Delhi Court October 2002 Judgments

United Vaish Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. and Another V ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The above mentioned four revision petitions are directed against the common order dated 18.12.2001 passed by District Forum-I under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in Miscellaneous Application Nos. 920/2001, 921/2001, 922/2001 and 923/2001 whereby conviction orders have been passed against the petitioner No. 2 Sh. Jitender Kumar Gupta, Ex-Hon. Secretary as well as against Sh. Radhey Shyam Bansal, President of the petitioner No. 1 - Society respectively sentencing them to imprisonment for 6 months on account of having failed to pay the penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed as fine vide order dated 11.8.1999. 2. Since the above mentioned petitions filed by the petitioners are directed against a common order and common questions of law and fact are involved, therefore, all the above mentioned four revision petitions are being heard together by this Commission, with the consent of all the parties, and are being dispo...

Shriram Vinyl and Chemical Indus. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT462TriDel

2. This order will dispose of the above captioned two appeals filed by the appellants - Appeal No. E/2223/2002-NB(S) has been filed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 24-5-2002, while Appeal No. E/2224/2002-NB(S) has been filed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 20-5-2002.3. In Appeal No. E/2223/2002-NB(S) the issue relates to the availability of Modvat credit of Rs. 7,799/- in respect of personal computer. The appellants had claimed Modvat credit of this amount on personal computer as capital goods. Both the authorities had disallowed the Modvat credit on the personal computer by holding the same not to be 'Capital Goods' in terms of Rule 57Q.4. None has come present on behalf of the appellants. They have prayed for decision on merits. In their written submissions, they have relied upon the ratio of the law laid down in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v.Steel Strips Ltd. - 2000 (116) E.L.T. 49 (T), for claiming the Modvat credit on the personal computer being used by them for pre-determini...

Himalayan Pipe Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT574TriDel

1. When these appeals came up for hearing we find that there is an application for adjournment at the instance of the Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. After going through the papers and after hearing learned DR we felt that it was not necessary to adjourn the case as the issue raised herein is covered in favour of the appellant by certain decisions of this Tribunal. We, therefore, proceed to dispose of the appeals on merits.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of HDPE pipes and tubes and spinkler systems falling under Chapters 39 and 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants are selling the above goods to various Government departments as per rates and conditions finalised by the Director General of Supplies and Disposals, New Delhi.The rates were inclusive of all taxes and were FOR destination at consignee's premises/rail head. The appellants supplied the goods, as per different supply orders to various places. They claimed deductions on accou...

Shriram Vinyl and Chemical Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT409TriDel

1. Appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) held that waste high boiler is excisable, confirmed the duty demand and also imposed penalties under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules and under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act.2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submitted that waste high boiler is a waste generated in the reactor where acetylene gas and hydrochloric acid were reacted to form venyl chloride monomer.It is not a commodity, which is known in the market and the revenue has confirmed the demand on the ground that the appellants were selling the same. His submission is that mere sale of the waste cannot be made a ground to hold that waste is excisable goods. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v.Indian Aluminium Co. Lid.3. Ld. Counsel also submitted that the demand is time-barred, as the show cause notice was issu...

Standard Chartered Bank Vs. JaIn Studio Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ709

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This Petition presents an interesting question of law in novel circumstances. The Respondent Company maintains a Current Account with the Petitioner Bank. The Petitioner's case is that it had honoured a Cheque drawn by the Respondent Company in the sum of Rs. 2,11,94,000/- without there being corresponding funds in the Current Account maintained between the parties. It is not in dispute that Overdraft limits and/or Loan facilities had not been granted to the Respondent Company. Nevertheless, admittedly by mistake, the Cheque for the afore-mentioned sum of Rs. 2,11,94,000/- was cleared without sufficient funds being available, and payments had been released to M/s. Charu Trading. A Statutory Notice was issued to the Respondent Company in reply to which the above narrated circumstances were highlighted. The Respondent Company has denied its liability for making any payment to the Petitioner.2. The Learned Counsel relies on Bank of Maharashtra v. United Construction C...

