Delhi Court May 1990 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.
Rainbow Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-04-1990
Reported in: (1990)(30)LC379Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue for determination in this appeal is the eligibility of the appellants for the benefit of exemption under Notification 103/61-C.E., dated 20-4-1961.2. The appellants are manufacturers of Synthetic Organic Dyes falling under Tariff Item 14-D of the First Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. They claimed refund of countervailing duty paid on the imported intermediates falling under T.I. 68, under Notification 103/61. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim on the ground that the benefit of the Notification is applicable only to raw material or intermediates falling under T.I. 14-D and not those falling under T.I.68. He also held that, vide Notification 104/79 dated 3-3-1979, no credit of countervailing duty shall be allowed in respect of any material or component parts used for the manufacture of finished excisable goods, if countervailing duty has been paid in respect of such material or component parts falling under T.I. 68. The order of the Assistant C...
Prem Singh Vs. Ceeam Auto Industries
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-1990
Reported in: AIR1990Delhi233; 1990(2)ARBLR357(Delhi); 42(1990)DLT548
Santosh Duggal, J.(1) This is plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, who has brought a suit seeking is licenses of permanent injunction against the defendant, asserting to be a registered proprietor of trade mark 'MEXPAL' in respect to goods of car polishes, and also having a copyright in a specific design, get-up, colour scheme etc. in relation to tin boxes in which the said goods are marketed and sold, alleging infringement of the said copyright on part of the defendants, and seeking a restraint order prohibiting them from manufacturing, selling or otherwise dealing in car polishes in the tin boxes identical or deceptively similar to those of the plaintiff. (2) The area of controversy in the present case is very narrow, being restricted to the copyright in the design, colour scheme. shape and get-up of the tin-boxes, inasmuch as the trade mark of defendant's goods is wholly different for the reason that whereas the plainti...
Jespal Singh Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-03-1990
Reported in: (1990)(30)LC566Tri(Delhi)
1. This is a stay application filed with reference to the order of the Additional Collector of Customs, New Delhi dated 21.2.1990.2. The learned Counsel stated that on 6.10.1988 the Customs staff visited two premises. At one of these premises they found the truck DIL 5606 also standing and on the statement of a co-accused presumed it to be the truck of one of the co-accused Shri Joginder Singh and seized the same under the impression that it was used to carry contraband.3. As soon as the appellant came to know about the seizure of the truck, he immediately wrote to the Customs authorities a letter dated 17.10.1988 claiming that he is the owner of the truck and requesting for release of the same. However there was no response. He again sent a letter to the Assistant Collector (Preventive) on 20.2.1989.4. In spite of it neither any show cause notice was issued to him nor any personal hearing was granted to him and the truck has been confiscated but allowed to be redeemed on payment of a...
Dental Products of India Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-03-1990
Reported in: (1990)LC119Tri(Delhi)
1. The short point for determination in this appeal is the eligibility of 'artificial teeth' manufactured by the appellants and falling under T.I. 68 for the benefit of Notification 182/82 dated 11-5-1982 which grants total exemption from payment of duty to articles of plastic or alternately, for the benefit of Notification 234/82 dated 1-11-1982 granting total exemption to artificial limbs and rehabilitation aids for the handicapped. (a) Tooth Moulding Powder (Polyacrylic-acid ester 70%) - Plastic of Polyacrylic-derivatives. (b) Ethylene Glycol Dimethacrylate (EGDM-2%) - Plastic of Polymethacrylic derivatives. (c) Methyl Methacrylate (28%) - Plastic of Polymethacrylic derivatives. (d) Plexidon 530 (Imported) - Plastic of Polymethacrylic derivatives (Traces).The appellants claimed that the product was entirely exempt from payment of duty as it was covered by Notification 182/82 as an article made of plastic falling under T.I. 68 and produced out of duty paid material falling under T.I...
