Delhi Court November 1998 Judgments

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. J.V. Gupta and Sons (Huf)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2000)158CTR(Del)174

D.K. Jain, J.These are two references under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the revenue, pertaining to the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80. Since one of the questions referred is common, both the references are being answered by this judgment. The questions referred are :Questions referred for the assessment year 1978-79:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed under the head 'income from salary', is entitled against that income to the deduction admissible under section 16(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the deduction on account of repair under section 24 should be worked out on the gross annual letting value before deduction of allowance for occupation under section 23(2)(i) of the Income Tax Act?'Question referred for the assessment year 1979-80' 1. Whether, on the fa...

Collr. of C. Ex. Vs. Maharashtra Tyre and Rubber

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(63)ECC204

1. The Revenue has preferred the above appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai upholding the order of the Assistant Collector in which he has approved classification of rubber profile shapes manufactured by the respondents herein under GET sub-heading 4008.29 - it is the contention of the Revenue that the items in question are articles of rubber falling under GET sub-heading 4016.90.2. We have heard Shri H.K. Jain, learned SDR and Shri L.P. Asthana, learned Advocate.3. We find that the lower appellate authority has relied upon his earlier order dated 12-4-1993. The relevant extract from that order is reproduced below: "The Assistant Collector's classification of the goods is under Heading 4016.19, which would cover articles of materials of Heading 40.08 other than those made of cellular rubber. Heading 40.08 as for "Plates, blocks, sheets, strip, rods and profile shapes of vulcanised rubber other than hard rubber". This heading and the four sub-he...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Bimb Offset Division

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT963TriDel

1. The respondents herein received duty paid offset printing plates from their customers and processed them with the help of exposing unit, whirler and duty paid plate processor. They claimed that the activity of offset plate setting did not amount to manufacture as they only exposed and developed the printing plates and no new product emerges as a result of the activity undertaken by them. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise held that there was a change in the name, character and use of exposed offset printing plates, and un-exposed printing plates and thus the test of manufacture of new commodity was satisfied. He upheld classification of exposed offset printing plate under CET sub-heading 8422.00.2. On appeal, the lower Appellate authority upheld the Department's stand relating to manufacture; however, he modified the Assistant Collector's order by classifying the product under Chapter Heading 37.05. In the appeal before the Tribunal, the Department seeks restoration of the A...

All India Lawyers Union Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000ACJ1006; 1999IAD(Delhi)100; AIR1999Delhi120; 77(1999)DLT578; 1999(48)DRJ453

1. On December 23, 1997, Anshu Sharma, a student of M.C.D. Primary School, Mahavir Enclave, Dabri, New Delhi, aged about 7 years, was crushed to death by a vehicle while crossing the road in front of the school. He had gone outside the school during school hours to fetch drinking water for himself as potable hygienic water was not available in the school. With these allegations the instant public interest writ petition has been filed by All India Lawyers Union, a voluntary organisation, for various directions.2. To meet the allegations two counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. These affidavits have been affirmed by Shri Om Prakash Assistant Education Officer, Nazafgarh Zone, and Shri T.C. Arora, Deputy Education Officer. While not denying the accident and the fact that the child had gone outside the school during school hours, it is asserted that the drinking water was freely available in the affidavits filed on February 2, 1998 and Septemb...

Indian Air Gases Limited Vs. Tarawati Sood (Smt.)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999(48)DRJ203

ORDERC.M. Nayar, J.1. The present petition arises out of an application under Section 15(2) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') whereby respondent was sought to be directed to pay or deposit rent of the tenanted premises at the rate of Rs.3630/- per month with effect from April 1,1996.2. The petitioner was inducted tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.3,000/- vide lease-deed dated July 10, 1978 and was called upon by the respondent through notice dated December 5, 1992 to increase rent by 10 per cent. The rent was increased to Rs.3,300/- with effect from 1st February, 1993. Another 10 per cent increase fell due after three years of previous increase under Section 6A of the Act and the respondent sent notice dated January 30, 1996 calling upon the petitioner to increase the rent to Rs.3,630/- per month. This notice was sent through registered post and it was duly served for which postal receipt and AD card were filed with the application. Despite service of ...

Rama Puri Vs. Golden Plastic Industries

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998(47)DRJ742

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. The appellant, Smt.Rama Puri has preferred this Regular First Appeal against thedecree for possession, passed by the Additional District Judge, in the suit of possession instituted by the respondent in respect of premises at WH-41, Block B in RewariLine, Industrial Area, Mayapuri, New Delhi.2. The facts in brief are:(i) The appellant was inducted in the premises vide a license Deed dated 25th May, 1984, in terms of which the appellant was given the user of one hall and WC on the ground floor on license basis for 11 months at a fee of Rs. 2,000/- per month. A subsequent license Deed dated 1st April, 1985 for a period of 11 months was executed between the parties, which gave to the appellant the use of one room on the mezzanine floor in addition to the premises in use at an increased fee of Rs. 2625/- for 11 months, (ii) The appellant admittedly has also executed, along with the license Deeds dated 25th April, 1984 and 1st April, 1985, undertakings by way of affidavi...

Glaxo India Ltd. Vs. Eudora Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(26)PTC521(Del)

K.S. Gupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 1st October 1997 whereby the prayer of the appellant/plaintiff for grant of injunction pending the suit restraining the respondent/defendant from using the trade mark BUPAR was dismissed by a detailed order. It is not in dispute that when the matter was heard and decided by learned single Judge the stand of the respondent/defendant was not on the suit record as the defendant had neither filed written statement nor reply to the application nor any documents, and the order in appeal was passed after hearing parties on the first date of hearing. A perusal of the order shows that various factual aspects were gone into such as the defendants being in continuous sale of more than 9 years. The plaintiff/appellant had no opportunity to rebut the stand of the respondent.2. In view of the aforesaid state of affairs learned counsel for the parties agree that the order in appeal may be set aside and I.A. 8159/97, be heard afresh by l...

Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT41TriDel

1. In these two appeals issue involved is about the classification of 'Sanifresh lavatory disinfectant' (both liquid and solid) manufactured by M/s. Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd. As both appeals involve common issue arising out of a common order-in-appeal, the same are being disposed of by a common order.2. The Appellants claimed classification of the impugned product under sub-heading 3808.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act in their classification lists No. 1/91-92, dated 1-4-1991 and 11-4-1991.Both the classification lists were approved by the Assistant Collector, Bhandup and Thane. The Collector reviewed the approval under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act and, on appeals being filed, the Collector (Appeals) Bombay set aside the approval and classified the impugned products under sub-heading No. 3402.90 holding that though the impugned products had some disinfectant properties, they were used for cleaning of sanitarywares in the lavatory; that when the produ...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Rattan Suitings and Fabrics Pvt.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(111)ELT799TriDel

1. In his Order-in-Original dated 29-1-1992 the Additional Collector held that following the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Ujagar Prints the valuation for the purpose of charging duty where the goods were processed by a job worker, would be the value of the grey fabrics plus processing charges plus his profit. The present appeals have been filed by the Revenue against his order.2. The first ground is that whereas the Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints case refers to the grey fabric supplied by a trader (emphasis supplied), in the present case the grey was supplied by persons who were themselves manufacturers. We find that this distinction does not go to alter the ratio of the cited judgment. In the citation made of the Tribunal judgment in case of M/s Pharmacia the supplier of the raw material was also a manufacturer, but the Tribunal held that the cited Supreme Court judgment was applicable. In ORG Systems v. Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara reported...

Ajay Srivastava Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant appeared in the All India Services Examination in the year 1986 and was declared successful. He was also placed 9th in the order of merit. According to the applicant his ranking in the IAS examination of 1986 for allotment to his Home State U.P. was 4th, the other three candidates being Sh. Arun Singh, Sh. Avinash K. Awasthi and Sh. Mahesh Kumar Gupta. The applicant had made a request for being allotted to the U.P. cadre as an insider candidate. This request of the applicant has been rejected and aggrieved by the said action of the respondents the applicant has filed this OA. The applicant had made repeated representations and in this OA he has assailed the orders of the respondents passed on the applicants representations as aforesaid.According to the applicant the final allocation/allotment was made by the Government of India on 9.3.98 and communicated to the applicant at Mussorie where he was undergoing training in the Lal Bahadur Shastri Academy of Administration,...