Delhi Court January 2007 Judgments

U.P. State Sugar and Cane Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(117)ECC90

1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of V.P. sugar with molasses as its by-product, both falling under Chapter 17 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The bagasse and press mud generated during the course of manufacture of sugar exempted from duty were being cleared without payment of duty. By a letter dated 3.10.97, the Superintendent of Central Excise informed the appellant that as per Rule 57CC under the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944, a manufacturer is required to pay an amount of 8% on the value of press-mud and other waste at the time of clearance from their factory.The appellant reversed the amount of Rs. 15,490/- in their RG23C Part-II account on 14.10.1997 endorsing that payment was made under protest against letter dated 3.10.1997. A proceeding was initiated by way of demand of duty and ultimately by order dated 28.4.2000, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise dropped the demand of duty.The appellant filed a refund claim of Rs. 15,...

Chlorochem Industries Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(119)ECC298

1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 14,704/- and denial of Cenvat credit of Rs. 37,911/- and penalty of Rs. 24,704/-.2. None appeared on behalf of the applicant. The applicant filed an application along with written submissions to decide the matter in their absence. Heard the learned D.R.3. After hearing the learned D.R. and on perusal of the record, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the applicants are not entitled to avail cenvat credit in terms of Rules 6(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 because their final product is exempted in terms of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, they are not covered under the definition of output service provider. The applicant contended that Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is not attracted to their case and Rule 3(r) of the said Rule is applicable herein.4. After reading Rule 6(1) of the said Rules, I find that the applicant fails to make out a prima-facie case for waiver of pre-...

Smt. Veena Nayyar W/O Late Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. Insofar as the relief of furnishing the important papers to the applicant is concerned, the same has become infructuous. As regards relief 8(i), which, inter alia, pertains to release of GIS, it is stated in the counter reply that the same would be disbursed to the applicant within a period of two months from today.2. Insofar as the relief of interest on GPF is concerned, it is trite that GPF is an amount, which is in custody of the Government for which the Government in late disbursement is legally bound to pay interest as per the GPF rates prevalent at the relevant time. It is also equally settled that once the GPF installments have not been paid by the employee, he is also liable to pay interest on the aforesaid.3. In such view of the matter, the applicant whose application and legal notice for GPF have culminated into initiation of process of payment to the widow on 20.10.2004, the same was ultimately disbursed to the applicant on 25.11.2005.4. The respondents, in their reply, ...

Smt. Bhagirathi, Smt. Radha Vs. Nct of Delhi, Through the Chief

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. MA 1965/2005 seeking joining together is allowed, particularly in the absence of any strong opposition by the respondents.2. Three applicants in present OA seek direction to respondent nos. 3-4 to finalize their claim for grant of uniform allowance, washing allowance and nursing allowance under the Rules & in terms of Government of India rates besides seeking quashment of communication dated 15.4.2005 with all consequential benefits. Initially, the OA was disposed of at the admission stage vide order dated 06.10.2005 with direction to respondent Nos. 3-4 to take a final decision in the matter. A liberty was also accorded to the applicants to revive the OA in case they are still aggrieved. Later, respondent No. 3 passed order dated 23.11.2005 stating that: this Ministry is not the nodal Ministry to decide upon the matter of allowances to be paid to the nursing staff of the Directorate of Social Welfare.Therefore, by MA 341/2006, the OA was revived vide order dated 26.4.2006.3. A...

Smt. Usha Sharma Wd/O Late Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. The only impediment in release of family pension to the widow is that she has re-married, as transpired on information by the official respondents by the mother of the deceased railway servant. As we know that to disentitle a valid legal claim where the right of family pension is bestowed upon the widow of the deceased employee under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, this right can be curtailed only when it is established through evidence that the widow has re-married.3. In such view of the matter, mere information without any proof by the mother is not a valid piece of material to impede the right of family pension of widow. However, keeping in view the welfare of the minor child, this OA stands disposed of with direction to the applicant that in the event an affidavit is filed as to denial of re-marriage by the widow, the matter would be processed seeking comments from the mother of the deceased employee and in the event no proof of re-marriage is available, then the case for family...

