Delhi Court April 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.
Joginder Singh Vs. Tobu Enterprises (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Delhi81; 1988(2)ARBLR260(Delhi); 35(1988)DLT71
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 51A of the Design Act, 1911 for the cancellation of the registered design of the respondent in respect of tricycles and seats being manufactured by them. (2) By a certificate dated 16th August, 1976 the respondent obtained registration No. 144635 under the Design Act of a tricycle which, inter alia, consists of a blow moulded plastic seat as well as blow moulded wheels with a steel handle. The respondent also obtained another registration No. 144636, also on 16th August, 1976, from the Controller of Designs, Calcutta in respect of blow moulded plastic seat. These seats are somewhat in the shape of a duck and, according to the respondent it was their original design. (3) It appears that the petitioner also, after 16th August, 1976, started manufacturing and selling tricycles using somewhat similar blow moulded seats. Thereupon the respondent-herein filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner...
R.D. Aggarwal Vs. Arjan Kaur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-1988
Reported in: 35(1988)DLT85
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) The order of eviction dated November 11, 1986 passed by Shri M.L. Mehta, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, on the ground of bonafide requirement of accommodation for the landlady and her family members covered by clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, has been challenged by the tenant in this civil revision.(2) Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the eviction order in arguments only on two grounds, firstly, that the finding of the Additional Rent Controller that the landlady is not in possession of reasonably suitable residential accommodation is perverse and is liable to be set aside and secondly, that the landlady was guilty of suppressio veri inasmuch as she did not disclose the whole of the accommodation in her possession either in the pleadings or in the map filed Along with the petition and thus, as the landlady has not come to the Court with clean bands, her claim for bonafide requirement was liable to be negatived on...
Ashok Kumar Jaggi Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-1988
Reported in: 1989CriLJ539; 1988(2)Crimes11; 35(1988)DLT151
Malik, J. (1) The petitioner was detained pursuant to an order dated 31st January 1987 passed under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended) by Shri K. Viswanathan, Joint Secretary to the Government of India. The detention order was passed with a view to preventing the petitioner from smuggling goods. This followed an incident dated 9th April 1987 when some foreign made gold bars were recovered from the possession of the petitioner which were smuggled by him into the country.(2) The detention order is being challenged on a number of grounds but it is not necessary for me to go into the merits or otherwise of all the grounds as the petition, in my view, will have to be allowed for one important reason. It would appear that the main object to pass a detention order as detailed in the detention order itself is to prevent the petitioner from indulging in smuggling. Mr. Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner, urges...
Collector of Customs Vs. Liladhar Pasco and Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-1988
Reported in: (1989)(39)ELT687TriDel
The respondent herein, a Custom House Agent (CHA), on behalf of the importer M/s. Neelam Exports Pvt. Ltd. claimed reassessment of the goods namely PVC sheetings under Customs Tariff Heading 68.01/16(1) with countervailing duty (CVD) under Item 68 CET. The test report in respect of the aforesaid goods indicated that the goods were mineral fibre backed and as such the sheets were not plain PVC sheetings. The goods had been originally assessed under CTA Heading 39.01/06 with CVD under Tariff Item 15A(2) CET. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Refund Department did not accept the reassessment claim of the respondent therein.On appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, the respondent herein partly succeeded in his appeal before that authority.The said lower appellate authority accepted the claim of the respondent herein regarding assessment under CTA 75 Heading 68.01/16(1). The respondent herein, however, did not succeed on the question of assessment under CVD.Against the...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)ECC65
1. This is an appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Guntur against the orders of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras.Brief facts of the case are that the respondents manufacture different mineral products classifiable under Item 16 to Item 11A of the First Schedule and had during the material time, lodged a classification list under Rule 173B in respect of furnace oil and had cleared on payment of appropriate duty as per the approved classification list. Appellants for their internal purposes subject various mineral products to tests, which are referred to as'' finished products, and got inspection report and tankwise fuel test report. These reports were being sent to the Range Office as a matter of routine. Furnace oil was also being subjected to test in the laboratory of appellants and the test reports were being furnished to the Department. On the basis of these test reports, Assistant Collector held that the product cleared by appellants as furnace oil would b...
Collector of C.E. Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-1988
Reported in: (1989)(39)ELT402TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Guntur against the orders of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras.Brief facts of the case are that the respondents manufacture different mineral products classifiable under Item 6 to Item 11-A of the First Schedule and had during the material time, lodged a classification list under Rule 173-B in respect of furnace oil and had cleared on payment of appropriate duty as per the approved classification list. Appellants for their internal purposes subject various mineral products to tests, which are referred to as finished products; and got inspection report and tankwise fuel test report. These reports were being sent to the Range office as a matter of routine. Furnace oil was also being subjected to test in the laboratory of appellants and the test reports were being furnished to the Department. On the basis of these test reports, Assistant Collector held that the product cleared by appellants as furnace oil would be...
Samrat International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)LC385Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants stated that they were aggrieved by the impugned order on two counts :- (1) Their refund claim for the period from 1.4.1985 to 27.4.1985 was rejected In toto as it was held that the claim, having been filed on 31.10.1985, was beyond the time limit of six months from the date of payment of duty as laid down in Section 11 B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. (2) Their refund claim for the subsequent period upto 31.8.1985 was partly rejected as it was held that since the appellants had collected the Central Excise duty from their customers but, being entitled to exemption, had not paid it to the Govt., the amount of duty retained with them had to be treated as a part of their price realisation for the goods.2. On the second point, when it was pointed out to the appellants that the view taken by the lower authorities appeared to be correct in view of the amendment made to Section 4 of the Act in 1982 and that this had been upheld by a Division Bench of the Andhra ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Melamine Fibre Board Ltd. and ors.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-14-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)ECC72
1. These three appeals have been filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad against the orders of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay. These involve a common issue and are therefore being taken up for disposal together. Arguments were heard in the case of Melamine Fibre Board Limited and the same were adopted by the learned advocate appearing for the other two respondents for the purpose of these proceedings. Learned JDR advanced common arguments for all the three appeals. The issues are being examined first in the case of Melamine Fibre Board Limited and the ratio of the decision of this case would apply to the other two cases also.2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents manufactured paper based laminated sheets out of the duty paid paper falling under T.I. 17 and bought out chemicals falling under T.I. 68. The chemicals -phenol, formaldehyde or melamine along with urea and few other additives are subjected to the process of mixing and heating to the...
Raman Boards Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-14-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)ECC160
1. These appeals are against the orders of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras. Three of these have been filed by the appellants, M/s. Raman Boards Limited, Mysore, while one has been filed by the revenue. There is a common issue involved in all these appeals and therefore are being taken up together for disposal.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants manufactured goods falling under T.I. 17 and in respect of their clearances during 1981-82 and 1982-83 have claimed the benefit of notification No. 89/80-CE.Initially they claimed benefit under notification No. 70/76-CE. Later, however, they claimed that since they were eligible also for the benefit of notification No. 89/80 which was more beneficial to them, they should be given the benefit of the said notification and they voluntarily remitted the amount of duty benefit which was claimed in terms of notification No. 70/76-CE. For proper appreciation of the fact, the relevant portions of the two notifications a...
Kantilal Manilal and Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-14-1988
Reported in: (1989)(39)ELT684TriDel
1. These appeals have been filed by the appellants against-the orders of Collector of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals) Bombay, who by a common order has disposed of all the three appeals filed before him against three orders-in-original.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants imported 'Diosgenin'. Subsequent to the importation they claimed refund of the CV duty paid in terms of Notification No. 55/75-C.E. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim with the observation that the goods imported were a natural primary chemical and the starting material and as such could not be called drug intermediate. The Collector (Appeals) following the ratio of the order of the Tribunal and citing one such Order No. 245/83-C dated 26.4.1983 has held that for the purpose of benefit of Notification No. 55/75-C.E. it is immaterial whether the particular chemical in such formulation is a raw material, a starting chemical or merely as a reagent, so long as it is used in the manufactur...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »