Delhi Court January 2010 Judgments

Kishore Kumar Vs. L. Chuni Lal Kidarnath and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2010(1)258

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The present common order will dispose off three applications in the suit; IA 11441/2009 (by the plaintiff, seeking ad-interim injunction against the defendant in respect of trademark usage); IA 13812/2009 (by the plaintiff, for amendment of the suit) and IA 14024/2009 (by the defendant, for vacation of the ex-parte injunction granted by this Court). 2. The suit contends that the plaintiff has been carrying on an old and established business of manufacturing and trading of rechargeable torch, battery, fans, emergency lights etc. as well as their parts since 1997, under the style M/S SPEEDEX BATTERIES. The plaintiff claims to be proprietor and owner of the trademark HOMELITE, which it developed, and has been using since 1997. The plaintiff alleges that in order to protect its rights, it has applied for registration of the trademark HOMELITE, on various dates, described in Para 3 of the suit. It is alleged that registrations were granted on 06.10.1997 and 13.09.2001...

Shri Chander Pal Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 166(2010)DLT614

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks quashing of award dated 13.4.2004 passed by the Industrial Tribunal No- III in I.D. No. 124/02, whereby reference was answered against the workman by upholding the punishment awarded to him and also quashing of the order of removal dated 4.6.1992 passed by the respondent Corporation.2. The brief facts of the present case as per the petitioner relevant for deciding the present petition are that the petitioner was employed as a Conductor with the respondent, Delhi Transport Corporation. The petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 24.9.1991 alleging that the petitioner had not issued tickets to the passengers after collecting due fare from them. It was alleged that his cash was found to be in excess by Rs. 7.50 and that he was found sitting on some other seat. An enquiry was initiated in the matter and the enquiry officer held the petitioner guilty of misconduc...

Sh. Anil Kumar Vs. Smt. Seema Thakur and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 166(2010)DLT619

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The plaintiff in this suit, seeks a decree for declaration that the preliminary decree issued by this court, in CS (OS) 2211 of 2003, ('the partition suit') dated 16.11.2005, is null and void, and that it was obtained by misrepresenting and playing a fraud. A decree for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from seeking to dispossess the plaintiff, from interfering with his possession of the suit property, as well as Shop Nos. 121, 122 and 136, Shankar Road Market, New Rajinder Nagar, (hereafter 'the shops') is sought.2. The suit alleges that the plaintiff purchased the three shops from the first defendant, for Rs. 1 crore. It is contended that a bakery was run under the style 'New Grand Bakery' from the shops, and the plaintiff purchased the entire property along with the assets of the bakery. It is stated that a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs was paid as advance, for which a receipt was executed by the said defendant, who is the wife of one late Bansi Lal. It is...

M/S. Bhupendra Iron Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd Vs. Cce, Jaipur-i

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per M. Veeraiyan: These two appeals by the same appellant arising out of common Order-in-Appeal relate to rejection of refund claims of Rs.18,334/- (in Appeal No.E/3114 of 2007) and Rs.40,000/- (in Appeal No.3070 of 2007). 2. Heard both sides. 3. The dispute has long background history. The appellant was working under Compounded Levy Scheme in terms of Rule 96 ZP and they were required to pay a sum of Rs.4,23,976/- for the period September, 1997 to March, 1998 based on the Annual Production Capacity determined. However, they paid an amount of Rs.76,500/-only and they have filed an abatement claim for Rs.3,63,668/-. When the abatement claim was pending, the Original Authority vide Order dated 17.08.99 confirmed the demand of Rs.3,47,476/- and the Order of the Original Authority was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order dated 24.01.2000 by remanding the matter to the Original Authority for fresh consideration because of pendency of abatement claim, which would have a bearing...