Dr. B.N. Acharya, Deputy Medical Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi, Through It ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. In the light of an order passed by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare dated 19.10.2006, transfer of the applicant in pursuance of the directions of this Tribunal in OA-2742/2004 on 22.11.2004 having been kept in abeyance, applicant is deemed to be on duty with the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, which has a legal responsibility to pay to the applicant the pay and allowances during the interregnum.3. It is also trite that once the transfer orders are kept in abeyance, the person is restored back to the original post where he is functioning, i.e., Aruna Asaf Ali (Govt.) Hospital. However, to transfer a person within the Govt. of NCT is the prerogative of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi.4. In such view of the matter, OA stands disposed of with a direction to the respondents, i.e., Govt. of NCT of Delhi to consider posting the applicant at the old place from where he has been transferred and to pay him the pay and allowances from September 2006 to till date. This shall be done within a perio...

Vinayak Local Area Bank Limited Vs. Reserve Bank of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]89SCL89(Delhi)

Hima Kohli, J.1. By this judgment and order we propose to dispose of the present appeal which is filed by the appellant/respondent No. 3 in the writ petition, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 5th December, 2005 passed by the Learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition by respondent No. 1, Reserve Bank of India was allowed and the impugned order therein dated 14th September, 2004, being an order on second review petition preferred by the appellant herein, was held to be non-est and was thereforee quashed.2. The brief facts relevant for disposing of the present appeal are that in November 1996, the appellant applied to respondent No. 1, namely, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), under Section 22 of the of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') for grant of a license to it to commence banking business. In January, 1999 the RBI, conveyed its approval in principle for the promotion of a local area bank subject to various terms and conditions ...

Prestige Housewares Ltd. and anr. Vs. Dinesh Gupta and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 137(2007)DLT462; LC2007(1)313; 2007(34)PTC335(Del)

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. Plaintiff claimed to be a manufacturer of prestige pressure cookers, Kiwi Shoe Polish, Kohinoor contraceptives and paper products running its business activities as TTK Group of Companies. The trademark PRESTIGE was registered in India initially in favor of Prestige Group Ltd, UK on 14th December, 1949 for non electric cooking and kitchen utensils in Class 21. This trademark was assigned in favor of the plaintiffs vide a deed of Assignment on 4th October, 1985. Thus, plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 became owners of the trademark and were using this trademark 'PRESTIGE' for manufacturing and selling pressure cookers in India. They were also marketing the pressure cookers and parts thereof, such as rubber gaskets/seals, metallic safety valves, vent weight valves, handles, etc. in a distinctive, unique and artistic polythene pouch/packaging. Plaintiff claimed to be the owner of copyright in the pouching/packaging materials which, according to the plaintiff, were original...

Kangaro Industries (Retd.) and ors. Vs. Jaininder JaIn and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(34)PTC321(Del)

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This appeal challenges the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18th October, 2006. The learned Single Judge had prefaced the impugned order with the following paragraph:At loggerheads, in these proceedings, are the members of same family, who would have, perhaps, been well advised to strive to sort out amicably their ongoing dispute over use of trademark 'KANGARO' instead of slugging it out by entangling themselves in multifarious litigious bouts.2. The learned Single Judge's description adequately summarized the nature of a business family's feud which had transversed the borders of the country and found itself reflected in litigations spread all over the world. The impugned order was occasioned by a suit filed in Dubai by the appellant against the party who imported the goods made by the respondent herein.3. The genesis of the dispute between the parties arose from the trade mark proceedings relating to trade mark 'KANGARO' in respect of stationary articles suc...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Regency Express Builders P. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 137(2007)DLT513; [2007]291ITR55(Delhi)

V.B. Gupta, J.1. Revenue is aggrieved by the order dated 25th February, 2005 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E' vide which the appeal filed by Revenue was dismissed for the Assessment year 1999-2000.2. The facts giving rise to present appeal are that M/s Regency Express Private Limited (hearinafter referred to as assessed) had filed its return on 1st December, 1999 declaring a loss of Rs. 1785/- for the Assessment Year 1999-2000.3. The Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to the assessed on 29th December, 2000 and the said notice was sent at the address given by the assessed in its return. The said notice was duly served on the assessed which was received by one 'Gunanand' and according to this notice, the date of hearing was 11th January, 2001.4. In pursuance to the aforesaid notice, assessed's representative Shri Harish Bansal, Chartered Accountant attended the hearing on 11th January, 2001 and wa...