Delhi Court February 1987 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Surjit Singh Vs. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1987
Reported in: AIR1987Delhi319; 1987(1)ARBLR198(Delhi); 1987(13)DRJ184
Sunanda Bhandare, J. (1) The petitioner on 16th April, 1968 filed an application being Application No. 248584 with the Registrar of Trade Marks to register in Part A of the Register, a trade mark consisting of the word 'YERA' in Class 3 in respect of perfumery, cosmetics and non-medicated toilet preparation. The application was duly advertised in the Trade Mark Journal No. 466 dated 1st November, 1968. The respondent -M/S. Alembic Glass Industries Limited who held registration in respect of the same trade trade mark 'YERA' in respect of various goods falling Class 9, 10, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20 and 21 objected to the registration of the aforesaid trade mark on 26th February, 1969 under Section 9, 11(a), 11(e), 12(1) and 18(1) of the Trade & Merchandise Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). By order dated 8th June 1973, Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, New Delhi rejected the application of the petitioner for registration on the ground that the trade mark applied for, if allowed ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Tinplate Co. of India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC59Tri(Delhi)
1. The learned counsel for M/s. Tinplate Co., Mr. Mookherjee, said that this appeal is a non-existant one, because when the order of the Collector (Appeals) was passed in 1981, there was no provision for appeal to this Tribunal in line with Section 35-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The department filed the appeal in January, 1983 against the order, even though .there was no provision for such appeal when the order was passed by the Collector (Appeals). Therefore, no appeal lies under the present law. The Customs, Central Excise and Gold (Control) Removal of Difficulties Order, 1982 would not rescue the present appeal. He said that revision could have been made, but this was not made in time.2. The learned SDR, Mrs. Zutshi on behalf of the department agreed with the submissions made by Mr. Mookherjee.3. Both, however, are mistaken. On the day that the Tribunal began to operate on 11-10-1982, the right of appeal to it was conferred on all aggrieved persons against orders p...
Anil Gupta and ors. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)LC76Tri(Delhi)
1. Brief facts of the case are that on 11-2-1981 around 12O Clock at noon one Shri Anil Gupta one of the appellants herein was apprehended with a gold Rainee (Primary gold) weighing 300.050 gms. and of purity 23.75 carats valued at Rs. 48,382/-. In his first statement recorded from Shri Anil Gupta he stated that this gold was given by his uncle living in Ashok Vihar for getting ornaments made at Kaithal to which place Anil Gupta belonged. Later on, on the same day at night he made another statement that the earlier statement made by him was incorrect and that he brought Rs. 50,000/- from his father for purchasing some primary gold at Delhi; that he purchased the recovered gold from a Dalai in Chandni Chowk and that he was thereafter returning to Kaithal when he was apprehended by the Customs Officers; that this Dalai had been introduced to him on, an earlier visit by one Shri Madal Lal, a certified goldsmith at Kaithal.Thereafter on 13-2-1981 searches were made at the residential and ...
Bhim Saia Bhalia Vs. Jagdev Singh @ Jaggar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1987
Reported in: 32(1987)DLT40; 1987(12)DRJ322
M.K. Chawla, J. (1) It is well settled proposition that the ordinary -methods of proving handwriting or signature are : (1)By calling as a witness a person who wrote the document or saw it written or who is qualified to express an opinion as to the handwriting by virtue of Section 47 ; (2)By the admission of the person against whom the document is tendered; (3)By comparison of handwriting as provided in Section 73 of the Evidence Act. In this petition, we are concerned with the third category. Section 73 of the Evidence Act reads as under : '73.Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved. In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing, or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing, or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that. person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that singature, writing or seal has not been produce...
Rajendra Singh Vs. Director of Education and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1987
Reported in: 1987(13)DRJ113
R.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) Rule DB.(2) The petitioner Shri Rajendra Singh who is a drawing teacher in Diwan Chand Arya Senior Secondary School, Lodhi Road, has by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claimed three reliefs : (i) that he should be paid the salary for the period 1-12-65 to 2-2-1967 ; (ii) he should be granted selection grade from March, 1982, and (iii) a writ of certiorari should be issued quashing the adverse entry made in the A.C.R. of the petitioner by respondents 3 and 4 in the year 1984-85.(3) The petitioner was appointed as a Junior drawing teacher in the pay scale of Rs. 160-300 on 20th August, 1964. This appointment was subject to the approval of the Director of Education. The directorate of Education approved the appointment temporarily for the period 20th August, 1964 to 30th April, 1965 in the pay scale of Rs. 130-300. The appointment was approved for a short period because it was then considered by the Director of Education that the...
Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-1987
Reported in: (1990)(29)LC311Tri(Delhi)
1. Being dis-satisfied with the partial rejection of the claim for taking credit on the ground of Higher Production Concession under Rule 56-AA the Appellants have filed the present appeal.Factual Backdrop: The appellant M/s. Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. is a Public Limited Co. and is engaged in the manufacture of Non-cellulosic Polyster Staple Fibre falling under erstwhile Tariff Item 18(1) of Central Excise Tariff. In the wake of issue of Notification No. 283/82, dated 27.11.1982 it is stated that the appellants stepped up their production during 1982-83 and achieved an all time higher production record, so as to avail higher production incentive. Accordingly, the appellants submitted an application requesting to take credit of Rs. 56,17,152.67 on 25.4.1983 for the year ending February, 1983 claiming higher production concession under Rule 56-AA. On receipt of the said claim and during the scrutiny it was observed that the appellants have not taken into consideration the closure period dur...
Bajaj Auto Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-1987
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT158TriDel
1. According to the learned counsel for M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd., the classification of the auto track, the three wheeler hauling unit which is used for hauling a trailer is assessable as a tractor under Tariff Item No. 34II, whereas the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay decided that it was assessable under Item 341 as a motor vehicle by his order No. B-739/PN-123/83 dated 16.4.1983. This three wheeler unit is specially designed for hauling; this may be seen in their printed advertisement paper containing specifications. It will be seen that the auto track is designed only for hauling or pulling a trailer specially made to be fitted to it; the dispute, however, is only regarding the three wheeler hauling unit. This vehicle cannot carry passengers or do any other work that a motor vehicle assessable under Item 341 can do. It is designed specifically only for hauling the trailer that goes with it.2. The Appellate Collector was mistaken in his assessment said the counsel. He refe...
Rameshwar Prasad and ors. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-1987
Reported in: (1987)(11)LC723Tri(Delhi)
1. In the year 1974, Police seized 5 gold coins and one piece of primary gold (total weight 72 gms.) from residence of the Hindu undivided family - Phoolchand Mathuraprasad. Shri Rameshwar Prasad is the 'Karta' of the Hindu undivided family (HUF). Subsequently, the Income Tax Officer took over the above gold. The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Gwalior, intimated the Assistant Income Tax Commissioner vide his letter C.No. XVII (GC)14-5/74/l3064-65 dated 20-11-1974 that the appellant appeared to have contravened the provisions of the Gold Control Act. It was also requested in the said letter that the said gold should be handed over to the Central Excise department to enable them to examine the case from the point of view of the Gold Control Act. Accordingly on 29-1-1976, the Income Tax Department delivered the above gold to Shri Rameshwar Prasad, Karta of the HUF in the presence of the Central Excise Officers. Since possession, custody and control of primary gold was forbiden Under...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Himalaya Laminators
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-1987
Reported in: (1987)(11)LC150Tri(Delhi)
1. By the present miscellaneous application the Appellant-Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta prays for setting aside or re-calling of the Bench Order No. 228/86-C dated 29-4-1986. By the said order the appeal filed by the Collector was rejected for failure to adduce evidence of compliance with requirement of - authorisation or direction under Sub-section (2) of Section 35-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called the Act).2. In response to notice of appearance the Respondent-Non-applicant have by their communication dated January 29, 1987 received in this Tribunal on 30-1-1987 intimated that they are not in a position to appear before the Tribunal in the present hearing. They have forwarded written submission with a request that this written submission may be taken up for consideration in disposing of the matter. We have, therefore, heard Smt. J.K. Chander for the appellant in support of the application. During the course of hearing, to a question by the Bench...
Hindustan Shipyard Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)ECC118
1. The questions that were debated at some length in this Revision Application before the Central Government, transferred to the Tribunal and heard as an appeal by us pursuant to Section 35P of the Central Excises & Salt Act, I944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), are :- (a) How is the assessable value of ships constructed, sold and delivered in terms of a contract, to be determined and under what provisions of the Act or the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules - (hereinafter referred to as the Valuation Rules, 1975)? (b) Whether payments made to the appellants or yet to be made pursuant to any award that may be made in arbitration proceedings, by the buyer, according to certain escalation clauses in a contract for construction and delivery of ships, partake of the character of "price" and hence form part of the assessable value? (c) Whether, on its terms, the notice to show cause dated 19-2-1981 enables resort to the larger period of limitation (five years) in terms of the provi...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »