Delhi Court May 1986 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1986 Page 6 of about 68 results (0.020 seconds)Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Mukerian Papers Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT756TriDel
1. Briefly stated the facts of this case are that M/s. Mukerian Papers Ltd., Chak Allabux, Mukerian are engaged in the manufacture of paper falling under T.1.17. For the manufacture of paper they inter alia use guar gum falling under T.1.68 which they bring from outside on payment of duty. They had applied for permission to avail set-off of duty on guar gum to be used in the manufacture of paper in terms of Notification No. 201/79-C.E., dated 4-6-1979, as amended. After due process their said request was rejected by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Pathankot vide Order-in-Original No. l/AC/Misc/CE/85, dated 16-2-1985 on the ground that the input duty relief was available only in respect of raw materials or component parts used in the manufacture of paper and since guar gum did not happen to be raw material for the manufacture of paper, it was not eligible for set-off of duty as provided for under Notification No. 201/79, dated 4-6-1979, as amended.2. Aggrieved by the said reje...
Tag this Judgment!Bramec Suri (P) Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(26)ELT423TriDel
1. On 15-2-1973 Preventive Officers of Central Excise Department, Gaziabad, visited the factory of the appellants, M/s Bramec Suri (P) Ltd., and samples of asbestos yarn manufactured by the appellants were drawn. On the basis of the report of the Chemical Examiner on test of the samples drawn a show cause notice dated 23-11-73/ 20-12-1973 was issued. It was stated therein that the yarn manufactured by the appellants was classifiable under TI 18E CET, but that the appellants had not taken out the necessary licence or followed the requisite excise formalities in respect of manufacture and clearance thereof. The appellants were called upon to show cause why duty on such goods produced and cleared during the period 1-4-1972 to 31-3-1973 should not be demanded and why penalty should not be imposed on them. After protracted correspondence, the appellants sent a reply dated 5-12-1977.On adjudication the Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur by order dated 29-6-1978 held the charges established...
Tag this Judgment!Carbon Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(26)ELT961TriDel
1. This is a revision application filed' before the Government of India against Order-in-Appeal No. 56/82 (M) dated 9th February, 1982 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras. On the setting up of this Tribunal, this has been transferred here and is now being treated as an appeal before us.2. Briefly the facts are that the appellants manufacture carbon element and zinc element falling under Tariff Item 68. The appellants applied for permission to avail of proforma credit on corrugated boxes received on payment of duty under Tariff Item 68 and used for packing these carbon element and zinc element in terms of Notification No. 201/79 dated 4th June, 1979. This proforma credit was refused by the Assistant Collector on the ground that cartons as packing material are not actual inputs in the manufacture of carbon and zinc elements.' When the appellants went in appeal before the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras, he also held that carbon element and zinc elem...
Tag this Judgment!Virender Kumar Goel Vs. Raghu Raj and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1986Delhi579
M.K. Chawla, J. (1) The Registered Office of Swadeshi Polytex Limited (Hereinafter to be referred as the 'defendant Co.') is situated at New Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad (U.P.). This Company is also having its Head Office and carrying on business from 6th Floor, Samrat Hotel, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi. On 23-1-1986 the Secretary of the Company issued notices for the holding of 16th annual general meeting for 15th March 1986 at its Registered Office. Shri Raghu Raj was appointed as the Chairman of the annual general meeting of the Company. It appears that the shareholders of the Company were sharply divided and in order to have the control of the Company started collecting proxies from their supporters. Some of the descanted elements from both sides also filed suits for injunction to hold the Annual General Meeting in different Courts in India, and obtained stay of giving effect to the resolutions which may be passed in the. said meeting or giving effect to, until the disposal of the injunction...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Kumar Sharma Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(2)Crimes333; 1986(11)DRJ123; 1986RLR388
Malik Sharief Ud-din, J.(1) The Station House Officer, Police Station Farash Bazar, Shahdara, Delhi, opened a history sheet against the petitioner which in terms of the counter filed by the respondent Siri Ram Meena Sho Police Station Farash Bazar was approved by Dcp (East) on 28th February 1984 and thereafter hit name was entered in register No. 10 part Ii of the Surveillance Register. The petitioner has made a grievance that there was no justification for opening the history sheet or putting his name in register No 10 parl II. He has, thereforee, prayed that the history sheet be quashed and his name be removed from register No. 10 Part Ii and he has also sought a direction to the effect that the finger prints, foot prints and the photographs of the petitioner which are kept on the records of the police station Farash Bazar be destroyed.(2) The petitioner has given large number of details in respect of the fact as to how he is being kept under surveillance and is taken to the police s...
