Delhi Court October 2002 Judgments

Dcm Precision Engineering Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT65TriDel

1. M/s. DCM Precision Engineering have filed the captioned appeal. The dispute in the appeal is whether the goods are classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 84.09 as claimed by the assessee by filing the classification list/declaration on 10-11-97 or the goods are liable for classification under Chapter Heading 86.07 as held by the authorities below.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Cylinder Head Assembly for internal combusion engine used in the Diesel Locomotives. On 10-11-97 the appellants filed a classification list/declaration stating that the goods manufactured by them were classifying under Chapter Heading 84.09 before that the Department was classifying their goods under Chapter Heading 86.07. The authorities issued SCN to the appellants asking them to explain as to why the goods should not be classifiable under Chapter Heading 86.07.The Asstt. Commissioner classified the goods under Chapter Heading 86.07. On appeal ld....

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Eicher Tractors Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)79TTJ(Delhi)158

1. The following grounds are raised in the Revenue's appeal, directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) : "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in : 1. Accepting the additional evidence in regard to disallowance of payment of club expenses under Rule 6B. 2. In directing to allow deprecation on items of furniture and fixture which are in the possession of employees. 3. In deleting the disallowance of guest-house expenses like rent, repairs and depreciation. 4. In directing to allow the expenses to the extent of subscription for membership and by accepting additional evidence. 5. Deleting the disallowance of Rs. 50,000 made under Rule 6B accepting the additional evidence. 6. In allowing the 1st claim of the assessee for deduction under Section 43B in respect of outstanding in respect of outstanding interest payable to various financial institution without making any payment. " 2. We have heard both the parties at length and have also perus...

M.C.D. Vs. Shri O.P. Mittal and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 100(2002)DLT634

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. Admit. 2. The petitioner corporation has impugned the order dated 12.4.1999 of the learned Additional District Judge holding that the entire proceedings of assessment of house tax and fixing rateable value in terms of the assessment order dated 19.3.1994 and rectified by the order dated 5.10.1995 were without jurisdiction since no notice has been served under Section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on respondent No. 1. 3. The learned Additional District Judge as the appellate authority has held that since the information was supplied by the Group Housing Society under Section 131 of the said Act, the service of the notice under Section 126 of the Act on the individual assessed as a statutory requirement cannot be ignored and the mere service of the notice on the society would not suffice. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the aforesaid finding by reference to the averments in the writ petit...

M.C.D. Vs. Subhash Chander Goel and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 100(2002)DLT519

J.D. Kapoor, J.1. Main question involved in this petition is whether notice under Section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter called 'the Act') is illegal and invalid because of its being not served within the year to which it related as contemplated under Section 126 of the Act and secondly imperative conditions of service under Section 444(1)(d) of the Act having not been complied with.2. The respondent No. 1 took the suit property on lease from DDA in 1979 for a premium of Rs. 14,795/-. He started construction on the said plot of land in 1980. It is also not in dispute that the said property was put to residential use only. A notice under Section 126 of the Act was issued by the petitioner proposing to enhance the rateable value of the said property from Rs. 2,520/- to Rs. 37,800- w.e.f. 1.4.1980 on account of erection of building on plot. The cost of the land was assessed at Rs. 1,600/- per sq. metre existing in the year 1980 on the basis that for differen...

Chanel Ltd. Vs. Sunder Chemicals Agarbati Works (P) Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(26)PTC52(Del)

S. Mukerjee, J.IA No. 11043/20011. Alongside diamonds and designer clothes, perfumes are a lady's (and in these unisex times perhaps even a man's) best friend.2. This case deals with the world renowned 'chanel' brand of perfumes in the context of an application for interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, preferred by M/s Chanel Limited a foreign company manufacturing and marketing various kinds of perfumes and cosmetics and having established world-wide reputation with actual sales of about Rs. 5000 million in the three years immediately preceding the filing of the suit.3. During this period the expenditure on advertisement is stated to be the region of about Rs. 500 million every year.4. The plaintiff has set out in paragraphs 4-9 the details of various registered trademarks and particulars of registration certificate etc. in relation to its products.5. The case of the plaintiff is that it is having this trademark since the year 1925, when the same was adopted in Great Britai...

S.K. Mittal Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. The enforcement Directorate initiated proceedings against Shri Rajiv Gambhir, Shri S.K. Mittal and Shri Umesh Mendiratta for violation of section 9(1)(d) and 9(1)(b) of FERA, 1973. After conclusion of the proceedings all the three persons mentioned above were held guilty and penalties were imposed upon them. In this appeal we are concerned in the case of Shri S.K. Mittal who has been directed to pay Rs. 15,000 which he has deposited. The other two proceedees namely Rajiv Gambhir and Umesh Mendiratta have not appealed against the order. 2. The facts of the case are that one Shri N.N. Gupta a person resident in Dubai maintained two NRE accounts with Citi Bank and American Express Bank Ltd. New Delhi. During investigation it came to light that Rajiv Gambhir had made payment of Rs. 6,20,000 to the present appellant Shri Mittal and Umesh Mendiratta during 1993 by order of N.N. Gupta. Charge against the appellant was that he and Umesh Mendiratta received the abovementioned amount from Gam...