Puneet Chander BhasIn Vs. Smt. Sunita
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-1990
Reported in: AIR1990Delhi320; II(1992)DMC485
ORDER1. The impugned order, in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been passed after hearing the counsel for the parents of the wife in a matrimonial matter.2. The only parties which can be heard in a matrimonial matter are the husband or the wife or the co-respondent. Matrimonial jurisdiction of Courts is a special jurisdiction, which is controlled by, in the instant case, the Hindu Marriage Act. 3. The Court below has erred in entertaining any contention which is purported to have been raised by the parents of the respondent-wife.4. The application under Order 5, Rule 20 of the Civil Procedure Code is an innocuous application. It was for substituted service on the respondent. In the facts of the instant case, it should have been allowed without anything more.5. As the respondent has not been served in the ordinary way, it is fit and proper that service on the respondent be effected by publication.6. This petition is allowed, and disposed of with the obse...
Controller of Stores, Shipping Vs. Collr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-02-1990
Reported in: (1990)(49)ELT275TriDel
1. The Controller of Stores, Shipping Cell, Southern Railway, Madras, had filed originally two appeals listed as C/Appeal No. 842/84-B2 and C/Appeal No. 64/85-B2, being aggrieved from the order-in-appeal No.C3/2034 & 2033/83 dated 31-3-1984 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras and Order-in-appeal No. C3/266/84, C3/289, 285 and 45/84 dated 31-8-1984/1-12-1984 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras. Thereafter, the appellants have filed 4 more Supplementary appeals and have also filed an application for condonation of delay. Shri T. Varadharajan, DCS, has appeared on behalf of the appellant. He has pleaded that the Collector (Appeals) in appeal No. C/842/84-B2 is against the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras order disposing of two appeals by a common order and now he has filed a supplementary appeal. Appeal No. C/64/85-B was filed against a common order disposing of four appeals passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras. Shri Varadharaja...
Gurukar Plastics Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-02-1990
Reported in: (1990)(29)ECC61
a) confiscating the goods imported and giving an option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine. c) Directing the assessment of goods on merits without giving the benefit of Notification No. 250/88 dated 16th Sept., 88. The appellants imported 5 layer Co. extrusion line valued at Rs. 2,35,35,279/-. This equipment figured in OGL list (Appendix 1, part B) of the Import Policy for 1985-88. (As per appendix 6 para 8, conditions governing OGL the importer i.e. the actual user if enters into a 'firm contract' for import upto the last date of February of the licensing year shipment may be permitted upto 31st March of the following licencing year, provided the contract in question is duly registered with a foreign exchange dealer (Bank) on or before the last date of February of the licensing year.) 3. The appellants entered into purchase contract with a German firm under the agreement dated 18th Dec, 1986. The said contract was registered with State Bank of India under registration ...
Western India Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-02-1990
Reported in: (1990)LC15Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Western India Industries Ltd., Panchsheel Park Commercial Complex, New Delhi have filed two appeals being aggrieved from the orders passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay. The said appeals were presented in the Registry on 19-4-1990. Simultaneously, two stay applications were also presented.2. Shri G.S. Agarwala, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the applicant and pleaded that the goods involved are Halon Gas which is used for fire-fighting equipment and the applicant had claimed the benefit of exemption notifications. Shri Agarwala stated that the order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs may be stayed otherwise the applicant shall suffer an irreparable loss.3. Shri M.K. Sohal, Ld. JDR who has appeared on behalf of the respondent has opposed the granting of stay and pleaded that in terms of provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, the stay can be granted only in respect of those goods which are out of the control of the customs, a...
Dr. M. P. Srivastava and Another Vs. Sqn. Ldr. K.V. Vashist
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-02-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ12a
ORDER1. This criminal revision has been brought against the order dated August 21, 1981 of Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi by which he directed the summoning of the petitioners as accused in a complaint case filed by respondent for offences punishable under section 323, 342 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The legal question raised in this criminal revision is to the effect that whether a Magistrate even after accepting the final report filed by the police still can take cognizance of an offence upon a compliant or a protest petition on the sum or similar allegations of the facts already stand now decided by the Supreme Court in Gopal Vijay Verma v. Bhuneshwar Prasad Sinha, 1983 SCC (Cri) 110 in a very short judgment given by the Supreme Court in which it has been laid down that the High Court was clearly in error in thinking that the Magistrate could not take cognizance of a case upon complaint because he had earlier refused to take cognizance of the case on a poli...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›