Delhi Court October 1988 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.
Bhel Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-1988
Reported in: (1989)(39)ELT53TriDel
1.Since a common question is involved in all these appeals a common order is being passed.2. Question involved is whether the Flame Sensing System and the component parts thereto are to be classified under CTA Heading 85.17 as has been done by the department or 90.28(4) read with 90.25(1) as claimed by the assessee, the appellant herein. Alternative claim of the assessee is if the aforesaid claim of classification of the goods under Chapter 90 of the CTA 1975 is not accepted then the goods should be classified under CTA Heading 85.18/27. Learned consultant Shri N.C.Sogani has urged that the Flame Sensing System is nothing but an instrument or apparatus for measuring the intensity of a flame in the furnace. This system continuously monitors the intensity of the flame in the furnace and when the flame of burners in furnace goes below the desired value a signal is provided by the system which with the help of further relays trips off the fuel supply to the furnace and thereby prevents an...
Pidilite Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mittees Corporation and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Delhi157; 1989(16)DRJ72
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. (1) FEVICOL' in respect of Synthetic Resin Adhesives, is the trade mark of the plaintiff. 'Trevicol' is the trade mark under which defendant is marketing the same goods. The plaintiff by I.A. 4226/87 seeks a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from use of the trade mark 'Trevicol' and from using a get up identical or deceptively similar to that used by the plaintiff on containers used for selling adhesives.(2) The plaintiff claims to be the largest manufacturer of Synthetic Resin Adhesive in the country with annual sales of above Rs. 25 crores. The average amount spent on advertisement is claimed to be to the tune of more than Rs. 25 lakhs annually. The case of the plaintiff, as set up in the plaint, is that its trade mark 'Fevicol' is registered under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act since 2nd March, 1960 and has been continuously renewed and is valid and subsisting. The plaintiff has been marketing adhesives manufactured by it in plastic and tin conta...
Manohar Lal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-1988
Reported in: 36(1988)DLT394; 1989(16)DRJ226
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) On 29th July, 1976, the petitioner before this Court was found selling cow's milk, opposite to a place known as Mahavir Restaurant 'C' block, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Food Inspector Sh. S.D. Sharma purchased a sample of cow's milk from him, which on analysis by the Public Analyst, was found adulterated due to 0.2 deficiency in milk fat percentage which is equivalent to 5.7 percentage deficiency in milk fat. The report of the Public Analyst is dated July 31, 1976. A charge under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was framed against the petitioner. After trial, the petitioner was convicted of the offence charged with and sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00 only. In default of payment of fine, to further under go S.I. for 2 months. In appeal, the order of conviction and sentence was confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge on February 17, 1979.(2) In the present revision petition, learned counsel for the pe...
H.C. Dhingra Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-1988
Reported in: ILR1988Delhi33; 1989RLR101
Apun B. Saharya, J. (1) By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari to quash a notice dated 8th April, 1988, issued under the directions and on behalf of the F Chief of Army Staff, calling upon the petitioner to show cause why his services should not be terminated under section 19 of the Army Act, 1950 read with Army Rule 14. (2) The writ petition was filed on 25th April 1983. By an interim order made on 27th April 198' the respondents were restrained from proceeding further with the show cause notice. That order was, confirmed on 27th May, 198.8 and, in view of retirement of the petitioner from service due on 31st May, 1988, it was clarified that the rights of the respondents to proceed in pursuance of the show cause notice and the petitioner's entitlement to retrial benefits will be subject to the decision in the writ petition. (3) In the impugned show cause notice, it is stated that while the petitioner was emp...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Atlas Radio and Electronics Pvt.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)ECC119
1. The respondents manufactured etched aluminium foils out of duty paid plain aluminium foils purchased from the market. Both the plain foils as well as the etched foils fell under Tariff item 27(c) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. The effective rate of Central Excise duty was fixed by exemption Notification No. 77/72-C.E., dated 17.03.1972, as amended from time to time. During the material period, that is, from 01.12.1979 to 08.05.1980, the notification fixed the effective rate at 32% ad valorem. Further, the proviso in this notification gave set off or reduction to the extent of the duty (Central Excise duty or additional customs duty), if any, already paid on the plain aluminium foil out of which etched etc. foils were made.By the impugned order, the Collector (Appeals) gave benefit of this exemption notification to the respondents. The Appellant Collector wants the impugned order to be set aside on the following two grounds:- (i) since the Collector (Appeals) had held in th...
