Delhi Court April 2001 Judgments

Virendra D. Pathak Vs. Ito

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)72TTJ(Del)934

ORDERK.C. Singhal, J.M.The only issue arising out of this appeal relates to rebate under section 88 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. The assessed had claimed rebate under section 88 in respect of investments in Master Equity Plan at Rs. 10,000 and Public Provident Fund at Rs. 40,000. On verification of bank pass-book, it was found that the aforesaid investments of Rs. 50,000 was made on 23-3-1993, out of the loan taken by the assessed from his brother. The claim of the assessed was rejected by the assessing officer on the ground that the investment made by him was not out of chargeable income. The action of the assessing officer has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order, dated 29-9-1994. Aggrieved by the same, the assessed is in appeal before the Tribunal.3. The learned counsel for the assessed Mr. Khandelwal has submitted before us that assessed had taxable income of Rs. 1,80,260 out of which loan of Rs. 1,35,000 had been given to Pathak Trust. Since the assessed could...

K. Narendra Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2002)77TTJ(Del)76

ORDERKeshaw Prasad, A.M.The appeals for assessment year 1985-86 to 1987-88 filed by the assessed arise out of the Commissioner (Appeals)-17, New Delhi's order dated 25-2-1994 whereas the appeals for assessment years 1988-89 to 1990-91 arise out of the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order dated 28-9-1994. As in all the appeals common issue are involved, all the six appeals are being disposed of by a consolidated order.2. The first issue which is common to all the appeals is disallowance of the deduction claimed by the assessed on account of damages payable to Land and Development Office (hereinafter referred to as L&DO;).3. Briefly the facts of the case are that vide agreement of lease dated 14-9-1961, the assessed was allotted a piece of land situated at Plot No. 5 in Harding Bridge, New Delhi for construction of building for newspaper press along with reasonable number of residential quarters for staff. Clause-XIII of the agreement also provided that the said land cannot be used for any pur...

Dwarka Nath JaIn Vs. JaIn Music Corner and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(59)DRJ159; 2002(1)RAJ578

S.K. Mahajan, J.1. Plaintiff had filed suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction and for rendition of account under the provisions of the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act and the Copyright Act. The case of the plaintiff was that the plaintiff was registered proprietor of the trade mark 'JAMCO' in respect of the radio receiving sets, transistorizedradios, typewriters and other electric goods. It is alleged that the defendant and its associate had started manufacturing and trading in car stereos, typewriters, radio transistors etc. under the trade mark JAMCO and under the trade and firm name Jamco Radios. This act of the defendant in using the trade mark Jamco and adopting the trade and firm name Jamco Radios was staled to be an infringement of the registered trade mark of the plaintiff and the plaintiff, thereforee sought injunction against the defendant restraining him from using the aforesaid trade mark and for rendition of accounts.2. Defendant is a partnership firm, on bei...

international Surgico Industries Vs. First Flight Courier Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellants, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against order dated 23.3.2000, passed by District Forum (Central), I.S.B.T., Kashmiri Gate, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 1040/1998 - entitled M/s. International Surgico Industries v. M/s. First Flight Courier Pvt. Ltd. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum, averring that the appellant had booked a consignment, addressed to the Medical Superintendent, New Civil Hospital, Surat vide C/N No. D-17139025 dated 4.4.1997 through the respondent. The grievance of the appellant in the complaint filed in the District Forum was that the respondent failed to deliver the proof of delivery of the consignment to the consignee despite repeated requests and a legal notice. As the proof of d...

C.C.E., Meerut Vs. M/S. H.G.F. Laminates

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal whereby the benefit of MODVAT Credit was allowed on the bill of entry, which was in the name of Paharpur Industries Ltd. 3. The contention of the revenue is that the bill of entry is not in the name of the respondents. Therefore,they are not entitled for the benefit of MODVAT credit. The Commissioner, in the impugned order, noticed the fact that the respondents are division of the M/s. Paharpur Industries Ltd. This fact is not denied by the revenue. Further, the Commissioner relied upon the CBEC circular dated 26.11.96, whereby it was clarified that the credit is available when the bill of entry is in the name of the sister concern. As the Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the circular, which allowed the credit to the sister unit I find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal, filed by the revenue, is rejected. (Dictated in Court)....

