Delhi Court August 1991 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1991 Page 1 of about 120 results (0.022 seconds)Collector of Customs Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)LC200Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal of the Department against the orders of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, holding that the goods imported by the respondents herein, were Refractory Bricks and were classifiable under Heading 69.01/02 of the Customs Tariff, but were not entitled to the exemption under Notification 242/76-Cus., dated 2-8-1976, because they had failed to establish that the goods were of special shape or quality for use as component parts of industrial furnace. The Department contends that on the basis of the description of the goods as "fused Silica Refractory", they cannot be considered to be refractory bricks so as to be classified under Heading 69.01/02 and their classification under Heading 68.01/16 was correctly made and the claim for refund was also correctly rejected on the same count. The Collector (Appeals) who had partly allowed the appeal accepting the classification under Heading 69.01/02 was in error. It has also been submitted in the appeal that as per suppli...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Agencies Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)(57)ELT471TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the lower authorities rejecting the claim of the appellants for refund of countervailing duty on nylon belting cloth imported by them in April 1985. The goods were charged to countervailing duty under Items 18 as well as 22(1) of erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. While the duty on the man-made fabrics falling under Item 22(1) was fully exempt under Notification No.221/82-C.E., dated 11-10-1982, the additional duty levied under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 read with Notification 79/82-C.E., dated 11-10-1982 was chargeable @ 10% ad valorem and was paid. The appellants had claimed that since Notification 221/82 grants exemption "from the whole of the duty of excise leviable under Section 3 of the said Act" (meaning the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944), how could the authorities charge further duty under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957? 2. They made one mo...
Tag this Judgment!Andrew Yule and Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)(57)ELT469TriDel
1. These two appeals are directed against the orders of the Collector of Customs, (Appeals), Madras upholding the orders of the Assistant Collector of Customs (Refunds), Custom House, Madras, denying the benefit of exemption from duty to nylon yarn and polyamide filament yarn under serial number 8 in the Table annexed to Notification 38/78-Cus., dated 1-3-1978 as amended. The appellants had imported Nylon 66 yarn (840 denier) in one consignment and 140 HRT Polyamide Filament yarn in the other in 1987 and had paid duty @ 100% + 40% + Rs. 11 per Kg. which was the rate applicable to nylon tyre yarn in terms of Serial No.3 of the Table annexed to Notification 38/78. Thereafter, they claimed refund of the duty @ Rs. 11 per Kg. on the ground that the yarn imported by them was exclusively intended for use in the manufacture of belting for machinery and, being not covered and/or specified in any of the Serial Nos. 1 to 7 in the Table annexed to the said notification, should come under the res...
Tag this Judgment!Usha N. Dadlani and ors. Vs. A. Kumar Oberoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1992ACJ258; 47(1992)DLT80
Arun Kumar, J.(1) This is an appeal against the award of the MotorAccident Claims Tribunal dated 1/01/1981. The Tribunal had awardeda sum of Rs. 100351.00with costs and interert at the rate of 6 per cent perannum on the said amount from the date of the award till realisation in theevent of the respondents failing to make payment of the awarded amountwithin 60 days from the date of the award. This award was with respect to theclaim of the widow, children and mother of Shri Narender N. Dadlant onaccount of his death in an accident which took place on 2/11/1977at about 3 20 p.m. on outer Ring Road, New Delhi. The deceased wasdriving a scooter while the Fiat Car which dashed against the deceased wasowned by respondent No. 2 and was being driven by respondent No. 1.Respondent No. 3 is the Insurance Company.(2) In the petition under Section 110 A of the Motor Vehicles Act,1939, the claimants had claimed a sum of Rs. five lacs. The petition was contested by the respondents. On the pleadings o...
