Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1997)LC27Tri(Delhi)
1. Order-in-Original, dated 20-10-1989 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-III is under challenge in this appeal.2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of electric hoists and brake motors, is also manufacturing rotor-stator assemblies for captive consumption in the manufacture of electric hoists and filing price lists in Part vi(b) in respect of rotor-stator assemblies and price lists in Part I in respect of brake motors, the price of the former being much less than the price of the later. Price lists were approved and RT 12 assessments were being finalised from time to time. The dispute in this appeal relates to the period from 1-4-1985 to 28-2-1986. Show cause notice dated 27-6-1986 was issued stating that rotor-stator assembly is the same as brake motor and since the appellant was clearing brake motors to buyers and the factory gate price of brake motors was available, in respect of rotor-stator also price lists should have been filed under Part I adoptin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. India Cine Agencies, complainant for short, had a Current Account with the Chandni Chowk Branch of United Commercial Bank (UCO Bank), arrayed as opposite party 2. According to the complainant they had been asking for a Statement of Account, but the same was not furnished by the said bank. It was only in July, 1993 that the said Statement of Account was furnished. A scrutiny of the same revealed that a sum of Rs.9,80,000/- was not credited in the complainant's account in respect of 19 cheques which were deposited with the bank for collection and the amount thereof was duly released by the said Bank. The complainant obtained certificates from the banks concerned regarding payment having been made to the Chandni Chowk Branch of the UCO Bank for being credited to the account of the complainant. On the asking of the opposite party the complainant also furnished photostat copies of the counterfoils of the pay-in-slips relatin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1997)(94)ELT650TriDel
1. The respondents filed a classification list in respect of their product Polyvinyl Butyral Resin Waste arising from imported Polyvinyl Butyral Resin Sheets during the process of manufacture of Laminated sheet glass in respect of which credit of additional duty paid under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act was taken. They claimed effective rate of duty thereon as NIL under Notification No. 53/88, dated 1-3-1988. According to the department, once the Modvat credit is availed of, the goods in respect of which said credit has been taken cannot be considered to be duty paid particularly when notification conforms full exemption. Accordingly benefit in terms of Notification No. 53/88, dated 1-3-1988 has been denied by the Assistant Collector.On an appeal filed by the party, the Collector (Appeals) upheld the contention of the assessee observing that the Modvat scheme is designed to meliorate the cascading incidence of Excise duty on the final product to the extent of Modvat availed and d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1997)(95)ELT336TriDel
1. The short point for determination in this appeal is whether the Assistant Collector competent to disallow the Modvat credit taken in terms of Rule 57-I and to demand/recover the amount utilised.2. The facts of the case are that the respondents had wrongly availed the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 62,902/- in one case and Rs. 1,38,033/- in another case. The respondents contended that they were purchasing materials from disposal yards of M/s. Bhilai Steel Plants, Bhilai; that these materials, they were getting under the cover of delivery challans; that the rate of duty at which rate duty was initially paid and the amount of duty involved in the goods covered under the said delivery challans are not mentioned therein; that the disposal store is nothing but stockyard for iron and steel scrap; that they had taken Modvat credit on the items under Chapter 72/73 at minimum rate in conformity with CBEC under F. No. 267/68/88-CX. 8, dated 1-6-1969 (sic); that they claimed that the Modvat cr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1997RLR614
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) Respondent was a tenant under the appellant in respect of a premises containing 4 shops. He had sub-let portions and was Realizing sufficient rent. He had not paid the landlady rent for more than a year who gave him a notice of demand. He ignored the notice and she was compelled to sue him for eviction. The tenant did not deposit the rent as required under S.II of the Act to seek leave to defend. Ex parte eviction decree was passed. He applied for setting aside of the same which was done. Even after this he did not deposit the rent. After adverse order he filed an appeal which was dismissed. He moved High Court. High Court allowed him to deposit the arrears. He again failed and landlady applied to the Controller for eviction which was allowed. Tenant filed appeal which was dismissed. He again came to High Court who allowed him further time. Landlady challenged this in the Supreme Court. After detailing above the judgment is: 615 (2) All these years the respondent di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 70(1997)DLT607
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) Pradeep Kumar is aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed against him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act. (2) The prosecution alleges that on 31st of March, 1993, consequent upon a secret information, a raiding party was formed, the appellant was nabbed, a notice under Section 50 of the Act was given and thereafter 25 grams of Charas was recovered from his possession out of which sample weighing 5 grams was taken out. The sample so taken and the remaining Charas were thereafter put in separate parcels and sealed, first with the seal of the Investigating Officer and thereafter with the seal of the Station House Officer. (3) The learned Counsel for the appellant has assailed the finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge on a number of grounds. His first contention is that no notice under Section 50 of the Act was given and that in any case the notice alle...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998(44)DRJ428
S.N. Kapoor, J. (1) This revision is directed against an impugned order dated 19th April 1994 allowing an appeal and dismissing the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and reversing the order dated 23rd May 1992 restraining the defendants Ram Chander and others and their agents from dispossessing the plaintiff forcibly from the suit land.(2) According to the case of the plaintiff/petitioners, 17 bids was land in khasra in actual physical possession of Budha s/o in actual physical possession of Budha s/o Shravan. He expired leaving behind his tow sons Ram Phal and Prem Chand. His two sons also expired leaving behind Panna Devi and Dewan Kaur. They purchased this land from the legal heirs of Budha, i.e. his the behest of the daughters-in-law of Budha on the behest of the daughters-in-law of Budha on Agreement to Sell. They both executed Power of Attorney dated 28th March 1990 but the plaintiffs claim that they are in possession and occupation since 1989. The possession had been duly...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1997IVAD(Delhi)720; 1997(2)ARBLR307(Delhi); 68(1997)DLT128
Mohd. Shamim, J. (1) The appellant through the present appeal have taken exception to the judgment and order dated July 4, 1992 passed by an Additional District Judge, Delhi, whereby he allowed an application moved by the plaintiff/ respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent for the sake of convenience) under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for ad interim injunction and restrained the defendant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant for the sake of brevity) from using the trade mark 'Nagputra' in respect of the comics published by them or any other trade mark which may be deceptively similar to the trade mark 'Nagraj' belonging to the respondent. (2) Brief facts which gave rise to the present appeal are as under : that the respondent M/s. Raja Pocket Books are a partnership concern consisting of three partners known as Shri Manoj Gupta, Smt. Prem Lata Gupta and Smt. Parul Gupta. Shri Manoj Gupta is fully competent and authorised to sign and v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (1998)62TTJ(Del)351
ORDERChopra, AM.1. These two appeals are filed by the assessee-appellant against Commissioner (Appeals) orders dated 7-1-1993 dismissing its appeals preferred against order passed by the assessing officer under sections 201(1A) and 221 of the Income Tax Act.2. Facts in brief are these. The previous year for the relevant assessment year 1989-90 is of 21 months, i.e., 1-7-1987 to 31-3-1989. To enable transitional previous year to take effect, the appellant closed its accounts once on 30-6-1988 and then on 31-3-1989. In the Audit Report furnished with the return filed on 9-10-1990, it was mentioned that there is delay in deduction and deposit of tax by the appellant. The details in the audit report were noted as under :ParticularsAmount (Rs.)Date ofdeductionDue date of depositDate of depositInterest8,91130-4-198831-8-198814-6-1989Salary1,4707-3-198814-3-198817-3-1988Interest7,76931-3-198931-5-198914-6-1989Contract Payment69431-3-198931-5-198914-6-1989Contract Payment3,80331-3-198931-5-198...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1997)LC281Tri(Delhi)
1. The common appellant in these appeals engaged in the manufacture of compounded rubber falling under Chapter Heading 4005 (which has only sub-heading 4005.00), filed classification list on 26-4-l989 claiming benefit of Notification [173/86]1 amended till that date as per which partial exemption was available in the case of appellant who was availing Modvat credit on inputs. The Assistant Collector directed provisional assessment on that basis. Subsequently three show cause notices dated 6-11-1989, 18-4-1990 and 12-9-1990 were issued stating that the notification was not applicable and proposing demand of differential duty calculated without the benefit of the partial exemption. The notices were resisted by the appellant. However, the Assistant Collector confirmed the demands and his orders were confirmed by a common order passed by the Collector (Appeals). This order has led to Appeals No. E/971/92-C and E/1123/92-C. Apparently on the direction of the Assistant Collector that demand...
Tag this Judgment!