C.C.E., Jaipur Vs. M/S. Shree Cement Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The revenue filed this appel against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. In the impugned order, the benefit of MODVAT credit on asbestos under Rule 57 Q, as capital goods, was allowed.4. The contention of the revenue is that asbestos is also used for sealing two contact surfaces in various equipments. Therefore, it is neither a machine not parts of any machinery. I find this issue is already decided by the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E vs Bihar Caustic & Chemicals Ltd. reported in 2000 (118) E.L.T. 196 (T), wherein that Tribunal held that asbestos is entitled for the benefit of MODVAT Credit as capital goods. The relevant portion of the judgement is reproduced below : "The Revenue is also aggrieved by allowing of Modvat credit on compressed asbestos, fibre jointing sheets by the Commissioner (Appeals). The said item is used to seel the leakage and allowing flow of liquids during the process of manufacture from one equipment to another. The respondents ha...

M/S. Rajasthan Textile Mills and Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Shri K.K.Anand, Learned Advocate submits that the Tribunal under their Final Order No.133-143/2000-D dated 30.3.2000 has disposed of a group of appeals. The appeal No.E/2380/98-D was not a part of appels in this group and at Sl. N.10 of the title this appeal has been wrong1 included. Shri Sheo Narayan Singh, SDR agrees. Accordingly from the title at Sl.No.10, reference to Appeal No.E/2380/98-D is deleted.Sl.No.11 will be read as Sl.No. 10. the learned Advocate also submits that Appeal No.E/1837/98-D was filed by M/s. Rajasthan Spinning and Wvg. Mills and not by M/s. Rajasthan Textile Mills as indicated in the title. Shri Sheo Narayan Singh, SDR agrees. The name of the appellants in Appeal No.E/1837/98-D is changed to M/s. Rajasthan Spinning and Wvg.Mills. Theses two changes will have no effect on the conclusions drawn and the order recorded. The ROM application is disposed of accordingly....

M/S. Quality Exports and Chemicals Vs. Cce, Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC313

1. Arguing the application for rectification of mistake, Shri A.P.Mathur, ld. Advocate submits that following mistakes have crept in, in the order of the Tribunal:- "3. That the Hon'ble Tribunal while passing the final order dated 15.9.2000 has neither recorded the actual arguments of the counsel nor dealt with the same. Even while dealing with some of the contentions the same have been produced in the manner in which the same were never pleaded, and vital contentions raised have not been reproduced and considered. 4. That the Hon'ble Tribunal did not record the contention of the applicant's counsel that the demand of Rs.53,55,862/- was raised on the basis of GRs which pertained to the period 14.10.93 to 14.6.95 and the demand of Rs.33,22,722/- raised on the basis of Menthol produced and cleared without payment of duty during June, July, 1995 was merged in the demand of Rs.53,55,862/- by the adjudicating authority. The merging of Rs.33,22,722/- in Rs.53,55,862/- is evident of the fact...

M/S. Oswal Sugar Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(150)ELT540TriDel

1. The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs.6,867/- and penalty of Rs.10,000/-.2. In the impugned order, the benefit of MODVAT Credit, as capital goods on the parts of turbine, is denied.4. Revenue is not disputing the fact that turbine is entitled for the benefit of MODVAT Credit as it falls under heading 54 of the Central Excise Tariff. Prima facie, if the machine or machinery is entitled for the benefit of capital goods, the parts are also entitled for the same.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie, the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicants. Hence, the amount is dispute, is waived for hearing of the appeal. Registry is directed to list the appeal on 20.07.2001 (Dictated in Court)....

Gulshan Cassettes Indus. Vs. C.C.E., Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf for the applicants in spite of notice. Therefore, the application is being taken up in the absence of the applicants.3. The applicants filed this application for staying the operation of the impugned order. The applicants filed a refund application,m which was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner. The revenue filed an appeal before the Commissioner and the Commissioner allowed the appeal after relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Solar Pesticide Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2000 (116) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.) where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that principles of unjust enrichment are applicable also to the cases of captive consumption. In view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I find no merit in the application and the same is rejected.However, the registry is directed to list the appeal on 06.07.2001 for arguments. (Dictated in Court)....