Delhi Court January 2003 Judgments

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Neoli Sugar Factory

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT731TriDel

1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of Welding Electrodes Plates were allowed.3. The contention of the Revenue is that chequered plates are not used for the manufacture of any machinery but are used in the civil structure such as plates etc. and plates in question are classifiable under Heading 7208 of Central Excise Tariff and are not covered under the definition of capital goods as provided under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.4. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order gave a specific finding of fact that the chequered plates are used in the manufacture of juice Sulphiter machine which is a capital goods and is used in the manufacture of sugar. This finding of fact is not controverted by the Revenue. The contention of the Revenue is that the plates are used for the civil structure and in support of this contention no evidence is produced by the Revenue. The ...

Arun Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT299TriDel

1. These appeals at the instance of the assessee arise out of order dated 27-9-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Raipur.2. Appeal No. E/165/2002-A is at the instance of Arun Kumar Aggarwal, proprietor of M/s. Arun Industries whereas A. No. E/173/2002-A is at the instance of Santosh Kumar Aggarwal, proprietor of M/s. Agarsen Agro Farm Industries. The issues raised in these appeals are identical.Therefore, we are disposing them together under a common order.3. The appellants are small-scale units engaged in the manufacture of trolleys and agricultural implements. Following are the issues raised in these appeals.4. For the year 1994-95 the value of 26 trolleys manufactured by the job worker to whom raw materials were supplied by appellant in A. No.E/165/2002-A had been added to the total value of the goods sought to be assessed at the hands of the appellant. Similarly, in the case of appellant in A. No. E/173/2002-A the value of 30 trolleys manufactured by th...

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Haryana Malleable and Alloy

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT120TriDel

2. Respondents are engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel castings/machinery parts. Respondents were claiming classification of steel castings under Chapter 73 of the Central Excise Tariff. Show cause notice was issued to the appellants to classify the same under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff by the adjudicating authority, after relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shivaji Works Ltd. v. CCE reported in 1994 (69) E.L.T. 674 (T). Revenue filed the appeal and the same was also dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. The contention of the Revenue, in the present appeal, is that the goods cleared by the respondents are identifiable parts of machinery and are classifiable under Chapter 84 of the Tariff.4. The Commissioner (Appeals), in the impugned order, gave a specific finding that the respondents are clearing castings after annealing, short blasting and chipping and as per the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shivaji Works Ltd. (supra), the cas...

Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. Shree Synthetics Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT931TriDel

1.In these three appeals filed by the Revenue, the issue involved is whether principles of unjust enrichment will apply to the refund claimed by the respondents, M/s. Shree Synthetics Ltd. 2. Shri R.D. Negi, learned Senior Departmental Representative, submitted that the respondents manufactured synthetic yarn; that they imported spin finish oil from Japan for smooth winding/unwinding of the yarn during different stages of manufacture; that the spin finish oil was assessed to customs duty under Heading No. 34.03 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act without extending the benefit of Notification No. 136/86; that at the time of removal of the goods from the warehouse, the respondents claimed classification under Heading 34.02 of the Tariff read with Notification No. 81/86-Cus. which was not agreed upon by the Department; that subsequently refund claims were filed by the respondents in respect of excess customs duty paid by them; that the matter ultimately reached the App...

Vanasthali Textiles Inds. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)LC114Tri(Delhi)

1. M/s. Vanasthali Textiles Industries Ltd. have filed two appeals involving common issue against Orders-in-Appeal No. 418/2001, dated 25-6-2001 and 649/2002, dated 31-10-2002 both passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). We grant stay of the recovery of duty in Appeal No. E-2845/2002-D and take up both the appeals for disposal with the consent of both the sides.2. Shri R. Krishnan, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants are a 100% Export-Oriented Undertaking (E.O.U.); that in terms of Notification No. 8/97-C.E., dated 1-3-97, partial exemption from duty is available on goods sold in Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) subject to the condition that the goods have been manufactured wholly from raw materials produced or manufactured in India; that they were admittedly procuring all the required raw materials from domestic manufacturers in India; that they also imported (i) Carboxymethyle Cellulose - Finifix 30 which is used for sizing of single yarn to give strength to the yarn during weav...

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Onkar Engineering (P) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)78TTJ(Delhi)764

1. This appeal, preferred by the Revenue, is directed against CIT(A)'s order dt. 19th March, 1997, relating to asst. yr. 1992-93. The only ground raised in this appeal, is as under: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in directing the AO to treat the income from letting of godown as income from business and not as income from house property".2. While completing the assessment for asst. yr. 1992-93, the AO noted that assessee-company had shown receipt of Rs. 2,08,308 as rent from M/s Polyplex Corporation Ltd. for letting out of the godown forming part of land and building of the assessee-company. The godown was given by the assessee for storing and without hiring of any machine. The AO was of the view that receipt of rent should be treated as income from house property and not business income as claimed. Assessee was called upon to explain. The assessee submitted that assessee had let out the business asset and right...

Bio-chem Pharmaceutical Industries Vs. Astron Pharmaceuticals and Assi ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)41; 102(2003)DLT840; 2003(26)PTC200(Del); 2003(1)RAJ464; [2003]47SCL574(Delhi)

S.N. Kapoor, J. 1. Heard.2. This appeal is directed against an order dated 7th October, 1999 passed by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks dismissing Opposition No. DEL 8597 of the appellant-M/s. Bio-Chem Pharmaceutical Industries and allowing the registration of the trade mark BICILLIN in Class 5.3. The trade mark of the appellant is 'BIOCILIN' while the trade mark of the respondent is 'BICILLIN'. There is no dispute in between the parties about one aspect that 'BIOCIIIN' as well as 'BICILLIN' both have been used in respect of two drug components, namely, Bi means two, Ceiling standing a mixture of AMPICILLIN and CLOXACILLIN. In so far as 'BIOCILIN' is concerned, the appellants have acquired a reputation in the trade in respect of their trade mark. 4. The case of the respondent was and is that 'BICILLIN' is a composite word by using 'BI', meaning two and Ceiling stands for a mixture of AMPICILLIN and CLOXACILLIN. 5. Taking the cases of both the parties at their face value, the ques...

State of Uttar Pradesh (Through the Secretary Ministry of Health), Vs. ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1(2003)ACC282; I(2003)ACC282; 2004ACJ2145; 2003IIAD(Delhi)37; 102(2003)DLT828

S.N. Kapoor, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of the above-mentioned three appeals viz. FAO No. 130/97--the appeal filed by the claimants as legal heirs of the deceased, namely, Smt. Santosh Dhingra (wife), Anup (son), Neeru and Simmi (daughters), FAO No.131/97--the appeal filed by Smt. Santosh Dhingra, who herself suffered injuries in the accident, which occurred on 28th January, 1985 and FAO No.480/96--the appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh, the owner of the offending vehicle. All the three appeals are against the common award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short the 'Tribunal') dated 17th September, 1996.2. The learned Tribunal awarded compensation amounting to Rs.1,20,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased Om Prakash Dhingra in the death case. In the petition relating to injuries suffered by Smt. Santosh Dhinra, a sum of Rs.20,000/- was awarded as compensation. In both the matters the learned Tribunal has awarded interest @ 12% per annum from the...

inder Preet Singh Sahni Vs. Anoop Sharma

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ588; 2003(1)JCC153

R.C. Chopra, J. 1. This petition is for quashing the complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner under Sections 323, 406 and 506, IPC. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant does not oppose the prayer and submits that at) the disputes and differences between the parties have been amicably resolved. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner' is settled in USA and the complaint was on account of some disputes between the complainant who was an employee and the petitioner who was an employer which have been amicably resolved. It is also pointed out that the police had declined to take any action in the matter and filed a closure report on the complaint filed by the respondent. The learned MM had declined the permission to the parties for compounding the offence as the offences under Sections 406 & 506, IPC are not compoundable. 2. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstanc...

Senior Superintendent of Post Office Vs. H. Devraj

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 18.2.2002, passed by District Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, Institutional Area, Mehrauli, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 2165/1998 - entitled Shri H.Devraj v. Post Master General, New Delhi and Ors. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent Shri H.Devraj had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that the respondent, who is a poor driver, working with a Private Travel Agency, had remitted a sum of Rs. 700/- by money order to his mother, living in Mavungal House, Thirupuram, P.O. Neyyattinkara, District Thiruvanathapuram (Kerala) on 26.2.1998 from Defence Colony, New Delhi Post Office. It was stated that the above amount was remitted by means of money order to his 60 years old ailing mother ...