Delhi Court December 2002 Judgments

Union Bank of India Vs. Jenus Pharmaceuticals India and

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: III(2003)BC35

1. The appellant-Union Bank of India, filed a Civil Suit before the District Judge, Jaipur City, for the recovery of Rs. 10,60,951.92 against the respondents, which was decreed on 19.7.1989 for the said sum with subsequent interest at 16.5% per annum from the date of suit till realisation along with costs. The appellant Bank filed an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') for issuance of a recovery certificate.This became necessary because the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') came to be passed and Sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the said Act provides as follows: "31. Transfer of pending cases.--(1) Every suit or other proceeding pending before any Court immediately before the date of establishment of a Tribunal under this Act, being a suit or proceeding the cause of action wherein it is based is such that it would have been, if it had arisen after such...

R.B. NaraIn Singh Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income T ...

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)80TTJ(Delhi)402

1. This appeal by the assessee emanates from the order passed by the CIT(A) on 22nd Nov., 1995, in relation to the asst. yr. 1990-91. The following three effective grounds read as under : 1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the interest payable of Rs. 97.07 lakhs to the Central Government @ 14 per cent per annum on the loan of Rs. 693.39 lacs as a revenue expenditure. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in not holding that the subsidy of Rs. 97.07 lacs granted by the Central Government by adjustment of interest as exempt from tax. 3. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in concluding that grant of subsidy equivalent to the interest payable is a waiver.2. The facts concerning this appeal are that the assessee had debited a sum of Rs. 97,07,460 to its P&L a/c as "Provision for interest" and claimed deduction thereof. While framing the assessment under Section 143(3) the AO called upon the assessee to explain as to why this sum be not disallowed. It was stated on behal...

S.L. Batta Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through Secretary, Ministry of Fi ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 102(2003)DLT635; 2003(67)DRJ294; 2003(1)SLJ199(Delhi)

Vijender Jain, J.1. Rule.2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia, for issuance of direction to respondents 2 & 3 to transfer 171 privilege leaves and 234 sick leaves earned by the petitioner while he was in service of Central Bank of India to the present employer i.e. Power Finance Corporation Ltd.3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner applied through proper channel to the post of Deputy Manager (Law) in Power Finance Corporation Ltd. After no objection was granted by the respondents 2 & 3, he joined the said post. The petitioner, thereafter, tendered his resignation and with three months notice as required under the rules. The protection vide letter dated 15.12.99, wrote to the respondents requesting for transfer of provident fund to new employer as per the rules. Thereafter, vide letter dated 4.1.2000, the petitioner wrote to the respondents to transfer his balance of 171 privileges leaves and 234 sick leaves to Power Finance Corporation Ltd. ...

Hindustan Pencils Limited Vs. Rakesh Kalra and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(26)PTC496(Del)

J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. This is a suit seeking permanent injunction against the infringement of the trademark NATARAJ and passing off of the same and rendition of accounts. The matter has been compromised with defendant No, 2. Defendant No. 1 has been proceeded ex parte. 2. The plaintiff claims proprietorship of following trademarks; (a) Trade Mark NATARAJ with the device of Nataraj under No. 225923 as of 14.12.64 claiming user since 22.7.1961 in respect of writing pencils. (b) Trade Mark NATARAJ with the device of Nataraj under No. 260466 dated 6.11.1969 claiming user since 22.7.1961 in respect of pencils, refills for propelling pens and pencils, pencils sharpeners, pens, fountain pens, erasers and pins, clips and staples included in Class-16. (c) Device of NATARAJ with the Trade Mark Nataraj under No. 283730 as of 27.10.1972 in Class 16 claiming user since the year 1961 in respect of pencils of all kinds, erasers, refills for propelling pens, pencils, pencil sharpeners, pens fountain pe...

R.B. NaraIn Singh Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2003]85ITD552(Delhi)

ORDERR.S. Syal, A.M.This appeal by the assessed emanates from the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 22-11-1995 in relation to the assessment year 1990-91. The following three effective grounds read as under :1. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in not allowing the interest payable of Rs. 97.07 lakhs to the Central Government at the rate of 14 per cent per annum on the loan of Rs. 693.39 lakhs as a revenue expenditure.2. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in not holding that the subsidy of Rs. 97.071 lacs granted by the Central Government by adjustment of interest as exempt from tax.3. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in concluding that grant of subsidy equivalent to the interest payable is a waiver.2. The facts concerning this appeal are that the assessed had debited a sum of Rs. 97,07,460 to its Profit & Loss account as 'Provision for Interest' and claimed deduction thereof. While framing the assessment under section 143(3) t...

ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC196

1. In this Appeal, M/s. Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd., have challenged the Adjudication Order No. 1/2002 dated 24.1.2002 by which the Commissioner, Central Excise has confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 52,30,886 and imposed an equivalent amount of penalty on them.2.1 We heard Shri K.K. Anand, Learned Advocate for the Appellants and Ms. Charu Baranwal, learned Senior Departmental Representative for Revenue. The learned Advocate submitted that the Appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Iron and Steel products; that the Commissioner has demanded the reversal of Modvat Credit in respect of 76.225 MT of Ferro Nickel as the Officers, on visit of their factory on 25/26.2.2000 found that instead of ferro nickel, there were some metal lumps/pieces in the stock; that they had availed of the Modvat Credit of the duty paid on the said material; that the Appellants were themselves cheated by the supplier who had supplied the substandard material and mixed other material ...

Cce Vs. Bharti Telecom Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal at the instance of the Revenue the challenge is against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 27.3.2002.The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Electronic Telephones falling under Chapter 85 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period from March 1994 to July 1994 they had cleared/sold telephone sets to various Govt. agencies like DOT. Contending that the prices finally approved by the Govt. agencies were less than the prices at which the appellants had sold the goods at the factory gate, an application for refund of Rs. 3,41,304.47 was made. The adjudicating authority rejected their claim. It was held that the assessee had not filed Price List in Part-II as required prior to 1.4.94 and it has not been brought to the notice of the Department that the price was provisional. It was also held that for the period after 1.4.94 the assessee has not given the appropriate certificate as provided under the Rules. Commissioner (Appeals) allowe...

Executive Director, Mpseb Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC202

1. Challenge in this appeal at the instance of the assessee is against the Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 26-2-2002. The appellant a unit of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board/ is engaged in the manufacture of PCC poles for distribution/ transportation of electrical energy. The issues in dispute are whether the cost of broken poles are to be added for the purpose of arriving at the assessable value of PCC Poles cleared by the assessee and whether it is the actual interest that was paid to the supplier of the raw material for delayed payment during the relevant period, that has to be taken into consideration for the calculation of the cost of manufacture or interest cost for the earlier period. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the contention raised by the assessee on both the issues. Aggrieved by that Order the assessee is in appeal before us.2. During testing of poles there arises a breakage to the extent of about 2%. These broken poles are cleared on payment of du...

Mukh Shudhi Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC457

1. A classification dispute is involved in this case. The goods to be classified are the following :- The appellants filed under Rule 173B a classification list dated 22-9-1994 claiming classification of the above goods under Central Excise Tariff sub-headings 2001.10, 2001.10 and 0801.10 respectively.The Department did not accept this classification and, by show cause notice, proposed to classify Meetha Gutka, Silver Mint and Scented Supari under CET sub-headings 2107.91, 2107.91 and 2106.90 respectively. The assessee contested the proposal. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, who adjudicated the dispute, classified all the three goods under CET sub-heading 2107.91. In the appeal preferred by the assessee against the decision of the original authority, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the lower authority's classification of Meetha Gutka and Silver Mint but remanded the dispute relating to Scented Supari, to that authority. In the present appeal, the assessee has raise...

Rama Phosphate Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(152)ELT315TriDel

1. In these two appeals, the issue involved is whether M/s. Rama Phosphates Ltd. are liable to pay the duty on the inputs namely Tin plates found short in their factory and whether the assessable value of Tin containers was not correctly arrived at.2. Shri Ashutosh Upadhyay, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture Tin containers falling under Chapter 73 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act and vegetable oil falling under Chapter 15 of the Tariff; that the Tin containers manufactured by them are used captively for packing oil manufactured by them; that the Tin containers are exempted under Notification No. 10/96-C.E., dated 23-7-96; that, however, as the Department directed them to pay the duty on Tin containers, they were discharging the duty liability on tin containers after availing of Modvat credit of the duty paid on inputs.He further submitted that the Assistant Commissioner, under the Adjudication Order Nos. 20-21/2000 dated 31-5-2000, has confirm...