Delhi Court March 1997 Judgments

Modi Business Machines Vs. Bell Ceramics Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. M/s. Bell Ceramics Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the complainant, purchased from M/s. Modi Business Machines, opposite party. Modi Olievetti Alfa Typewriter on 11.3.1992. The opposite party is stated to have assured the complainant that the said typewriter could be interfaced with the complainant's existing computer PC-XT to serve as a Letter Quality Printer. On 6.8.1992 the opposite party sent its Customer Support Engineer one Mr. Aditya Jain for doing the interface and giving a demonstration. When the said engineer connected the typewriter with the PC and switched on the power, there was sparking as a result of which both the typewriter as well as the PC stoped working. The typewriter was repaired free of cost and it was agreed between the parties that the PC would be repaired at the expense of the opposite party from M/s. Pushka Electronics Pvt. Ltd. The case of the complainant was that in spite of several reminders the said repairer failed to underta...

Mahajan Processors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT314TriDel

1. The appellants undertook processing of grey fabrics received from the Merchant manufacturers. Information was received by the jurisdictional officers to the effect that the appellants were processing blowing wrapper cloth and clearing the same without payment of duty. The officers, therefore, visited the factory, seized some documents and also recorded the statements of the Director of the appellant's unit and several other persons. After completing investigation, show cause notice dated 20-7-1987 was issued seeking recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,69,073.47, being excise duty as well as handloom cess on such fabrics falling under Chapter 55 cleared during the period from July, 1983 to July, 1986. Confiscation of the land, building, etc. under Rule 173Q(2) was also proposed. It was alleged that the appellants were liable to a penalty under Rule 173Q(1). The Collector in his order dated 25-8-1988 confirmed the demand, imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh, ordered confiscation of the land, bui...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Tafe Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT34TriDel

1. This is a department appeal against the order of Collector (A), Madras dated 16-1-1987.2. Ld. DR drew attention to the order of Collector (A) and the grounds of appeal mentioned in the appeal memo filed by the department.3. He further stated that the respondents were manufacturers of tractors. They had obtained certain tractor parts under notification 167/79 (as amended) by 249/82 by filing the Chapter X procedure.4. On verification it was observed that they had diverted certain portion of these goods for spares market and lab test on payment of duty under Rule 196A(i). While doing so they had adopted the value shown in AR3(A) i.e. the value as given by the manufacturer as assessable value.5. It was the department's contention that it was wrong on their part to do so and they should have worked out the assessable value taking into account the price at which the goods were sold by them and removed from their factory. In this connection, he would like to draw attention to Section 4 o...

Vimla Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(71)LC627Tri(Delhi)

1. Both these appeals involving common question of law and facts were heard together and are being disposed of through this common order.1. Appellants are alleged to have availed modvat credit even when their final products were eligible to nil rate of duty in terms of Notification 214/86. Assistant Collector dropped the proceedings against the appellants. Revenue, however, by virtue of powers under Section 35(E) moved an appeal before Collector of Appeals. Collector (Appeals) set aside the impugned order and held that on point of mis-declaration, the Order of Assistant Collector was beyond his jurisdiction. He in the result, remanded the case to Collector for de novo adjudication in view of prima facie allegation of mis-declaration and suppression of facts.2. Arguing for the appellants the Ld. Advocate submits that they are a job worker undertaking the job work of converting copper bar into copper wire rods on behalf of Principals. They either work under Rule 57F(ii) or they themselv...

R.K. Dwivedi Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(107)ELT724TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals), New Delhi, dated 24-2-1993.2. Ld. Counsel stated that the appellant was a doctor practicing in Kanpur. He had retired from the Army and was in possession of a valid licence for holding a fire-arm. The brother of his father-in-law had gifted a revolver and he imported it from Germany. It arrived by post sometime before 20th September, 1985. The A.C. confiscated it and the confiscation was confirmed by the Collector.3. the appellant appealed to the Tribunal and the matter was remanded for reconsidering the case in the light of the Government of India's instructions contained in F. No. 497/57/87-CUS-VI, dated 5-1-1988.4. The matter was therefore reconsidered by the Collector (Appeals) and he again confirmed the earlier order of absolute confiscation on the ground that the importation of fire-arms was in prohibited category and therefore its release on redemption fine was not mandatory and such release will not serve any publi...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jaipur Golden Transport

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1997]226ITR399(Delhi)

1. At the instance of the Revenue , in respect of the assessment year 1974-75, the following common questions have been referred for the opinion of this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that expenditure of Rs. 14,575 was not of the nature of entertainment expenditure 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting Rs. 10,957 out of fines and penalties ?' 2. The answer to question No. 1 stands concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Patel Brothers and Co. Ltd. : [1995]215ITR165(SC) , approving the view taken by this court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT : [1994]208ITR785(Delhi) and CIT v. Rajasthan Mercantile Co. Ltd : [1995]211ITR400(Delhi) , where it was held that expenditure incurred on extending customary hospitality by offering ordinary meals as a bare necessity, would not be 'entertainment expenditure' without the aid of the ...