Hmt Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-1988
Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT865TriDel
1. We first heard both sides on the application for condonation of delay. We condoned the delay and heard the appeal.2. Briefly the facts of the appeals are that the appellants imported Jig Boring Machine and cleared the same after payment of duty on 1-10-1980. Subsequently they made a refund claim on 12-2-1981 on the ground that the imported machine was STP-600 Coordinate Jig Boring Machine for use in the tool room and that as the item figures at Sl.No. 2 of the table annexed to the Notification No. 40/78-Cus., dated 1-3-1978 as amended, it was eligible for concessional rate of duty at 25%. The Assistant Collector of Customs in his order of 1-4-1981 rejected the claim on the ground that the machine imported was "Coordinate "Boring and Milling Machine" while the Notification covers "Tool Room Coordinate Jig Boring Machine."...3. The appellants filed an appeal. It was rejected on the ground that the machine tool imported is a multi-purpose machine tool which falls out side the scope of...
Lawrance Alex Mathias Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-1988
Reported in: 1989(16)DRJ206
Malik Sharif-ud-din, J. (1) The detenu has filed this petition through one Victor Atex Mathias, brother of the detenu, with a view to challenge the validity of the detention order dated 28th of April, 1988 passed by the Govt. of Kerala under Sections 3(l)(ii) and 3(l)(iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling of Activities Act, 1974 (for short Cofeposa Act). The order of detention was passed with a view to preventing the detenu from abetting the smuggling of gold and engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled foreign marked gold into India. The brief facts are that one Shri Ramji Vallabh and one Ramesh and 7 others are stated to have brought 570 foreign marked gold biscuits concealed in a battery case from Gulf in motor launch Mfv Jal TARANG. As they reached the Lakshadweep Island the launch developed some engine trouble and after drifting away for many days in the sea came to the shores of Suheliper Valikara, Lakshadweep where the launch ...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Metal Box India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-1988
Reported in: (1989)(19)ECC91
1. M/s. Metal Box India Ltd. are the manufacturers of Metal Containers falling under T.I. 46 of Central Excise Tariff. They supply Metal Containers to Cosmetic Manufacturers such as M/s. Ponds (I) Limited, M/s. T.S.R. & Co., M/s. Calcutta Chemicals, M/s. Mysore Cosmetics, M/s.Millet Roachas etc. M/s. Ponds (I) Ltd. are the major buyer lifting 90% of their requirements of Metal Containers from the said M/s. Metal Box India Ltd., M/s. Metal Box India Ltd. filed their Price Lists for the Metal Containers declaring the normal price In terms of proviso (1) to Section 4(1) (a) on the basis of the contracts/purchase orders of the buyers, i.e. Cosmetic Manufacturers. During the course of verification of records of M/s. Metal Box India Ltd. it was noticed by the department that they had entered into agreement dated 1.9.80, 10.6.81 and 13.5.82 with M/s. Ponds (I) lid. All these agreements were not made known to the department at the time of filing of the Price Lists for approval. On perusal...
Dcm Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-1988
Reported in: (1989)29ITD123(Delhi)
1. These two appeals, filed by the assessee, arise out of the consolidated order dated 8-7-1985, of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-VIII, new Delhi.2. The assessee is M/s. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd., Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi-6 (hereinafter referred to as DCM). The point raised is interesting as well as important and is whether the payments in question could be said to amount to "royalty". The facts necessary for understanding the point at issue and which are not under dispute are as follows. Tate & Lyle Process Technology Division of M/s. Tate & Lyle Industries Ltd., London (hereinafter referred to as TL) has extensive knowledge and experience and has been a pioneer in Sugar Technology for many years. It manufactures special dosing and control equipment and possesses valuable and particular know-how in relation to the installation and operation of the special equipment, operation of the processes and use of essential speciality chemical products, wh...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Electric Construction Equipment Co. Ltd ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-1988
Reported in: (1989)78CTR(Del)110; [1990]182ITR510(Delhi)
1. The Commissioner of Income-tax, by this application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, prays that the Tribunal be directed to state a case and refer the following three questions of law pertaining to the assessment year 1971-72 for the opinion of this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any evidence before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to hold that the sum of Rs. 6,80,850 paid to six parties as commission was expended exclusively for the purpose of the business and was thus an allowable deduction under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had erred in ignoring the material evidence on record, collected by the Income-tax officer during the course of the assessment proceedings, in coming to the conclusion that the commission payments made by the assessed to six parties represented genuine payment to these parties 3. Whether, o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »