Delhi Court April 1990 Judgments

Hajoori and Sons Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1990)(50)ELT460TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the orders of Collector of Central Excise, Bombay with reference to a refund claim filed before the Assistant Collector, Surat.2. The learned counsel stated that the appellants manufacture Aerated Waters, falling under T.I. No. 1D.3. They were using synthetic essences and therefore entitled to claim exemption of 10% in excise duty.5. They had filed classification lists in respect of their product such as Sosyo, Genovita, etc. declaring therein the relevant notifications having a bearing on the rates of duty, etc.7. In the matter of M/s. Duke and Sons, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay had held that essences cannot be termed as blended flavouring concentrates.8. In view of this judgment the appellant was liable to pay excise duty only at the rate of 10% and not at the rate of 20% mentioned in the classification list. As such the appellants were entitled for refund claimed.9. The refund claim was rejected as inadmissible and time-barred, by the Assistant Coll...

Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1990)(30)LC392Tri(Delhi)

1. In this appeal, the appellants have sought for setting aside the order-in-appeal dated 9-4-1985 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta by which he has upheld the order-in-original passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta dated 26-12-1984.2. The facts of the case, as narrated in the order-in-appeal, are that the appellants had submitted a refund claim for Rs. 1,33,879.01 on 13-8-1983 received in the office on 16-8-1983 for the period from 1-3-1975 to 28-2-1978 to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-XVI Division on the ground that in terms of Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta's order dated 31-1-1983, their products were Ayurvedic medicines which stood exempted from payment of duty under Tariff Item 68 and as such, they were entitled to refund of duty paid during the period from 1-3-1975 to 28-2-1978 under compulsion and protest.3. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim by his order-in-original dated 26-12-1984 on the...

Sunrise Structurals and Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1990)LC568Tri(Delhi)

1. The applicants have made a prayer for dispensing with the predeposit of the duty amount of Rs. 8,38,922.13. Shri V. Sridharan, the learned advocate who has appeared on behalf of the applicant, pleaded that the impugned order was passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur and earlier the Assistant Collector had passed an order No. V(68) 3-3/85/9301-04 dated 31st July, 1985 and the Assistant Collector had adjudicated the same against show cause notice No. V(68) 3-3/85/2256 dated 11th March, 1985. Shri Sridharan stated that in view of amendment to Section 11-A which came into force from 27th December, 1985 where larger period was involved, the adjudication could have been done only by the Collector, and in the present matter the adjudication was done by the Assistant Collector and the order passed by the Assistant Collector is a nullity in the eyes of law. If the Collector was not satisfied with the order passed by the Assistant Collector, he should have resorted to Section 35-...

Subhash Aggarwal Agency Vs. Bhilwara Synthetics Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1990(2)ARBLR118(Delhi); 41(1990)DLT654

C.L. Chaudhry, J.(1) M/S. Subhash Aggarwal Agencies (hereinafter called the petitioner) claimed certain amounts from the respondent M/s. Bhilwara Synthetics Limited and others (hereinafter called the-respondents) on account of commission payable to the petitioner. The petitioner referred the disputes for the decision of Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association (hereinafter called the Association) in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Association. The Association appointed Sh. Mohan Lal as the sole arbitrator to go into the disputes between the parties. The arbitrator entered upon the reference in September 1979 and directed that notice be issued to the parties for 4.9.1979. The respondents took up the plea that he was no longer a member of the Association and thereforee the Rules and Regulations of the Association did not apply to it, and as such the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to proceed with the case. The respondents filed a petition under Section 33 read with Section...

R.B. Seth Jessa Ram and Bros. Vs. Sushma

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Dr. (Mrs.) Avtar Pennathur, Member: (1) This is an appeal against order dated 5.12.89 passed by the learned District Forum. (2) The grievance of the appellant is that District Forum had assumed jurisdiction in entertaining the claim of the respondent although it had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. Further, it is contended that if the question of jurisdiction be decided against them the District Forum went wrong in awarding amounts much in excess of the claims of the respondent. Since the respondent had opted for being admitted to and availing the delivery facilities as a paid patient her claim was liable to be rejected. (3) Case of the respondent is that the complainant was registered for Tubecutomy operation under Family Welfare Scheme of the Government of India. She received an incentive of Rs. 145/- and as her sterilization operation was performed under the Family Welfare Scheme, she was entitled to these services free of cost from the hospital. (4) She could not be charged ...

Dharam Pal Satya Pal Vs. Janta Sales Corporation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1990(2)ARBLR91(Delhi); 41(1990)DLT612

Santosh Duggal, J. (1) The plaintiff, a partnership firm having its registered office at Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi, claims to be engaged in the manufacture and sale, inter alia, of Chewing Tobacco (Zafrani Zarda) and established in this trade since the year 1979. They state to have adopted the trade mark 'RAJNI', in respect of Zafrani Zarda in the year 1980, and having used the same extensively since then, in the course of trade, and as such to have acquired enviable reputation with the purchasing public so much so that the said trade mark has come to be exclusively identified as the goods of the plaintiff's manufacture. (2) The assertion further is that the plaintiff has established large and extensive sales of their product, under the aforesaid trade mark, during the past years, having spent huge amounts on publicity, as per figures detailed in the plaint. It is contended that by virtue of prior adoption and extensive user, the plaintiff has acquired exclusive rights to this...

Anurag Agarwal Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1990)34ITD291(Delhi)

1. The assessee is aggrieved of the consolidated order dated 29-3-1988 of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut passed under Section 263 by which he set aside the assessments framed by the Income-tax Officer in the case of the assessee for the assessment years 1983-84 to 1986-87 to be made de novo.2. The assessee is an individual. The facts appearing from the record are as follows. The assessee's father was Prof. S.K. Agarwal of Meerut College, Meerut, who used to coach students in Biology with a view to prepare them for taking the Combined Pre-Medical Tests of different Medical Colleges. According to the learned counsel for the assessee, he died sometimes in April, 1988. The assessee is his son. He was born on 16-3-1964. He passed his High School Examination in 1979 and Intermediate (with Biology) in 1981. Thereafter in May, 1984 he passed Intermediate with Mathematics as a private candidate. In November, 1984 he secured admission to the Engineering College at Bangalore for ...

Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.N. Dhir

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 41(1990)DLT278; 1990(18)DRJ351

Mahinder Narain, J.(1) By this petition, I have to see whether the order which has been passed by Mr. V.K. Shall, Additional Rent Controller, is in accordance with the law.(2) I have beard the counsel for both the parties at length.(3) The premises involved in this case bears municipal No. C-68, New Delhi South Extension Part-11, New Delhi. The ground floor comprising of drawing-cum-during room three bed rooms with attached bathrooms, store, kitchen and verandah is in occupation of the tenant/petitioner M/s Federalolors vt.Ltd, and the first floor comprising of the same accommodation the ground floor, is in occupation the landlord DN. Dhir. it is stated that the landlord D.N Dbir is a patient of hypertension, missing heart beat, palpitation, ischeamia. He was 68 years old at the time of filing petition before the court below, and is now 73 years of age. His wife is stated to be suffering from cataract. His elder son Ravinder Dhir, is stated to be a heart patient, and has been advised t...