Delhi Court November 1995 Judgments

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Sevak Rubbers

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT610TriDel

1. All the present eight appeals have been filed by the Revenue against a common order-in-appeal passed by the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals), Madras. The issue involved in the instant case relates to the classification of the vulcanising rubber solution. The Collector (Appeals) vide its impugned order-in-appeal dated 17-2-1989 has ordered that the classification of the said item fall under sub-heading 3501.90 before 10-2-1987 and under 3606.00 w.e.f. 10-2-1987.2. When the cases were called, Shri Sanjeev Sachdeva, learned SDR appeared on behalf of the Revenue in all the present appeals. Shri Shaju Francis, learned Advocate appeared on behalf of M/s. Treads & Industrial Rubber Extrusions, the respondents in Appeal No.E/2103/89-C. None appeared on behalf of the remaining respondents.3. At the outset, Shri Sachdeva, learned SDR with his usual fairness submitted that the case of Elgi Polytex Ltd., Coimbatore v. Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore, 1988 (34) E.L.T. (404) was f...

Smt. Harjinder Kaur and ors. Vs. Mrs. Usha Gupta and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 4(1995)DLT150; [1996]222ITR200(Delhi)

N.G. Nandi, J.1. A suit being Suit No. 294 of 1972 for specific performance for an agreement to sell, came to be filed by Seth Narain Singh and others against Smt. Usha Gupta and another in respect of property bearing No. 28 situate at Khewat No. 1, Khatauni No. 1392, Khasra No. 2022/1558 measuring 1,583 sq. yards, 1,402 sq. meters approximately situate on Pusa Road, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the property'). It is suggested that the suit came to be decreed on 19th May, 1978, and the Execution Proceedings No. 90 of 1978 for the execution of the said decree. It is also suggested that the plaintiff (decree-holder, legal representative of deceased, Narain Singh) pursuant to the decree deposited the consideration amount for getting the sale deed in her favor. At that stage, the TRO, Mayur Bhawan, New Delhi, vide their letter No. TRO - XX, New Delhi, dt. 17th June, 1988, addressed to the Registrar, Delhi High Court, New Delhi, preferred a claim to th...

Hawkeye, Protection and Detective Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. New Delhi Mun ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)214; 1996(36)DRJ150

Devinder Gupta, J.(1) Petitioner claims to he engaged in the business of providing security services and traffic arrangements to various companies/organisations, industrial units, export house and Press houses etc. and claims to be a pioneer in the said field having sound reputation and goodwill. On June 22, 1995 respondent No. 1 invited sealed lenders from experienced agencies in the field of security and traffic arrangements in various N.D.M.C. buildings for the year 1995-96 at an estimated cost of Rs.6.12 lacs per month. Tenders were opened on July 21, 1995. It is the petitioner's case that he was declared to be the lowest tenderer having quoted an amount of Rs.6,37,194.00 per month whereas respondent No.4 had quoted Rs.6,43,174.85 per month. Petitioner claims that it was called upon to all end the office of respondent No.2 for negotiations and clarifications, in response to which he submitted all relevant documents which were required by respondents 2 & 3. Despite repeated requests...

H.M.R. Rao Vs. Union of India and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)695; ILR1996Delhi599

Usha Mehra, J.(1) The short point involved in this writ petition is whether post-pensionary benefits can be withdrawn by an employer (2) The relevant facts, rules/notifications and Circulars in this regard issued by the respondent employer have to be scrutinised for the purposes of determination of this issue. Brief facts are, petitioner No. 1 worked with the respondent in different capacities for nearly 28 years. Ho retired on 31st August, 1990 on attaining the age of super annuations as Engineering Manager. Petitioner No. 2 retired as Deputy Operation Manager and: petitioner No. 3 retired on- 30th April, 1994 as Manager Technical Training Cte Hyderabad. Petitioner No. 4 retired on 30th October, 1980 as Officer Superintendent and the petitioner No. 5 retired as Senior Technical Assistant on 31st May, 1992. At the time of their retirement, respondent No. 2 issued notices staling therein that. they. would be entitled to retiremental benefits admissible to retired employees under, the Se...