Bhim SaIn and anr. Vs. Janta Naswar Factory

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)220; 1997(2)ARBLR165(Delhi); 68(1997)DLT291

S.N. Kapoor, J. (1) This appeal under Section 109 of the Trade and Merchandise Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act' for short) is directed against an order of the Assistant Registrar dated 27th October, 1975 rejecting application of the appellant for registration of their Trade Mark. (2) On 9th May, 1972 the appellant firm M/s. Bhim Sain Yash Pal comprising of two partners Bhim Sain and Shiv Prakash applied vide application No. 280087 for registration of trade mark 'AATH Photo MARK' snuff in Class 34 claiming user since 1972. After preliminary scrutiny and on the ground of conflict with the application of the opponents No. 2547598 this mark was accepted subject to disclaimer of digit '8' and the words 'AATH Photo MARK'. It was advertised in Trade Mark Journal No. 597 dated 16th July, 1973. 2.2. On 19th September, 1973, the respondent entered into opposition on three grounds that: ( i ) they are proprietors for the trade mark label containing, inter alias eight photographs, the expre...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Saga Electricals (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT391TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the classification of wound rotors and stators fixed with the shaft of the pump portion to make the mono block pump. The Revenue had contended that in the manufacture of mono block pump, the electric motor in an identifiable form comes into existence. The respondents, M/s. Saga Electricals (P) Ltd. had paid excise duty on rotors and stators and have pleaded that in the manufacture of mono block pump, the rotors and stators are used, but no electric motor in an identifiable form comes into existence.2. We find that the matter is already covered by the Tribunal's decision vide order no. E/505/96-B1, dated 25-9-1996, in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad v. Jyoti Electrical Motor Ltd. (Appeal No. E/1883/87-B) and Order No. E/506/96-B1, dated 25-9-1996 in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad v. Saga Windel Engineers (Appeal No. E/1110/87-B1).3. Paras 2 and 3 from the decision in the case of Saga Windel Engineers, referred to above, are extracted...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ester Industries Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. The Department is in appeal against the order of CIT(A), dt. 11th Feb., 1992, mainly on the ground of deletion of the disallowance amounting to Rs. 33,82,334 made by the AO under s. 43B representing unpaid interest to the financial institution.2. The brief facts in this case are that the assessee filed the return on 27th Dec., 1990, wherein he claimed deduction at Rs. 33,82,334 under s. 43B. The said return was accepted vide intimation dt. 22nd April, 1991. However, the AO issued a notice for rectification dt. 10th Oct., 1991, wherein it was proposed to rectify the intimation on the ground that Rs. 33,82,334 had been claimed as deduction without attaching any evidence relating thereto. The assessee explained that interest on money borrowed from IFCI was paid in Sept., 1990, before filing the return. The assessee also relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Modi Cement Ltd. vs. Union of India and SRF Charitable Trust vs. Union of India & Ors. The a...

Office Equipment Vs. the Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporat ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)755; 1997(1)ARBLR555(Delhi); 66(1997)DLT649

M.K. Sharma, J. (1) This is a petition filed by the petitioners against the respondents under Sections 8,9 & 20 of the Arbitration Act praying for appointment of an Arbitrator preferably a retired Judge of this Court or any other person for adjudication of the disputes arising between the parties. It is stated that in response to the notice inviting tender for the work of 'General Interior and Electrical Works in the office of respondent No. 1 at Lucknow, U.P.'. The petitioner submitted his tender and finally his tender was accepted with certain conditions by way of counteroffer. In respect of execution of the aforesaid contract the disputes are stated to have arisen between the parties and accordingly, the petitioners have invoked clause2.53.0 of the contract between the parties. The said Clause 2.53.0 provides that in case of disputes or differences between the parties in respect of which the decision has not been final and conclusive in relation to or in connection with the contract...