Delhi Court May 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 18 of about 243 results (0.021 seconds)Devyani Beverages Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT503TriDel
1. By the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad has disallowed Modvat credit of Rs. 33,53,668.68 on decorated glass bottles used by the appellants herein who are manufacturers of aerated waters, on the ground that they are not capital goods under Rule 57Q, and credit is not available under Rule 57A since they did not file a declaration under Rule 57G.2. On hearing Shri M.A. Rangaswamy, learned Counsel and Shri Sanjeev Srivastava, learned DR, we agree with the learned Counsel that the declaration filed by the appellants in terms of Rule 57Q is sufficient for the purpose of extending credit on glass bottles which are inputs within the meaning of Rule 57A, and since it has been verified by the Assistant Collector that the value of glass bottles has been included in the assessable value of the final product, credit has to be held to be available wherever the cost of packing material is included in the assessable value, having regard to the language of the...
Tag this Judgment!Dalmia Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC261Tri(Delhi)
1. In both these appeals, common question of law and facts are involved, hence they are taken up together for disposal as per law.2. Appeal No. E/2148/94-C arises from Order-in-Appeal dated 22-9-1994 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. By this order, he has confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Alwar, who has confirmed the classification of product "Milk Care Designer Feeder" in various sizes under sub-heading 3924.90 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. However, he has granted the benefit of Notification No. 14/92-C.E., dated 1-3-1992 as amended, subject to the condition that inputs used in the product should be duty paid. As a consequence, he finalised the classification list with effect from 22-10-1993 bearing Div. S.No. 87/93 as the same was previously approved provisionally under Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The issue before the authorities in these appeals was as to whether putting together different articles of fe...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner C. Ex. Vs. Unique Formaid P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC173Tri(Delhi)
1. In these two appeals preferred by the Revenue, the common issue involved is whether the product "FLORAMIN" is classifiable under sub-heading No. 3808.90 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, as claimed by the Revenue or under sub-heading 3101.00 as decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned orders.2. Shri H.K. Jain, ld. SDR submitted that Respondents, M/s. Unique Farmaid Pvt. Ltd. manufacture a product "Floramin" which is a bio stimulant for improving colour, vigour and size of the plant; that the main function of the impugned product is breaking of dormancy in the plants; that the product is intended to enhance growth, vigour and improve crop yield by way of inhibiting certain Physiological process in Plant and promoting others; that the product is packed in unit containers from 100 ml. onwards and is used by way of spray on the plant. He further mentioned, that the product literature describes the product as compatible with pesticides and is used in smaller...
Tag this Judgment!Satjit Singh Vs. Skipper Towers (P) Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)792; 79(1999)DLT521; 1999(50)DRJ60
ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. Initially in 1979 the tenancy was created under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'DRC Act') by the mother of the petitioner in favor of respondent No.2-Skipper Sales Private Limited for a period of two years. In 1995 a petition for eviction was filed by the petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act against respondent No. 2, Skipper Sales Private Limited, and an eviction order was passed on 10.11.1995. When that order was to be executed, Sardar Tejwant Singh filed objections claiming that in 1986 the tenancy had been transferred by Skipper Sales Private Limited in favor of Skipper Towers Private Limited, respondent No.1. Thereafter amended objections were filed. Additional Rent Controller, being the executing Court, dismissed the objections vide its order dated 30.7.1997.2. Aggrieved by the said order of the Additional Rent Controller, respondent No.1-Skipper Towers Private Limited filed an appeal before the Rent Contro...
Tag this Judgment!Kansales Exports (India) (M/S) Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 80(1999)DLT318
Manmohan Singh, J.1. We had heard arguments in the writ petition on 11th May, 1999 and after hearing the parties, allowed the writ petition for reasons to be recorded. We now proceed to give reasons for allowing the writ petition. 2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking setting aside of the order dated 28.5.1998, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, rejecting petitioner's application dated 26.3.1998 for extension of time under Section 80HHC(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Petitioner firm, an exporter of readyment garments, had exported goods to M/s. Dolbees, London, during the financial year 1995-96. For the exports made in the said financial year, a sum of Pounds 40,965 remained outstanding from M/s. Dolbees, London. Petitioner firm had moved an application dated 14.10.1996, seeking extension of time for realisation of the convertible foreign exchange. This request for extension of time was acceded to by the Commissioner of Income Tax vide order dated 18/19.12.19...
Tag this Judgment!Castrol Ltd. and anr. Vs. Ashwini Verma and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 80(1999)DLT114
M.K. Sharma, J.1. This is a suit instituted by the plaintiff seeking for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their partners, proprietors, servants, agents and all others acting on their behalf from infringing the trade mark and copy right of the plaintiff and also restraining the defendants, their servants and agents from passing off the goods of the defendants as that of the plaintiffs and also for damages.2. The plaintiff No. 1 is a Company incorporated under the Law of England and plaintiff No. 2 is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act.3. Plaintiff No. 1 and plaintiff No. 2 are carrying on the business of processing and marketing automotive and industrial lubricants and special products. The plaintiff is the registered proprietor in India of several trademarks including the trade mark 'CASTROL' which is registered in respect of the industrial oils and greases, hydraulic fluids being oils, lubricants, fuels and illuminant. The plaintiffs hav...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Niwas Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Registrar, Co- ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 81(1999)DLT585
C.K. Mahajan, J. 1. Rule.2. Heard. 3. The petition is directed against the order dated 7th December, 1998 passed by the Registrar disposing of the proceedings under Section 32 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, initiated against the petitioner Society and order dated 12th February, 1999 passed by the Registrar, superseding the Managing Committee of the Society and appointing Shri Krishan Sethi, C.A. as the Administrator of the Society. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 7th December, 1998 and 12th February, 1999 passed by the Registrar. 4. Petitioner No. 1 is a Co-operative Group Housing Society. It is not disputed that the Society is indebted to the Delhi Co-operative Housing Finance Corporation. 5. In 1994, the present Managing Committee was elected and took charge of the Society. 6. The respondent/Registrar of Societies issued a show cause notice to the petitioner Society on 23rd September, 1998 calling upon the Managing Committee of the Society to show ...
Tag this Judgment!Kausales Exports (India) Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2000)159CTR(Del)22
Manmohan Sarin, J.We had heard arguments in the writ petition on 11-5-1999, and after hearing the parties allowed the writ petition for reasons to be recorded. We now proceed to give reasons for allowing the writ petition.2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking setting aside of the order dated 28-5-1998, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), rejecting the petitioner's application dated 26-3-1998, for extension of time under section 80HHC(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.3. The petitioner-firm, an exporter of readymade garments, had exported goods to Dolbees, London, during the financial year 1995-96. For the exports made in the said financial year, a sum of pounds 40,965 remained outstanding from Dolbees, London. The petitioner-firm had moved an application dated 14-10-1996, seeking extension of time for realisation of the convertible foreign exchange. This request for extension of time was acceded to by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 18/19-12-1996 18/19-12...
Tag this Judgment!Kausales Exports (India) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1999]240ITR108(Delhi)
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. We had heard arguments in the writ petition on May 11, 1999, and after hearing the parties allowed the writ petition for reasons to be recorded. We now proceed to give reasons for allowing the writ petition.2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking setting aside of the order dated May 28, 1998, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, rejecting the petitioner's application dated March 26, 1998, for extension of time under Section 80HHC(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. The petitioner-firm, an exporter of ready-made garments, had exported goods to Dolbees, London, during the financial year 1995-96. For the exports made in the said financial year, a sum of pounds 40,965 remained outstanding from Dolbees, London. The petitioner-firm had moved an application dated October 14, 1996, seeking extension of time for realisation of the convertible foreign exchange. This request for extension of time was acceded to by the Commissioner of Income-tax vide orde...
Tag this Judgment!Searsole Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC238Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by M/s. Searsole Chemicals Ltd. is whether the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 was available to the excisable goods cleared by them during the financial year 1994-95.2. The facts in brief are that Notification No. 1/93, dated 28-2-1993 was amended by Notification No. 125/94, dated 31-8-1994. The effect of this amending Notification was that the benefit of Notification No.1/93 became available to a factory registered with the Director General of Technical Development. The Appellants claimed the benefit of the Notification No. 1/93 in their revised classification list dated 8-3-1995. The Assistant Collector disallowed the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 to the Appellants holding that the Notification extends its benefit only in the case of first clearance of Rs. 75 lakhs in a financial year and they had already crossed this exemption limit as the actual value of clearance in the current financial year was around Rs. 2 crores upto 7-3-1995. On...
Tag this Judgment!