United Phosphorus Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(81)ELT606TriDel

1. E/796/92-C filed by the assessee and E/3102/93-C filed by the department involving common issues and therefore they are clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order. The point to be considered in these two appeals is whether Excise duty can be leviable on the following intermediate products :- 2. M/s. United Phosphorus Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of insecticides, fungicides, weedicides and pesticides falling under Tariff Sub-heading 3808.10 and the above items came into existence as intermediate products during the course of manufacture of the items namely: 3. We have heard Shri J.J. Bhatt, Sr. Advocate with Shri P. Shah, Advocate for the party/assessee M/s. United Phosphorus Ltd. and the department was represented by Shri Sanjeev Sachdeva, ld. SDR in both the cases.4. The Collector who passed the adjudication order in the appeal filed by the party arrived at the conclusion that the above items are subject to Excise duty on the ground that they were figur...

Godavari Fertilizers and Vs. C.C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT535TriDel

1. In all these appeals common question of law and facts are involved, hence they are taken up together for disposal as per law.2. The appeals pertaining to M/s. Godavari Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. arises from Order-in-appeal dated 30th June, 1992 passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Hyderabad.3. The appeals pertaining to M/s. SAIL arises from Order-in-Original dated 8-3-1992, passed by the Collector of Customs, Bhubaneswar.4. In the case of M/s. Godavari Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., the appellants had imported Phosphoric Acid Solution in bulk and had filed the Bill of Entry for the quantities indicated in the respective Bills of Entries of various dates. The goods were assessed provisionally, awaiting filing of test/analysis report and documents viz. Bill of Lading, Invoice, Survey Report, Original Certificate of Country of Origin etc. Subsequently, the importer submitted the required documents and requested for finalisation of Bill of Entry. Accord...

Art Rubber Industries Ltd. Vs. Coll. of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT389TriDel

1. The captioned appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal passed by the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) in his order had held : "5. I have gone through the order-in-original, the appeal petition and record of personal hearing carefully. In view of second proviso to the Notification No. 231/85-C.E., dated 23-12-1985 as amended, the exemption contained in the Notification shall not be applicable. (i) To a manufacturer, if the aggregate value of clearances of tyres, tubes and flaps falling under said Chapter 40 for home consumption by him or on his behalf from one or more factories during the preceding financial year, had exceeded rupees two crores. (ii) If the aggregate value of clearances of tyres etc. had exceeded two crores There is no provision such as in Explanation II to Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-1986 in the said notification and hence the Assistant Collector is quite correct in taking into consideration value of exempted goods also in ar...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1997]226ITR750(Delhi)

Y.R. Sabharwal, J.1. The following questions relating to the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69 have been referred for the opinion of this court :2. Assessment year 1967-68 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the provisions of section 40A(5) do not apply to the cash allowance paid by the employer to the employees for meeting house rent expenses and thereby deleting disallowance of Rs. 4,227 made by the Income-tax Officer under section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act ?'3. Assessment year 1968-69 : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the provisions of section 40A(5) do not apply to the cash allowance paid by the employer to the employees for meeting house rent expenses and thereby deleting the disallowance of Rs. 8,289 made by the Income-tax Officer under section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act ?' (ii...

J and P Coats and anr. Vs. Popular Thread Mills and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 60(1995)DLT856; 1995(35)DRJ540

Jaspal Singh, J.(1) The suit is for passing off and Along with it is an application under Order 39 rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This order is its fallout.(2) The learned counsel for the plaintiff is confining his prayer only to the use of the word 'MOOR', and its lettering, get up and design. His grievance is that it is deceptively similar to plaintiff's 'MOON'. (3) The defendant objects to the grant of any interim relief on the ground that plaintiff's trade mark is not yet registered. The objection has no substance. I say so because the suit is for passing off and admittedly user of the mark by the plaintiff is prior in matter of time.(4) The defendant has yet another objection. He states that `MOON' is distinctive and that for that reason the plaintiff deserves no interim relief. In support he relies upon M/s. Surya Coconut Oil Industries v. M/s. Surya Agro-Oils Ltd. an order of a learned Single Judge of this Court in I.A.No.3022/89 in Suit No.1094/89. The date of deci...

Municipal Corporation of Delhi (D.E.S.U.) Vs. M/S. Prakash Cable Co.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Briefly stated the relevant facts leading to the present appeal are that a team of officers of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking comprising the enforcement, vigilance and meter testing wings carried out a joint inspection of the premises of respondent No. 1 on 14.10.92. They prepared a detailed report on the basis of that inspection. The respondent felt aggrieved against the inspection on the ground that the same had been carried out in contravention of the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act. The respondent accordingly instituted a complaint before D.F.-II alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. The complaint was contested. On a consideration of the matter D.F.-II held that entry of the inspecting team was without prior information, that the inspection was not for purposes laid-down in any of the clauses of Subsection (1) of Section 20 and that the inspection was carried out in contravention of the provisions of Section 20(2) of ...