Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Oct-12-1989
Reported in : (1990)(25)ECC315
On merits of the cases, these appeals relate to a common issue, viz., interpretation of Notification No. 116/69-CE dated 3.5.69, as amended and determination whether the product "Iso Benzacyl Forte" falling under Central Excise Tariff Item 14-E, manufactured by M/s. Wander India Limited and by M/s. Aphali Pharmaceutical Limited on behalf of M/s. Wander India Limited, and the products (i) Reclor capsules, (ii) Resteclin capsules, (iii) Resteclin tablets, (iv) Resteclin I.M.Injection and (v) Steclin I.M. Injection manufactured by M/s. Sarabhai Chemicals were eligible for the benefit of the aforesaid notification, Hence, these four appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. There are other legal points which have been raised along with this main issue and the same are also dealt with and disposed of by this order.2. The facts of the case in Appeal No. ED/SB/1447/83-C are that M/s.Aphali Pharmaceutical Limited, Ahmedabad manufactured patent or proprie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-15-1989
Reported in : [1990]33ITD50(Delhi)
ORDERPer Agarwal, JM - This is an assesseds second appeal arising out of his assessment for assessment year 1985-86 and the only ground raised is about an addition of Rs. 2,70,000 in respect of unexplained investment in the purchase of an imported Toyota Corolla car No. DIC - 579.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the assessed and the learned Departmental Representative and have perused the material place before us.3. On the 5th March, 1986 there was a search at the residential premises of the assessed and the car in question was one of the four cars which were found in possession and control of the assessed and parked at his residence at 4, Ram Kishore Road, Delhi, According to the ITO the assessed had purchased this car from one Smt. Madhu Sethi and paid Rs. 2,70,000 as the price. On the other hand, the assesseds contention is that he had merely borrowed the car for going to a trip to Hardware and the car had been so borrowed by him only a day or two before the search. At the h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-22-1989
Reported in : 39(1989)DLT418; 1989(17)DRJ47
G.C. Jain, J. (1) In an action for infringement of its registered design, M/s. Bansal Plastic Industries, the plaintiff, has filed this application under Order 39 Rules I and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking an order restraining the respondents, their servants, agents, stockists, dealers and all other persons on their behalf from manufacturing and selling the 'Toy Horse' of the design in suit till the final disposal of the suit. (2) According to the averments in the plaint, the plaintiff was carrying on business, inter alia, of manufacturing and marketing children's tricycles and toys. One of its products was a 'Toy Horse'. The plaintiff prepared its design in August, 1983 It was a distinctive design with unique features and configuration. The design was new and original and had not been previously published. In order to protect its right in that design the plaintiff made an application for registration of the said design under No. 153343 dated 7th August,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-13-1989
Reported in : ILR1989Delhi173; 1989RLR186
Santosh Duggal, J. (1) The appellant herein was defendant in the suit (S. No. 108(80), instituted by the respondent in respect to a plot of land bearing No. E-2, Bali Nagar, New Delhi, which was alleged to have been let out to him under an agreement dated 22nd May, 1971 initially for a period of 11 months and extended from time to tims up to 22nd February, 1976. The suit was for recovery of possession on the plea that she tenancy of the defendant (appellant herein), had come to an end by efflux of time, having nut been renewed after 22nd of February, 1976 but nevertheless as a measure of abundant caution, the plaintiff also served a notice of termination of tenancy on the defendant with effect from 22nd March, 1977, by means of notice dated 28th February, 1977 duly served upon him, and that since the defendant had refused to surrender possession despite this notice, the suit was necessitated. (2) The suit was contested on a number of pleas, including denial of status of the plaintiff a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-12-1989
Reported in : [1989]65CompCas196(Delhi)
S.S. Chadha, J.1. The petitioners in this petition under articles 226 of the Constitution of India are directors of M/s Duncans Agro Industries Ltd (for called 'Duncans') and have raised, in addition to the grounds of challenge as are in C W P No 1039 of 1987-Duncans Agro Industries Ltd v Union of India, a further ground that there is no provision in the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), or the Central Excises Rules, 1944 (hereinafter called 'the Rules'), by which individual directors of a limited company can be made personally liable or responsible for the payment of excise duty or be subjected to penalties. For the reasons recorded in C W P 1039 of 1987, we repel the common contentions raised. 2. The impugned show-cause notices have been issued in exercise of the powers conferred by section 11A of the Act. Under section 11A, where any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded by reasons o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Sep-18-1989
