Delhi Court January 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Birla Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-01-2002
Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT719TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Birla Corpn. Ltd. the issue involved is as to whether the machine parts were manufactured by them or by their job workers.2. Shri Sanjay Grover, ld. Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufactured rough castings for various parties which were cleared on payment of duty to various job workers who then used to carry out further processes to convert the rough castings into machined castings as required by the Customs; that the adjudicating authority had demanded the duty on the machined castings from the appellants on the ground that after the machined castings were received back, they were giving heat treatment to the same and supplying to the customers after packing and also that their Engineers were supervising the entire work in the job workers' premises. The ld. Advocate further submitted that the statements of the job workers clearly show that they were independent contractors and not hired labours of the Appellant; that one job worker M/s. Niti...
Ballarpur Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-01-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT182TriDel
1. The appellants manufacture Taper and Paper Boards'. They were using wrapping paper for wrapping different varieties of paper manufactured by them. Such wrapping paper was either procured from outside the factory or the same was manufactured in their own factory. During the period from 16-3-76 to 18-3-86, they claimed the benefit of proforma credit under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 totally amounting to Rs. 83,45,027.21 on the wrapping paper brought from outside and used in wrapping the paper manufactured and cleared by them on payment of duty. This benefit was initially denied to them but however, relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E. v. Eastend Paper Industries reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 201, their liability to the proforma credit in respect of the duty paid on the wrapping paper was accepted. Consequently, the appellants filed a refund claim of Rs. 83,45,027.21 on 6-2-97 being the duty paid on the wrapping paper purchased by them f...
J. Mitra and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-01-2002
Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT524TriDel
1. The main dispute in these appeals is on classification of the following products :- There is also a dispute as to whether the demand of duty is time-barred or not. The Commissioner of Central Excise, by order dated 10-2-2000, held that the products mentioned at Serial Nos. (1) to (6) were classifiable as 'Blood-grouping reagents' under Chapter Sub-Heading 3005.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 [in short, CET Schedule] as claimed by the Department and not as 'cultures of micro-organisms' under CSH 3002.00 of the said Schedule as claimed by M/s. J. Mitra & Co. Ltd. He classified the rest of the products as 'Diagnostic and laboratory reagents' under CSH 3822.00 vis-a-vis the assessee's claim to have them classified as 'Antisera' under CSH 3002.00. The Commissioner confirmed against the assessee-company demand of duty to the extent of Rs. 1,25,85,035/- on the products cleared by them during 1994-95 to August 1999 and imposed on them a penalty of equal amount...
Sangameshwar Pipe and Steel Traders Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Belgau ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-01-2002
Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC213
1. The appellants had, under an agreement dated 16-10-1986 entered into with M/s. Shri Someshwar Farmers' Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd. (in short, M/s. Someshwar), agreed to execute the work of providing, fabricating, erecting and roofing or factory building" for M/s.Someshwar at Laxmeshwar in accordance with the drawings, specifications and bills of quantities prepared by the latter's architects. They executed the work and raised bill dated 1-10-87 for an amount of Rs. 38,48,330.13 and received the payment. After investigative steps including scrutiny of the appellants' records, recording of statements of representatives of the appellant-firm and M/s. Someshwar etc., the department issued show cause notice (SCN) dated 31-3-92 through the Additional Collector proposing to recover from the appellants an amount of Rs. 1,19,232/- as duty of excise on fabricated steel structures viz.purlins, trusses etc. (valued at Rs. 38,48,330/-) allegedly manufactured at the site of M/s. Someshwar a...
G.C. Gupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-01-2002
Reported in: (2003)(1)SLJ1CAT
1. Applicant impugns the disciplinary authority's order dated 10.2.99 (Annexure A-1) imposing a penalty of 25% cut in pension for three years.2. Applicant was proceeded against departmentally vide Charge Memo dated 22.10.92 (Annexure A-2) under Rule 9 Railway Servants (Disciplinary & Appeal) Rules, 1968 on four Articles of Charge relating to the construction of a model station building at Meerut City, while working as Sr. Civil Engineer (Construction), Saharanpur, U.P.3. Applicant denied the charge upon which an enquiry was ordered. The E.O. in her findings dated 8.3.1996 (Annexure A-16) held charge No. I, III and IV as proved, and charge No II as partly proved; 4. A copy of the E.O's report was furnished to applicant on 4.4.97 (Annexure A-16) for representation if any within 15 days, falling which it would be presumed that applicant did not wish to make any representation.6. The impugned order dated 10.2.99 reveals that the General Manager, Northern Railway after considering the ...
Nand Kishore and ors. Vs. P.S. Bhatnagar, Chief Secretary, Govt. of Nc ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-01-2002
Reported in: 104(2003)DLT597
ORDERS.K. Mahajan, J.1. The Delhi Rural Development Authority (DRDA) was closed by the Government. The employees working in that department were declared surplus and were alleged to have been rendered jobless. These employees approached the Supreme Court and obtained the following directions:'In the circumstances, it is not possible to accede to the request of the petitioners that the respondents be directed to regularise them. The most that can be done for them is to direct the respondents (Delhi Administration) to keep them on a panel and if they are registered with the employment exchange and are qualified to be appointed on the relevant post, give them a preference in employment whereever there occur a vacancy in the regular post, which direction we give hereby.'2. The Supreme Court while disposing of the petition had thus held that it will not be possible for the Court to accede to the request of the petitioners to regularise them in the department. The Supreme Court had only issu...
- ‹ Prev
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- Next ›