Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-23-2001
Reported in : (2002)(147)ELT490Tri(Mum.)bai
2. This is an appeal filed by the department against the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad made in Order-in-Appeal No.581/97 made in filed No. (24-KDL) CUS/COMMR/(A)/AHD dated 8.10.1997 whereunder he had held that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Custom, Kandla made in Order-in-Original No. KDL A.C./04/96 APPB. G.R.I dated 29.11.1996 confirming the duty short levied amounting to Rs.22,57,65,172/- demanded under show cause notice dated 30.10.1996 was wrong and allowed the appeal of the respondents.3. Respondents had been regularly importing heptene/nonene at Kandla.They were using these chemicals for manufacture of oxo chemicals at their factory. There was a dispute with regard to the classification as to whether heptene/nonene could be classified as "AIF/Motor Spirit" or "otherwise". According to the opinion of the Chief Chemist, C.R.C.L., New Delhi, if end use and flash point criteria are taken into consideration, then he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Feb-15-2001
1. Association of Seamless Tubes manufactures filed a petition before the Designated Authority, Ministry of Commerce, Govt. of India alleging dumping into India of seamless tubes originating in or exported from Austria, Czeck Republic, Russia, Romania and Ukraine. Upon satisfaction that there was sufficient evidence regarding dumping, the Designated Authority initiated Anti Dumping investigation against the imports from these countries in respect of seamless tubes by issue of Public Notice dated 21st May, 1999. The authority published its preliminary findings vide notification dated 10th November, 1999. The preliminary findings recommended imposition of Provisional Anti Dumping duties.Subsequently, at the conclusion of investigations, which included hearing of the interested parties who took part in the investigations, the Authority notified its Final Findings on 19th May, 2000. The Final Findings recommended levy of Definitive Anti Dumping duties. The Anti Dumping duty was recommende...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : May-17-2001
Reported in : (2002)IILLJ353MP; 2002(1)MPLJ385
ORDERS.K. Kulshrestha, J. 1. All these petitions challenge orders identical to the order dated November 27, 1999 (Annexure P/5) passed by the Labour Court and order Annexure P/7 dated February 23, 2000 passed by the Industrial Court affirming the said order Annexure P/5 in Civil Appeal No. 260/99/MPIR in the case of the employee Budha Rao Magarde in W.P. No. 3510/2000 and were, therefore, analogously heard and are being decided by this common order on the basis of the facts of W.P. No. 3510/2000 / Engineer-in-Chief, P.H.E.D. and Ors. v. Budha Rao Magarde and Ors.. The employee in each of the above cases had approached the Labour Court under Section 31(3) of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (MPIR Act for short) for seeking classification on the post on which he had been working in the Kolar Project of the petitioner Public Health Engineering Department. It is not disputed that the employees were inducted on daily wages from 1989 onwards till 1993.2. The case of the employees befo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-03-2001
Reported in : AIR2001SC3090; 94(2001)DLT1(SC); 2001LabIC3986; 2001(6)SCALE604; (2002)1SCC344; 2001(4)SCT1068(SC); 2002(1)SLJ127(SC)
Rajendra Babu, J. 1. This is a matter which ought to have been resolved by respondent No.8 and the appellants and unnecessary litigation is being resorted to by all the parties. 2. By the Constitution (7th Amendment) Act, 1956, the States in Part C and Territories in Part D of the First Schedule were replaced by the 'Union Territories', which, under Part II of the First Schedule, as amended inter alia, include the Union Territory of Delhi. The administration of the Union Territories is carried on by the Union, through an Administrator. As stated by this Court in New Delhi Municipal Committee vs . State of Punjab : AIR1997SC2847 , the President, who is the executive head of a Union Territory does not function as the head of the Central Government, but as the head of the Union Territory under powers specially vested in him under Article 239 of the Constitution thereby occupying a position analogous to that of a Governor in a State. Though the Union Territories are centrally administered ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-09-2001
Reported in : AIR2001SC590; 2001(73)ECC429; 2001(127)ELT649(SC); JT2001(1)SC394; 2001(1)SCALE88; [2001]1SCR184
RUMA PAL, J.The question to be decided in this appeal is whether the appellant was an exporter for the purposes of Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant processes sea foods. It exported some of its products directly to foreign buyers but it was not an eligible export house under the Import and Export Policy 1982-83 (referred to as the `Policy') and it could not avail of the special facilities granted to eligible export houses under the Policy. An agreement was entered into between an export house and the appellant on 24th August, 1982 by which the appellant agreed to export the processed sea food in the name of the export house against purchase orders placed on the export house by foreign buyers so that the export house could claim the benefits under the Policy in consideration for which the appellant would be paid 2.25% of the FOB value of the goods exported. In terms of the agreement, the appellant's processed sea foods were to be sold to the export house after the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-12-2001
Reported in : AIR2001Mad489
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J. 1. First defendant in O.S.No.20 of 1987 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore has filed the above appeal. The plaintiff/respondent herein filed the said suit against the first defendant and 15 others, for recovery of a sum of Rs.30,41,285.30 from the first defendant with interest thereon at the rate of 19.5 per cent per annum from the date of suit till date of payment. By judgment and decree dated 25.10.90, the Court below has granted a decree for Rs.19,18,792 with interest per annum at 12 per cent per annum from 5.10.83 to 29.9.86, and from the date of the suit till date ofrealisation with proportionate costs, hence the present appeal by the first defendant.2. The case of the plaintiff is briefly stated hereunder:- The plaintiff entered into a contract of insurance with the first defendant on 12.9.1983 to cover the second defendant's buildings, machinery, stocks of all kinds, raw materials, gunny bags, barrels, tins, firewood waste cashew nu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-27-2001
Reported in : [2003]131STC88(Raj); 2002(2)WLC106; 2001(3)WLN112
Chauhan, J. (1). The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the Notification (corrigendum) dated 30.9.99 (Annx. 7) and/or in the alternative to hold that the said notification has no application to the petitioner and also for quashing the consequential provisional assessment orders and notices and further to quash the order of the State Level Screening Committee dated 13.12.1999 as well as the eligibility certificate dated 29.2.2000 in so far as the same restricted the petitioner's benefits to 25% instead of full benefits as per the original incentive scheme. (2). The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in manufacturing and selling of Portland cement and clinker. The State Government notified the Rajasthan Sales Tax/Central Sales Tax Exemption Scheme for Industries, 1998 (for short, 'the Exemption Scheme') vide Gazette Notification dated 7.4.98, in exercise...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-22-2001
Reported in : [2003]115CompCas587(P& H)
J.S. Khehar, J.1. MSTC Ltd., the petitioner is a Government company incorporated under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Government of India holds about 90 per cent. of its shares. The registered office of the petitioner-company is located in Calcutta. According to the averments made in the petition, the petitioner-company is carrying on the business of import, selling, auctioning of various categories of scrap, materials and allied products to various customers like Government departments, corporations, companies, firms and individual throughout the country.2. Shree Diwan Steels (India) Ltd., the respondent-company had its registered office at Ludhiana. Surjit Finance Ltd. filed Company Petition No. 96 of 1997 praying for the winding up of Shree Diwan Steels (India) Ltd., i.e., the respondent-company under Section 433(e) and (f) of the Companies Act, 1956, on July 3, 1997. On February 10, 1999, Company Petition No. 96 of 1997 was allowed by the passing of a winding up order ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-20-2001
Reported in : 2001(133)ELT26(Bom)
R.G. Deshpande, J.1. Petitioner, a Private Limited Company, is doing the business through its factory at E-5, M.I.D.C. Industrial Area, Chikalthana, Aurangabad. It deals in boilers and boiler parts falling under Chapter sub-headings 8402 and 8404 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (for short the Act of 1985). Needless to mention, the petitioner holds a valid licence as required under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the purposes of brevity).2. By Notification bearing No. 120/81-C.E., dated 15-5-1981, which was amended by Notification No. 209/82-C.E., dated 9-8-1982 and a subsequent Notification No. 80/86-CE., dated 10-2-1986, necessary exemption from the whole of the excise duty leviable on the goods as specified in the table to the said notifications was granted. Prior to the abovesaid notifications, no doubt, the items included in the notification happened to be covered in tariff Item No. 68 (NES) of the First Schedule to the Act of 1985. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-30-2001
Reported in : (2002)IILLJ383Bom
R.M. Lodha, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal was admitted by the Division Bench of this Court on June 22, 1994 by the following order:CORAM : H.H. KANTHARJA and A.P. SHAH, JJ: Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 given an undertaking to this Court to reinstate the 1st respondent in his original position effective from tomorrow, June 23, 1994 and pay him 50% of the back wages within one week from today. The appeal is admitted. Appellant No. 2 shall file the undertaking in this Court in the course of the day. The undertaking is accepted. Certified copy expedited. June 22, 1994.2. It appears that present respondent No. 1 took out a precise on August 20, 2001, Para 6 of which reads thus:'6. However, when the Appeal came up for final hearing before Their Lordships The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PALSHIKAR and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice VAZIFDAR on August 14, 2001 the Appellants sought to contend that the Appeal was admitted in respect of the entire issue of reinstatement and back wages, while the Respondents sought ...
Tag this Judgment!