Delhi Court March 2001 Judgments

Cce, Jaipur Vs. M/S Dawood and Dawood (Now Peacock

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This order will dispose of two appeals; A.No. E/2365/2000-C filed against the order dated 28.4.2000 and A.No. E/2366/2000-C filed against the order dated 20.4.2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Both these appeals have been filed by the Revenue being dissatisfied with those orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he affirmed the order-in-original and allowed the respondents benefit of notification no. 15/94-CE dated 1.3.1994 in respect of the plastic household goods including orbit trollies.2. The learned DR has assailed the validity of both these impugned orders before us on the ground that the provisions of notification no.15/94-CE dated 1.3.1994 had not been discussed by the Commissioner (Appeals) while affirming the order of the Asstt. Commissioner and that the goods manufactured by the respondents were squarely covered under Tariff Heading NO. 39.15 during the period in question i.e. 1.3.1994 to 15.3.1995 when the said notification was not in operation at all.Th...

C.C.E. Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Arihant Cotsyn Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(150)ELT202TriDel

1. The respondents are the manufacturers of Yarn falling under Chapters 52 & 55 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They are availing modvat credit on the capital goods under Rule 57-Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jalandhar Division vide his Order dt. 6.2.98 allowed them the modvat credit amounting to Rs. 5,500/- availed by them on the Electric Control Panel.2. The Revenue filed appeal against the above order of the Asst.Commissioner, but the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh rejected same with the observation that the Switch Board/Panel is a part of Control System of main machinery, without which the machinery cannot function.Thus it is an integral part of plant and machinery. The lower appellate authority in arriving at such findings relied on the decision in the case of Associated Cement Co. vs. CCE reported in 1998 (97) ELT 379 (CEGAT).3. This is the second stage appeal filed by the Revenue. I have heard Shri M.D. Singh, SDR for...

M/S. Bhupindra Steel Ltd. Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This matter involved modvat credit of Rs. 6620.54% availed by the appellants on the inputs HSD Oil. A penalty of Rs. 2000/- imposed on the appellants by the Commissioner of Central Excise Division-IV, Faridabed vide his order dated 11.2.99 is also the subject matter of this appeal. The matter is listed today for admission. I have heard Shri B.L.Ghai,CMD of the appellant's company and Shri Swatantra Kumar,JDR for the respondents.2. It is seen that the Commissioner(Appeals) New Delhi in his order dated 29.12.2000 while dismissing the appeal of the party has observed that vide Section 112 of Finance Act,2000,modvat credit of duty paid on HSD oil has been dis-allowed with restrospective effect from 16.3.95 onwards.Accordingly the modvat credit on HSD is not available to the party.3. In view of the above clear position in law on the subject and the small amounts involved in the appel,I am of the view that this is not a fit case for admission. Accordingly the admission is refused in term...

M/S. Bilwara Spinners Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT719TriDel

1. In terms of provisions of Rule 57 A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance issued Notfn. No.5/94-CE (N.T) dt. 1.3.94, in which, they specified the inputs and the end products in respect of which the modvat credit of duty could be availed. this notification was further amended by Notfn. No. 14/98-CE (NT) dt. 2.6.98, by virtue of which the modvat credit on the specified duties was restricted to 95% for utilisation or for payment of duty on the final products. This amendment further provided that the credit of the specified duty paid in respect of inputs, viz., naphtha, furnace oil, low sulphur heavy stock, light diesel oil, bitumen and paraffin wax falling under Chapter 27 shall be restricted in the case of input products produced or manufactured in India to the extent of amount of excise duty calculated @ 10% ad valorem and in the case of imported inputs to the extent of the amount of additional duty calculated by assuming as if the like input pro...

B.B. Chibber Vs. Anand Lok Cooperative Grp Housing Society Ltd.andregi ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)51; AIR2001Delhi348; 90(2001)DLT652; 2001(58)DRJ388

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. These two appeals under clause 10 of Letters Patent read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 are directed against the common judgment of learned single Judge in CWP Nos.60 and 61 of 1987, though challenge is the subject matter of CWP 60 OF 1987.2. Factual scenario in which the appeals have been filed, sans unnecessary details, is as follows:-Shri B.B. Chibber, appellant in LPA 287/96 was expelled from the membership of Anandlok Cooperative Group Housing Society (hereinafter referred to as the Society) by resolution dated 16.4.1986. The said resolution was sent to Registrar of Cooperative Societies (in short the Act) and Delhi cooperative Societies rules, 1972 (in short Rules), for approval as required under Rule 36 of the rules. Disapproval by the Registrar was communicated in terms of letter dated 4-12-1986. Same formed subject matter of challenge by the Society in CWP 60/87. By impugned judgment, learned Single Judge held that after expiry of...

M/S. Puran Chand JaIn Vs. Shri Shyamji Industries

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)137; 91(2001)DLT288; 2001(2)RAJ234

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Since the defendant through this application under order 39 Rule 4 CPC seeks vacation of ex parte ad interim injunction passed vide order dated 28th April, 2000 whereby the defendants were restrained from manufacturing, exporting, selling, offering for sale, advertising, exhibiting directly or indirectly dealing in Gutka, pan masala goods and cognate and allied goods such as in pouch having the same getup, colour combination or any other identical/deceptively similar pouch to the plaintiff's pouch and also restrained from infringing the copyright of the plaintiff in the artistic work titled 'MAHAK' registered under No. A-57188/99, the order shall dispose not only the instant application but also the application under order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC as the grant or refusal of one shall decide the fate of the other.2. The short ground on which vacation of stay has been sought is that the plaintiff obtained a stay order on the basis of the registration of trade mark 'MAHA...

M/S. Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. Vs. M/S. Hindustan Max Gb Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 91(2001)DLT688; 2001(59)DRJ28; 2002(1)RAJ428

ORDERMukul Mudhal, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), filed by the original respondent M/s Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd., against the orders of the learned Single Judge dated 12th January, 2001, and 19th February, 2001. By the order dated 12th January, 2001, the learned Single Judge in the presence of Caveator/appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'HAL') adjourned the matter to 24th January, 2001 and directed that status quo be maintained in the meanwhile. By the subsequent Order dated 19th February, 2001 while continuing the order of status quo, the case was adjourned by the learned Single Judge to 20th March, 2001 and the request of the appellant for an early hearing of the case was not entertained while noticing the plea raised by the respondent/petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'Max GB') that the appellant-HAL was in contempt and could not be heard unless and until it purged the contempt...

M/S Girnar Food and Beverages Vs. M/S Godfrey Phillips India Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 90(2001)DLT839; 2001(2)RAJ289

ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of learned Single Judge dated 23rd June, 1997, passed in IA.6973/96, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, filed by the plaintiff-M/s Godfrey Phillips India Ltd., and IA.7896/96, an application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC, filed by defendant-M/s Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt. Ltd.2. By the said order impugned in the present appeal learned Single Judge allowed IA.6973-96 and dismissed IA.7896/96 consequent on finding that a strong prima facie case was made out by the plaintiff. The learned Single Judge ordered that the defendant be injuncted from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale or distributing tea with the trademark SUPER CUP or any other trade mark deceptively similar thereto.3. The plaintiff's/respondent-M/s Godfrey Phillips India Ltd.'s(hereinafter referred to as 'Godfrey Phillips') case set out in the plaint is as under:M/s Godfrey Phillips carries on business of manufacturing and selling various brands of te...

M/S. Gmnco Ltd. Vs. Shri Ravi Gupta

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)350; AIR2001Delhi409; 92(2001)DLT494; 2001(59)DRJ614; 2003(156)ELT476(Del)

ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the defendant/appellant questioning the legality and validity of the order passed on 18.2.1999 by learned Single Judge on the plaintiff/respondent's application (IA. 1636/99) filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure whereby learned Single Judge by way of an ex parte ad interim order of injunction restrained the appellant from getting the machines released from the bond of Bombay Customs, which find a mention in the prayer clause of the said application.2. The main grievance of the appellant has been that though the appellant applied for vacation of the ex-parte ad-interim order of injunction, learned Single Judge did not decide the same within the time limit, as provided in Rule 3(A) of Order 39 C.P.C. and, thereforee, appeal against the said order would be maintainable in view of the decision of Supreme Court dated 19.9.2000 in CA No. 5102 of 2000 (A.Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan and others).3...

Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Santokh Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]252ITR707(Delhi); [2002]124TAXMAN100(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. This is a petition under Section 26(3) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (in short 'the Act'). The only question that was considered by the Revenue and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', New Delhi (in short, 'the Tribunal'), whether there was a gift in terms of Section 4(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year 1978-79. According to the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Gift-tax (Appeals) (in short, 'the Commissioner'), there was a gift in terms of Section 4(1)(c).of the Act, but the Tribunal held otherwise.2. The dispute arises in the following background :The assessed, an individual, was required by the Assessing Officer to show as to why the memorandum entered into on July 7, 1979, stipulating arrangement of properties settled amongst various co-owners should not be covered by Section 4(1)(c) of the Act. According to the Assessing Officer, in terms of the memorandum of agreement, the assessed surrendered his rights as co-owner in respect of pr...