Reported in : (1991)(31)ECC170
1. The issue for consideration in these 36 appeals is whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No.77/86-Cus., dated 17-2-1986.2. The appeals arise against the order-in-appeal dated 30-5-1988 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Madras rejecting the appellants 36 refund claims amounting to Rs. 22,26,780/-. (a) The appellants imported Phenol USP Grade from West Germany and the consignment was classified under sub-heading 2907.11 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 for the purposes of levy of Customs duty. For the purposes of levy of countervailing duty the goods were classified under sub-heading 2907.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Sub-heading 2907.11 of the Customs Tariff Act reads as "Phenol (hydroxybenzene) and its salts". Sub-heading No. 2907.10 of the Central Excise Tariff refers to "Phenols and its salts". By virtue of Notification No. 136/86-Cus., dated 17-2-1986 (as amended), the effective rate of dut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-31-1989
Reported in : [1990]67CompCas589(Delhi)
Leila Seth, J.1. Two interesting points of law arise in this appeal: (i) Whether the legal heirs of a deceased shareholder can be regarded as members of the company for the purpose of maintaining a petition under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, and (ii) Whether a composite petition under sections 397, 398 and 433(f) of the Companies Act, 1956, is maintainable. 2. The admitted facts are briefly set out. As per a certified copy of the annual return made out up to February 15, 1984, the shareholders of Worldwide Agencies Pvt. Ltd. were as follows : Mr. S. Desor 600 sharesMrs. Amrit Kaur Singh 545 'Mr. Yash Pal Malhotra 250 'Mrs. Amrit Gupta 200 'Mrs. Savitri Devi Kohli 5 'Mr. A. S. Saluja 5 'Mr. Balwant Singh 405 '---------- '2,010----------3. Mr. S. K. Desor was the largest single shareholder and the managing director of the said company. He died on March 5, 1985. The office of Worldwide Agencies Pvt. Ltd. was closed on 5th, 6th and 7th March, 1985. 4. A petition under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-08-1989
Reported in : 39(1989)DLT517; 1990(18)DRJ30; 1989RLR513
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The petitioners are seeking a Writ of Mandamus to be issued to the respondent Corporation directing it to transfer to the petitioners the ownership of the residential flats which are occupated by them. (2) The facts of the case are in a very narrow compass. The petitioners were the employees of the respondent corporation. The Corporation had, out of its own funds, constructed staff quarters at Mandelian Road, Bhamashah Market, Kamla Nagar, Delhi. These quarters (which have also been called flats) were allotted to the various petitioners, from time to time, during the course of their employment with the respondent. On such allotment being made the petitioners became liable to pay to the respondent license fee. The respondents had also constructed other staff quarters at different localities in Delhi. One such place where quarters were constructed was Nimri. (3) The contention of the petitioners is that the Corporation had passed various resolutions whereby it had been...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-05-1989
Reported in : 39(1989)DLT87; 1989(17)DRJ53; 1989RLR495
Arun B. Saharya, J.(1) In this second appeal, under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', arising out of an order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 10th April 1986 affirming order of eviction of the appellant-tenant made by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, the main question of law which has arisen is: whether Clause (b) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act applies to residential premises let out to a company also. (2) The relevant facts lie within a narrow compass. The appellant is a public company having its registered office at Calcutta. The respondent let out his property No. 1 M-11, Greater Kailash No. 11, New Delhi, hereinafter referred to as the demised premises, to the appellant on terms and conditions contained in a deed of lease executed between the parties on 17th January, 1980. Clause (11) (c) of the lease deed contains one of the lessee's covenants in the followin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-05-1989
Reported in : 41(1990)DLT374
S.N. Sapra, J.(1) Salwan Construction Company, the present petitioner, was awarded by respondent no. 1, the work for construction of M.S.O. building, at plot No. 35, Block D and D-1, at the estimated cost of Rs. 41,17,513.00 , on the terms and conditions, as incorporated in the agreement No. 16/EE/CD-II/69-70. (2) Under the agreement, the work was to commence on January 21, 1970, and was to be completed within a period of 18 months, i.e. on or before July 20, 1970. It is not disputed that the work was completed on March 28,1974. (3) Various disputes arose between the parties, under the agreement, which provided for settlement by arbitration, under clause 25. Vide his letter dated December 24,1984, Chief Engineer, (CZ) C.P.W.D., New Delhi, appointed Shri Sarvesh Chandra, as the sole arbitrator, to decide the disputes between the parties, as were referred to him. The arbitrator entered upon reference, on January 21, 1984. (4) Petitioner and Union of India filed claims and counter claims ...
Tag this Judgment!