Brig. R.C. Datta (Retd) Vs. Dr. Rajiv Anand and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2003)BC266; 2003(66)DRJ46

S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,67,240/- together with pendente lite and future interest @ 24% per annum form the date of filing suit till the date of actual realisation and recovery. The application for leave to defend (IA No. 9389/97) under Order 37 Rule 3(5) CPC has been refused by orders dated 4th October, 2002 passed in is No. 9389/97. The plaintiff is entitled to the judgment forthwith.2. The case set up the plaintiff is that on 13th June, 1992, plaintiff paid Rs. 3,26,000/- (then equivalent to US $ 10,000) to defendant No.1 towards investment, in the form of shares in the company (M/s. Table Treatment Clinic Hong Kong Ltd.) proposed to be set up by defendant No.1 (hereinafter, 'the principal amount'). The company was never set up and shares were not issued. The receipt, Ex.P-3, filed by the plaintiff shows that principal amount was received by defendant No.1 on 13.6.1992. The defendant No.1 also issued a cheque on the same date for Rs. 3,26,0...

Novartis Ag and anr. Vs. Ishwar Lal JaIn and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(26)PTC226(Del)

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. The present Suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants praying for decree of permanent injunction restraining the infringement of trade mark and copyright and also restraining passing off the goods of the defendants as that of theplaintiffs as well as for rendition of accounts and handing over the infringing goods of the defendants to the plaintiffs.2. The plaintiff has stated that it has adopted the trade mark VOVERAN for its pharmaceutical product which according to the plaintiffs has acquired a reputation and goodwill amongst consumers and members of the medical trade. It is also stated that the plaintiffs has incurred huge expenditure for the sale and marketing of the aforesaid product in India for the years 1993-97. It is stated in the plaint that the defendants started manufacturing and marketing a pharmaceutical product under the mark NOVERAN which has a look alike packing as that 6f the plaintiffs. It is stated that the defendants apart f...

Director of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs. Sikar Charitable Trust

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2002)178CTR(Del)117

JudgmentBy the CourtThis appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order, dated 3-5-2001, passed by the Income Tax Appellant Tribunal New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in ITA No. 4546/Del/93, pertaining to the assessment year 1985-86.2. We find that while dismissing revenue's appeal, the Tribunal has relied on its earlier order in ITA No. 4029/Del/93, dated 17-11-1999, in the case of the assessed itself. It is not in dispute that appeal filed, by the revenue against the said order, being ITA No. 147/2000, was dismissed by this court on 5-10-2001. It is also pointed out by Mr. Minocha, who has put in appearance on behalf of assessed, though notice is yet to be issued, that the appeal against another order on the issue, passed by the Tribunal in the case of Wardha Charitable Trust v. Addl. Director of IT (Exemption) in ITA No. 5959/Del/92, pertaining to assessment year 1985-86, and relied upon in the impugned order, has also been dism...

Super Auto India Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC178

2. The issue involved in the appeal relates to the availability of the modvat credit in respect of the furnace oil, used as fuel in the manufacture of dutiable final products as well as exempted final products, by the appellants, 3. This issue apparently appears to be covered in favour of the appellants by the Tribunal's judgment in Indore Steel & Iron Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Indore, 2002 (51) RLT-174, Therefore, the stay petition of the appellants is allowed.4. With the consent of both the sides, I proceed to hear the appeal on merits also.5. The impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 23.7.2002 shows that he had dismissed the appeals of the appellants against the Orders-in-Original dated 28.2.2002 passed by the Deputy Commissioner disallowing them the Cenvat credit of Rs. 5,33,561.32 and Rs. 4,33,040 and imposing penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 in each appeal under Rule 173Q, under Section 35-F of the Act on the ground that they had failed to make pre-deposit of Rs. 11,66,601 whic...

Pasondia Steel Profiles Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC95

1. The appeal is against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 18.2.2002. In the COD application, the appellants say that they had received the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) 'probably' on 22.2.2002. The appeal is seen to have been filed before the Tribunal on 23.5.2002. If the above statement of the appellants is correct, there is a delay of 2 days in filing the appeal. In any case, the delay is as short as below 5 days. After considering the explanation offered by the appellants in the COD application and after hearing both the sides, I condone the delay.2. The stay application filed under Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act seeks stay of recovery in respect of an amount of duty of Rs. 52,394 and penalty amounts of Rs. 25,000 [under Rule 9(2)] and Rs. 10,000 (under Rule 173-Q). The applicants, manufacturers of cold rolled strips, had cleared certain quantities of goods on payment of duty-to their customers but the customers found the goods to be defective and ret...