Delhi Court August 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.
Garden Silk Mills (P.) Ltd. Vs. Vasdev Motwani and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-1988
Reported in: 36(1988)DLT77
Santosh Duggal, J. (1) This revision petition filed by M/s Garden Silk Mills (P) Ltd. (a Company registered under the Companies Act) assails the correctness of an order passed by Smt. Manju Goel, Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi, on May 18, 1985 whereby appeal filed by respondent herein, against dismissal of an application under Order, 39 Rules 1 & 2 Code of Civil Procedure by the Subordinate Judge, was allowed. (2) The facts in so far as are material for the disposal of the present revision petition are that the petitioner claimed to be owner of the registered trade mark 'Garden' with distinctive designs of a flower and they manufacture Sarees with the said trade name, popularly known as 'Garden Sarees'. respondent Vasdev Motwani as sole proprietor of M/s Vasdev Brothers periodically organises exhibition-cum-sale of what purports to be 'Garden Sarees' as part of his business activities which sale is generally held at Hotel Janpath, New Delhi. Apprehending that the advertisement issu...
Indian Oxygen Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)ECC83
1. The appellants submitted a refund claim for Rs. 40,035.87 on account of central excise duty paid on the clearances of liquid Oxygen gas supplied to Indian Iron and Steel Company (in short HSCO) Limited, Kulti from 1.4.1982 to 10.6.1982. M/s. IISCO Limited used to receive supplies of oxygen gas free of duty from the appellants under Notification No. 224/75-C.E., dated 15.11.1975 which provided that oxygen gas falling under T.I. 14H of C.E. Tariff was exempted from the payment of the whole of central excise duty provided that the gas was used in the factory of production for the manufacture of products falling under T.I. 25, 26 and 26AA, and if such use was elsewhere than in the factory of production, then the procedure set out in Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules was to be observed. The refund claim was submitted on the ground that Chapter X procedure was followed in respect of the clearances made during the period from 1.4.1982 to 10.6.1982, and hence no duty was payable thereo...
Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)LC415Tri(Delhi)
1. Appellants are manufacturing a product called 3-Nitro Hoechst and are claiming exemption from payment of duty as animal feed under Notification No. 55/75-C.E., dated 1.3.1975. This claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector. The order of the Assistant Collector was upheld by the Collector (Appeals). It is against this order of the Collector (Appeals) that appellants are before us.2. We have heard Shri F.H.J. Taleyarkhan, advocate for the appellants and Shri K.C. Sachar, JDR for the respondents.3. At the out-set, both sides agreed that the issue is fully covered by the orders of this Bench in the case of Aries Agro-Vet Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay 4. While conceding that the issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the Aries Agro-Vet Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. case, the learned advocate pleads that the conclusion was not based on evidence regarding understanding the commercial parlance in regard to which he has filed certain affidavits. He ...
National Jute Mfrs. Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex. (Appeals)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)LC649Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed against the order of Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta. The point for decision in the appeal is the levy of cess on the jute yarn captively consumed in the appellant's factory for the manufacture of other jute products, namely, Hessian, Sacking, etc.These products, manufactured out of jute yarn paid cess under the Jute Manufactures Cess Rules 1976 read with Section 9 of the Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951.2. The plea of the appellants is that the yarn so consumed was an intermediate product and inasmuch as the finished product in which these were used discharged the excess liability, no cess could be demanded in respect of yarn captively consumed. The demands were raised by the issue of 12 show cause notices and confirmed by a single order passed by the original adjudicating authority. The findings of the original adjudicating authority, while confirming the demands are as under: "The assessee again pleaded that if cess is charged on ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›