'SONY' brand name in their factory at Dharuhera in the State of Haryana. According to the peti- tioners, at the relevant time they imported various components for the manufacture of colour TVs. On arrival of the respective consignments, the pet...

Rita Kishor and ors. Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2000Delhi417

ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. This is an application on behalf of the plaintiff under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking interim reliefs from the defendant-DDA. 2. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for compensation and damages against the defendant-DDA on account of the unnatural and untimely death of plain- tiff No.1's husband who was the father of the plaintiffs 2-3, who are minors. 3. At the time of his death, the deceased girl Raj Kishor was a senior- most Assistant Field Investigator in DDA and it is pleaded by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the deceased was due for promotion as a Field Investigator. 4. The plaintiff's case is that on 21st April 1994, there was a fatal accident in the lift installed in defendant - Delhi Development Authority's (hereinafter referred to as DDA) building in which the said girl Raj Kishor died. It is not in dispute that the deceased, Shri girl Raj Kishor, was an employee of the defendant-DDA and the lift was installed in DDA's bui...

Harsudha Vs. Hon'ble the CJ., of Delhi High Court and another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ706

ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. The appellant was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the High Court of Delhi some time in April 1985. On May 12, 1992 she was appointed as Junior Stenographer in ad hoc capacity. Thereafter on August 17, 1994 she was appointed as temporary Junior Stenographer on the establishment of this Court. On August 16, 1997 the respondents conducted a test for filling up the posts of Senior Stenographer against promotion quota. The appellant appeared in the test but was not selected. On the basis of this test, one Ram Singh, Junior Stenographer was promoted. By means of a Circular, being Circular No.311 dated 14.10.98, the Deputy Registrar (Establishment) invit- ed applications from eligible candidates for filing up vacant posts of Senior Stenographers against 50% promotion quota. The candidates, as on earlier occasion, were required to take the test. Pursuant to the Circular, the appellant applied and appeared in the test., but she was again not selected. Thereafter...

Ms. Suman Oberoi Vs. Prudential Capital Market Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal filed by the appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 1.2.1998, passed by District Forum No. III in Complaint Case No. 1617/97 - entitled Ms. Suman Oberoi v. Prudential Capital Market Limited, and subsequent order dated 4.2.2000, passed by the same District Forum in Case No. M/934/99/1617/97 also between the same parties. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum alleging non-payment of the FDR amount together with interest by the respondent even after the date of maturity. The complaint, filed by the appellant, was allowed by the District Forum vide order dated 1.2.1998, being impugned in the present proceedings and the District Forum directed the respondent to pay the FDR amount to the appellant as per the or...