Tag this Judgment!Plaza Trading Co. Vs. R.K. Cables
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1987Delhi214; 30(1986)DLT136; 1986RLR536
A.B. Saharya, J.(1) The only question arising in this appeal is whether an application for rectification of the register of a trade mark is maintainable without a certified copy of the entry to be rectified accompanying the application. (2) The appellant applied for rectification of the register in respect of trade mark No. 323-032 with respect to electrical goods. Certified copy of the relevant entry in the register was not filed with the application. The learned single Judge held : 'IN view of the fact that neither the original trade mark nor its certified copy is on record, the petition cannot be maintained. No rectification of the trade mark can be filed unless they are accompanied by the trade mark in original or a certified copy.'(3) Section 46 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (the 'Act') provides that a registered trade mark may be taken off the register in respect of any of. the goods in respect of which it is on application made in the prescribed manner to a High C...
Tag this Judgment!Jajmau Dyeing and Proofing Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(8)LC553Tri(Delhi)
1. This is a Revision Application filed before the Central Government, which, on transfer to this Tribunal, is being treated as an appeal.2. In this case, a show cause notice was issued to the appellants on 15-10-74 alleging that they had contravened the provisions of Rules 174, 173-B, 173-C, 173-G, 52-A, 53, 9 and 173-F read with Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 by processing 3,87,997.28 meters of canvas and duck cotton fabrics with the aid of power during the period 1-4-73 to 31-3-74 valued at Rs.23,27,983.68 Raise without applying for Central Excise Licence, without submitting classification list and price list, without proper accounting in the prescribed Central Excise records and removing the processed fabrics from their factory without issue of gate passes and without payment of Central Excise duty leviable thereon. They were, therefore,. asked to explain why penalty should not be imposed on them under Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules and why Central Excise Dut...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Krishna Tiles and Potteries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(9)ECC7
1. The appellants, M/s Sri Krishna Tiles & Potteries (Madras) Private Ltd., are manufacturers of articles falling under TI 68 CET, some of which were exempt from duty and some of which were not. The period relevant for the present dispute is 1-4-1979 to 12-9-1979. In terms of Notification No. 89/79 CE dated 1-3-1979 the appellants filed a claim on 26-9-1979 for refund of Rs. 11,886.83 and the same was allowed by the Assistant Collector. The Collector of Central Excise, Madras was of the view that in respect of goods which were not exempt from duty under TI 68 CET the appellants had paid duty properly during the period 1-4-1979 to 12-9-1979, and that the refund thereof was not justified in terms of Explanation V to the notification which was inserted in the Notification under amendment Notification No. 228 of 1979 dated 17-7-1979. Accordingly on 17-7-1980 he issued a show cause notice under Section 35A of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The appellants replied justifying the refun...
Tag this Judgment!Salil K. Sarkar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986RLR429
R.N. Aggarwal, J.(1) [THE deceased residing in Delhi was sister of one Narain Das in Bengal. He learning that she was not keeping good health sent his wife and niece to enquire her welfare and bring her to Bengal, if she agreed. Accused who was a private tutor, teaching children of Narain Das expressed desire to accompany them and did so. A daughter of deceased was living at Faridabad. The 3 came to Delhi in early Nov. 80, visited the deceased and resided with her daughter at Faridabad. On 21.11.80, accused came alone to Delhi and was seen taking lunch at the place of deceased. In the evening he returned to Faridabad telling the people there that he was short of funds and had pawned his watch at Delhi. Next day deceased was found to have been murdered. Suspicion fell on the accused and at his instance ornaments belonging to the deceased were recovered in Bengal. These included one earning while other piece of this pair remained with the body of deceased. On Scientific exam. the 2 were ...
Tag this Judgment!Neelima Bhatnagar Vs. Union of IIndia
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986RLR464
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) In this petition filed u/Art. 226 of the constitution the claim is for payment of higher family pension to the petitioner and her child. (2) The husband of the petitioner, Capt. M.K. Bhatnagar, to whom she was married on 9th May, 1971, was working as an Assistant Commandant in the B.S.F. On 1.6.72 Capt. M.K. Bhainagar died while on duty. He left behind his widow namely, the petitioner and also a minor daughter, who was born on 15.2.72. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and her daughter are entitled to the benefits of the family pension. Vide letter dt. 13.6.73 petitioner was informed that she will get a family pension of Rs. 96.00 only. The petitioner represented against this by contending that her husband had died while on duty. This representation was accepted and vide letter dt. 9.4.75 the sanction of the President was conveyed whereby the petitioner was awarded a family pension at the rate of Rs. 150.00 p.m. with effect from 2.6.72 till her death or remar...
Tag this Judgment!