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.
Sadh Ram Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-2002
Reported in: 97(2002)DLT228; 2002(62)DRJ765
ORDERSanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. This additional affidavit has been filed by the respondents in he Court todaywhich is taken or record. It is stated in the affidavit that after examination by theMedical Board the petitioner has been declared unfit for the post of driver.2. This issue has already been examined in Rajbir Singh v. Delhi TransportCorporation and Ors. : 97(2002)DLT19 , holding that such a person is entitled to beconsidered for employment under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (EqualOpportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.3. The writ petition is thus allowed and the order dated 27.11.1995 where by thepetitioner was denied alternative employment of equal level as a driver and t heorder of termination dated 21.6.1996 both passed by the respondent-Corporationare hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to take the petitioner back intoservice and pay the salary from the date when respondent stopped paying fullsalary after termination of his ...
Shravasti Kisan Sahkari Chini Vs. Commr. of C. Ex., Allahabad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT118TriDel
The appellants are manufacturers of sugar and molasses as well as rectified spirit (ethyl alcohol) and fusel oil. They had obtained central excise registration under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for manufacture of sugar and molasses in 1992. They took separate registration under the said Rule for manufacture of ethyl alcohol and fusel oil in 1994. Both the sugar unit and the distillery unit (wherein ethyl alcohol and fusel oil were manufactured) were comprised in the same premises. In January, 2001, the appellants applied to the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise and the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise for a common registration for all the above excisable goods by way of incorporation of ethyl alcohol and fusel oil in the certificate of registration relating to sugar and molasses. The Superintendent of Central Excise acceded to this request and, by letter dated 16-3- 2001, informed the appellants that their 1994 registration had been merged with 1992 regi...
Vijay Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Raipur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC565
1. These appeals arise out of an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Raipur, dated 26-4-2001 pursuant to an order of remand passed by this Tribunal in Final Order Nos. 1520-1521/2000-B, dated 3-10-2000. Appeal E/357 is filed by Shri Iqbal Singh, Proprietor of M/s, Allite Enterprises and Appeal E/356 is at the instance of Shri Vijay Kumar, an employee of the above mentioned proprietary concern.2. M/s. Allite Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as the importers) having IEC No. 1399004671 filed a Bill of Entry dated 24-1-2000 at Container Freight Station, Raipur for clearance of import consignment of 45,000 pieces of 'Blank Video Cassettes' made in Japan imported from Singapore. The import consignment was declared as 1/2" Blank Video Cassette of Panasonic Brand; made in Japan for use on S-VHS/Digital S-VCR ITC (HS)-85239003-20 in the Bill of Entry. It was claimed that the import was under 'OGL'. The customs authorities took the view that the cassettes impor...
Paradise Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Commr. of C. Ex., Chandigarh
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT354TriDel
2. The appellants have sought rectification of the impugned Final Order No. A/546/2001-NB(D), dated 27-6-2001 vide which their appeal along with three other connected appeals, was dismissed which was filed by them against the impugned order-in-original dated 31-5-2001 passed by the Commissioner determining the nature of the furnace installed in their factory premises and their liability to discharge the duty under the Compound Levy Scheme in terms of Rule 5 of the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997.3. The learned Counsel has stated that specific plea was taken in the grounds of appeal about the non-applicability of Rule 5 of the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 to that case, but the same had not been considered. Therefore, this mistake being apparent, the impugned order deserves to be recalled.4. The learned SDR has not seriously contested the application of the appellants. Me has only stated that the impugned final...
East India Udyog Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT739TriDel
1. M/s. East India Udyog Ltd. have filed this ROM application stating that two issues were raised before the Tribunal and the Tribunal in the impugned order only decided one of the issues and did not decide the other issue [1998 (99) E.L.T. 422 (Tri.)].2. Arguing the ROM, Shri Bipin Garg, Id. Counsel submits that the assessee contested both denial of Modvat credit benefit of Rs. 8,85,441/- as well as imposition of penalty of Rs. 2.5 lakhs. He submits that this will be evident from paras 2 and 5 of the Grounds of Appeal. He submits that in para 2 of the Grounds of Appeal, the appellant had stated "The lower authorities erred in denying the appellants the substantial benefit of Modvat merely because of procedural lapse in the non-maintenance of accounts on the part of the appellants". "The Commissioner having conceded that the imposition of penalty was harsh in the circumstances of the appellant's case ought either to have refrained from imposing any penalty or should have relented by i...
Nova Steels (India) Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC544
1. When these applications for dispensing with pre-deposit came up for hearing, it was agreed by both sides that the appeal itself can be disposed of.2. Appeal No. E/2100/2001-A is directed against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 9.7.2001 rejecting the application for waiver of pre-deposit filed by the appellant herein before the Commissioner (Appeals). Appeal No. 2525/2001-A is against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal itself for non-compliance with the direction to make pre-deposit as mentioned earlier.3. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that before the application for waiver of pre-deposit came up for hearing before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 21.6.2001 a letter had been submitted to the effect that due to sudden demise of a very close relative of the Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant the case is to be adjourned to another date. The Ld. Counsel, points out that there is endorsement by the Secretary to Com...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Patiala Distillers and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC356
1. The Commissioner (Appeals) following the decision of this Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Chandigarh v. Ranger Breweries Ltd. allowed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved by this order Commissioner, Central Exxise, Chandigarh has filed this appeal.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture/propagation of yeast for captive use in the manufacture of alcoholic liquor which is not chargeable to Central Excise duty. The Department alleged that yeast being intermediate product were chargeable to duty by virtue of Notification No. 67/95-CE dated 16.3.95. Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondents herein asking them to explain as to why duty should not be demanded from them and why penalty should not be imposed.3. The Assistant Commissioner adjudicating the case confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 18,676. He also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 2,500. The assessee went in appeal before the Commissio...
Metal Cam Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC350
1. Shri K.K. Anand, Ld. Advocate, submitted that the Tribunal vide Stay Order No. 129/2001-B dated 9.11.2001 directed the applicants to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs towards the duty; that they had not pleaded financial hardship at the time when their stay application was heard; that due to financial problems, the applicant has been able to make pre-deposit of only Rupees 2-5. lakhs; that as per provisional balance sheet, as on 30.9.2001, there is a net loss of amounting to Rs. 47,754; that the liquidity position of the applicant is also bad; that they have negative balance with the bank meaning thereby that they had drawn more amount than the limit. The Ld. Advocate, therefore, requested that they may not be directed to deposit any further amount.2. Opposing the prayer, Shri M.P. Singh, Ld. DR, submitted that at the time of final hearing of the stay petition, they had not mentioned anything about the financial hardship which is apparent from the Stay Order, wherein it is recorded that no fina...
Shri Vijay Tailor and ors. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC230
1. As in these 5 appeals the issues are inter-related all of them are being taken up for disposal together.2. Shri S.S. Gupta, learned advocate, submitted that Kisan Extrusion Ltd. manufacture PVC pipes and fittings; that prior to March, 1994, PVC pipes were exempted from payment of duty; that from 1.3.94 the impugned products became liable for payment of duty which were cleared by them during March 1994 claiming the exemption under Notification No. 1/93-CE dated 28.2.93; that Jt. Commissioner has confirmed the duty of excise on the ground that the goods were bearing the brand name 'Kisan' belonging to other person who was not eligible for the benefit of the Notification No. 1/93. The learned Advocate mentioned that they are not disputing the duty liability of the product; that they are also not disputing changes made in the invoices. He, however, mentioned that the amount of duty is required to be recomputed as the duty has been worked out on the gross sale price without deducting th...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Kesar Enterprises Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT523TriDel
1. Commissioner, Central Excise, Lucknow has filed the application stating that a mistake has crept in the Tribunal's Final Order No.A/784-86/2000-NB(DB), dated 14-8-2000. The mistakes are reported to be that the Tribunal while passing the Final Impugned Order disposed of the appeals against the Order-in-Appeal No. 23 to 25C.E./LKO/2000, dated 27-3-2000; that while discussing the facts of the subject cases only case involving duty amounting to Rs. 2,95,860/- was taken into account and penalty had been reduced to Rs. 50,000/-; that the Hon'ble Tribunal has neither discussed the other remaining cases involving duty amounting to Rs. 12,20,951/- and Rs. 7,59,817/ and penalty of equal amount nor has passed any order in respect of penalty imposed in these orders.2. Arguing the case for the Commissioner, Central Excise, Shri D.N.Choudhary, learned DR submits that a reading of paras 1, 2 and 3 shows clearly that the Tribunal had before it only that case in which the demand of duty of Rs. 2,95...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »