Delhi Court July 1998 Judgments

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Bigen Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT213TriDel

1. In the appeal preferred by Revenue, the issue involved is whether M/s. Bigen Industries are eligible to avail exemption under Notification No. 140/83, dated 5-5-1983 in respect of their product liquid hair colour cleared under brand name "Bigen".2. Briefly stated the facts are that a show cause notice dated 19-1-1990 was issued to the Respondents for denying the exemption under Notification No. 140/83 on the ground that the original owner of the brand name was M/s. Hoyu Kabusshiki Kaishe, a Japanese company and the cartons of the products carried the words "formulation of Hoyu Company Ltd. Nagoya, Japan". The Assistant Collector allowed the benefit of notification to the Respondents under order in original dated 14-10-1991 observing that by Deed of Assignment dated 21-9-1988, the Trade Mark "Bigen" was given to the Respondents and they were the owner of the brand name; that the trade mark was registered in their name; that the trade mark was registered in their name; that by mentio...

Dynamics Machines (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT682TriDel

1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad confirming a duty demand of Rs. 1,15,647/- on the appellants herein who are manufacturers of pharamaceutical machinery and spare parts thereof, and imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. The demand has been confirmned for the reasons that the value of investment on plant and machinery by the appellants exceeded Rs. 20 lakhs and, therefore, they were not entitled to the benefit of small scale exemption in terms of Notification 77/83 (sic), that they had not included packing and forwarding charges in their assessable value although they had recovered the amount from their customers and that they cleared the goods without the cover of gate pass and without accountal in statutory records during the period 1984-85 to 1988-89.2. We have heard Shri J.P. Kaushik, learned Counsel and Shri D.S. Negi, learned SDR. According to the Department, the value of plant and machinery as seen from the balance sheet for...

Makkar and Loomba Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(63)ECC198

1. The question referred to me for determination in this appeal filed by M/s. Makkar & Loomba, New Delhi is whether the item--adhesive coated fabric was classifiable under sub-heading No. 5909.00 of the Central Excise Tariff or it was classifiable under sub-heading No. 5906.90 of the said Tariff.2. I have heard Shri R. Swaminathan, Consultant for the appellants and Shri A.M. Tilak. JDR for the respondents/Revenue.3. The Id. Consultant referred to the clarification issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs under F.No. 59/3/90 CXI (Circular 24/90 CXI) dated 23.11.90 wherein it has been clarified that the adhesive coated fabrics was classifiable under sub-heading No. 5909.00.He also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Ranadey Micronutrients v. Collector of Central Excise to plead that although the circular was issued subsequent to the impugned order, the Revenue could not plead against the said Circular.4. In reply Shri A.M. Tilak, JDR submitted that in ...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Krishna International

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT192TriDel

1. The Revenue has filed thrabove application in terms of Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for reference of the following question of law purported to have arisen out of the Tribunal's Final Order No. A/156/97-NB, dated 8-1-1997 :- "Whether under Rule 57H prior permission of the Assistant Commissioner is necessary before the assessee could take credit of duty paid on the inputs at the relevant time." The brief facts giving rise to the above application are that the respondents filed the declaration under Rule 57H on 2-4-1990 and took credit of Rs. 11,45,348.05 P soon afterwards on the inputs utilised in the manufacture of their final product without waiting for the permission of the Assistant Collector. The Assistant Collector and the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) disallowed the amount of credit mentioned above on the ground that prior permission, which was required under Rule 57H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, was not obtained. The Tribunal upheld the conten...

B. P. Singh Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)62TTJ(Delhi)652

Where the assessment order under section 143(3) was passed without determining tax payable and without communicating tax payable by assessee, assessment order was not valid in the eyes of law.Nothing was placed on record to rebut the contention of the assessee that any other document was ever served upon the assessee to show that tax payable has been determined on the date of determining income or a little later before the expiry of period of limitation prescribed. In the order under section 143(3) passed by the assessing officer, tax payable has not been determined nor it was otherwise communicated to the assessee in any separate sheet or otherwise along with the order of assessment. Therefore, assessment order cannot be held to be an order under section 143(3), as such assessment framed was invalid.CIT v. R. Girdhar (1984) 145 ITR 246 (Karn); R. Kalyan Kumar Ray v. CIT (1992) 191 ITR 634 (SC); Swaran Kanta v. CIT (1991) 176 ITR 291 (P&H) distinguished. S. Mubarik Shah Naqshbandi...

Om Prkash Vs. Shri Brij Bhushan

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)171; 74(1998)DLT514; 1998(46)DRJ769

ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The plaintiff has filed the suit for injunction simplicitor. Pending the suit, in the application I.A. 4451/93, he has prayed for injunction. He claims tenancy with reference to the basement and ground floor in premises No. 18-A, New Colony, (Jhabu Mal Colony), Behind Filmistan Cinema, New Delhi on a rent of Rs. 750/- per month from the mother of the plaintiff Mrs. Pushpa Wanti. He also claims tenancy with reference to basement, first floor, 2nd floor, terrace portion and open space (rear at back on the ground floor) of an extent of 45' x 12' on a monthly rent of Rs.2,700/- from Smt. Pushpa Wanti. The case of the plaintiff could be tersely stated in the following terms.2. The plaintiff's father was Manohar Lal, mother was Smt. Pushpa Wanti. They had four sons and one daughter. Benarsi Lal, Om Parkash (plaintiff), Brij Bhushan (first defendant), Surinder and Usha Rani (second defendant). Surinder is no more. His widow is Veena Makkar. During his lifetime, late ...

Narendra Kantilal Dave Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998VIAD(Delhi)488; 76(1998)DLT418; 1998(47)DRJ644

ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The petitioner after having served for 26-1/2 years tendered the resignation on the 6th of July, 1992 and sought waiver of notice period. On the 5th of August, 1992 the resignation was accepted and w.e.f. that date there was a cessation of the jurial relationship 'master and servant' between the Bank and the petitioner. In 1995, the respondent Bank framed Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995. Those regulations were given effect to from the 22nd of September, 1995. Regulation 14 of these regulations provides:- 'Qualifying Service:- Subject to the other conditions contained in these regulations, an employee who has rendered a minimum of ten years of service in the Bank on the date of his retirement or the date on which he is deemed to have retired shall qualify for pension. 2. Relying upon this, the petitioner had applied for payment of pension. According to him, his services came to an end on the 6th of July, 1992, i.e., after the first of Janu...

Baker Hughes Limited and anr. Vs. Hiroo Khushalani and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2000]102CompCas203(Delhi); 74(1998)DLT715; ILR1999Delhi41

Anil Dev Singh, J.1. This is an application whereby the plaintiffs seek to restrain the defendants by means of a temporary injunction from using the trade mark and trade name BAKER or any other trade mark or trade name deceptively similar thereto as their corporate name or as a part thereof. The facts necessary for the disposal of the application are as under: The first plaintiff Baker Hughes Limited (formerly known as Baker International Limited) is a company organized under the laws of United Kingdom. The principal place of business is located in Warwick Street, London. The second plaintiff Baker Hughes Incorporated is a company organized under the laws of Delaware, United States of America. Its principal place of business is located at Housten, Texas (hereinafter, for short, the group of 'Baker' or 'Baker Hughes' companies collectively shall be referred to as 'Baker' or 'Baker Hughes'). The second plaintiff is a parent company of the first plaintiff and is stated to own the trade ma...

Pratap Pawar Vs. Priya Pawa and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)693; 75(1998)DLT60; 1999(48)DRJ663

ORDERA.K. Srivastava, J.1. This is a suit for declaration and permanent injunction with the contentions, inter alia, that the plaintiff is the real and beneficial owner of the flat at ground floor, Block D-II/3322, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'said flat') lease hold rights of which were purchased from the defendant No. 2 in the name of defendant No. 1 (wife of the plaintiff) for the benefit of the plaintiff out of the funds provided by the plaintiff; that the said flat was being held in trust by defendant No.1 on behalf of the plaintiff; that the plaintiff has been in lawful occupation of the flat; that the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.4 lacs to the defendant No. 2 in respect of the installments payable to defendant No. 2; that those payments were made from the accounts of the plaintiff being State Bank of India, Parliament Street, New Delhi and the State Bank of Indore; that the matrimonial relations between the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 deteriorated and c...

S.R. Chetal and Other Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. District Forum-IV disposed of 14 complaints by a common order, dated 3.4.1998. Aggrieved by the order the complainants have preferred these appeals which are being disposed of by this order. The facts in these appeals are substantially identical and it will be convenient to refer to the facts in appeal first above mentioned namely 278/98, S.R. Chetal v. DVB, arising from Complaint No. 1452/97 which are fairly representative of the other cases. The appellant is resident of House No. 17A/36WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and is running a Guest House. He obtained electricity connection for domestic purposes only. The complainant challenged action of DVB in raising bills on the basis of non- domestic/commercial tariff. A representation was made but the opposite parties failed to consider the same and continued charging on non-domestic tariff basis. The complainant, therefore, approached District Forum. The District Forum considered the provisions of the tariff for t...