C.C.E. Ghaziabad Vs. M/S Ssg Pharma (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal by the Department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 69-CE/GZB/2007 dated 13.7.2007. 2. Heard the learned SDR. On behalf of respondent, written submission was filed and the same was produced by Shri Praveen Chauhan, representative of the respondent company. 3. The respondent has received DG set and tableting machine on 13.11.98. Apparently, they were availing exemption meant for small scale unit till 31.3.99. They filed declaration on 20.4.99 under Rule 57T and asked for condonation of delay in filing the application so that they could avail modvat credit on the said capital goods. The original authority held that the delay beyond three months cannot be condoned in view of specific provisions of Rule 57T(1) and (3).The said order has been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) in view of the amendment to Rule 57T by Notification No.7/99-CE(NT) dated 9.2.99 relaxing the rigours of procedure for availing credit. The said amendment pre...

M/S. Bharat Petrolium and Others Vs. Cce, Lucknow

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

At the request of learned Advocate for the appellants, time is granted upto 1.2.2010....

Commissioner of Central Excise Allahabad Vs. M/S. Bajaj Hindustan Suga ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per M. Veeraiyan: Heard both sides. Perused the invoices produced in pursuance of order dated 8.10.2009. 2. This is an appeal by the Department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) by which order of the original authority demanding duty of Rs.33,902/- and imposing a penalty of Rs.10,000/- was set aside. The issue involved is that the appellant ordered for certain inputs from Tube Investment India Ltd. and invoices were raised on the appellants. The appellants got their goods processed through a job worker by name of M/s. Fluid Line Engineers and Fabricators (P) Ltd. The invoices of the suppliers indicated the appellants name as the buyers and the name of the job workers as consignee. In other words, the appellants are owners of the inputs and got the goods processed through job worker and undisputedly the final products came back to the appellants premises and discharged the duty liability. The original authority confirmed the demand of duty only on the ground that material ...

Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Kanpur Vs. M/S. Rishi Bake ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal by the Department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No.333-CE/APPL/KNP/2007 dated 17.10.2007. 2. Heard the learned SDR. 3. The issue involved is taking credit of service tax paid under TR 6 challans in respect of services of goods transport operators which was paid by the recipient. According to the original authority, such credit was available only from 16.6.2005 consequent to amendment by Notification No. 28/05-CE(NT) dated 7.6.05. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the original authority with the following findings:- “The adjudicating authority has held that Notification No. 28/05-CE(NT) dated 07.06.05 bears no retrospective effect and credit availed prior to 16.06.05 on TR-6 are not a valid document for availing credit. It is observed that under the provisions of clause (1)(ix) of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, a manufacturer or producer of final products or a provider of services is allowed to take credit of the Se...

M/S. Minimax Industries Vs. Cce, Delhi-ii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per Justice RMS Khandeparkar: Since common questions of law and facts arise in both these appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The appeals arise from order dated 13.7.04 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals), New Delhi whereby the appeals filed by the appellants were dismissed. The adjudicating authority Additional Commissioner, Delhi by his order dated 11.7.2002 had confirmed demand of 17,28,654.72 being the duty payable on the branded goods alongwith the interest thereon and had also imposed penalty of an equal amount besides penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- against the appellant Sh. Mohd. Yusuf, partner of the firm. 3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of machines for wire and cable manufacturing falling under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act.1985. Pursuant to visit of the Departmental Officers to the manufacturing unit of the appellants on 19.1.2000, it was revealed that the unit was engaged in the manufacture of machines...

C.C. and C.Ex., Meerut Ii Vs. M/S Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per M. Veeraiyan: These two appeals by the Department involve the same respondents and raise some legal issues and accordingly are dealt with by this common order. 2. Heard both sides. 3.1 The facts of the case in Appeal No.E/2833/2007 are that a Show cause notice dated 16.9.96 was issued proposing disallowance of modvat credit on capital goods amounting to Rs.1,65,263/- and modvat credit on the inputs amounting to Rs.65,200/-. The original authority by an order dated 19.12.2005 allowed the credit in respect of capital goods but denied the credit on the inputs. In other words, the order of the original authority was partly in favour of the Department and partly in favour of the assessee. The assessee filed appeal in so far as denial of credit amounting to Rs.65,200/- was concerned and their appeal was rejected vide order dated 28th April , 2006 of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Department also filed an appeal agitating the allowance of credit on the capital goods which was rejected by...