Tag this Judgment!Royal Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sethi Bakers and Confectioners
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1993(1)ARBLR13(Delhi); 48(1992)DLT9
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) At the outset, I may mention that Counsel for defendant has stated that the application filed under Order 39 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code , by the defendant be treated as a reply to the application filed by the plaintiff (I.A. 3445/91) and both the applications may be disposed of together. (2) I have heard arguments for deciding these two applications. (3) Plaintiff has instituted the present suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing selling, offering for sale, advertising and displaying directly or indirectly dealing in biscuits and other allied goods under the trade mark 'ROYALTY' logo, packing labels or any other trade mark or packing label identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade mark 'ROYAL' logo and its label and for other reliefs flowing from the same cause of action. The case set up by the plaintiff, in brief, is that plaintiff company is the proprietor of trade mark 'ROYAL' on account of its adoption ...
Tag this Judgment!Usha Ismal Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)(37)ECC97
1. M/s Usha Ismal Limited, Calcutta, has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta. Shri V. Sridharan, the learned advocate, has appeared for the appellants and pleaded that the appellants manufactures crimping tools.He pleaded that the appellants have claimed the product under Item 68, whereas, the Assistant Collector had assessed the same under 51A(ii).Being not satisfied with the order passed by the Assistant Collector, the appellants had filed an appeal before the Collector (Appeals) who classified the same as plier under Item 51A(i), CET. Shri Sridharan fairly stated that though the contention of the appellants is for assessment under Item 68, he does not have any material to counter the evidence of the Collector (Appeals). Shri J.N. Nair, the learned JDR, who appeared on behalf of the respondent stated that the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) is correct in law and the appeal may be dismissed in view of what has been...
Tag this Judgment!Biochem Pharmaceuticals Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)(58)ELT72TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the Order dated 10-6-1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay by which he had upheld the order dated 21-11-1985 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division III, Bombay-II Collectorate classifying Cisplatin Injection produced by the appellants herein under Tariff Item 14E as against the appellants claim for classification under Tariff Item 68 with exemption under Notification No. 234/82-CE dated 1-11-1982. The brief facts are that the appellants filed the classification list claiming classification of Cisplatin Injection 10 Mg. and 50 Mg. under Tariff Item 68 as goods not elsewhere specified in tariff and claimed exemption under Notification No. 234/82-CE as the said products are to be marketed only under Generic name as per the Drugs Controller letter to them dated 12-6-1984. The Assistant Collector sent the samples of the goods to Dy. Chief Chemist who gave his opinion that Cisplatin Injection does not find ...
Tag this Judgment!impulse India (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)40ITD36(Delhi)
1. These two appeals by the assessee for assessment year 1985-86 are directed against two separate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-X, New Delhi. Since the facts involved are interlinked, these appeals are disposed of by a combined order, for the sake of convenience.2. This appeal raises three grounds, but the issue involved is one. The issue is whether the assessee was entitled to have deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act in respect of the claim made by it.3. Briefly stated the facts are these. The assessee-company derived income from export of ready-made garments and agency commission against export of readymade garments. For assessment year 1985-86 the assessee-company closed its accounts on 30-6-1984. In the computation of taxable income attacl ed along with the return the assessee claimed deduction under Section 80HHC as under:--(a) 1% of export sales of Rs. 16,47,474 Rs. 16,474(b) 5% of incremental export sales of Rs. 15,79,224 (Rs. 16,47,...
Tag this Judgment!Pesticides India Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT646
Usha Mehra, J.(1) M/S. Pesticides India, plaintiff, entered into an agreement with the Union of India through the Director General of Supplies and Disposal, New Delhi. the respondent invited/tenders for supply of 50 M.T. of Malathion 96% u l.v. vide enquiry dated 17th March, 1979 due on 7th April, 1979. The petitioner/objector submitted the quotation at the rate of Rs. 26,800.00 per M.T. The first supply against the tender was to commence after 15 days of the receipt of the respondents' firm acceptable order. The respondent informed the petitioner to withdraw some conditions and wanted the petitioner to treat the date of dispatch as the date of delivery. This proposal of the respondent was not acceptable to the petitioner. However, on 18th May, 1979, the tender was accepted. Petitioner found some conditions at variance with their offer and indicated the same to the respondent. Respondent accordingly agreed to amend the accepted tender, but again made some contrary terms which were obje...
Tag this Judgment!Shiyramsharma Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1992Delhi390
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This is a suit for recovery of damages. It is averred in the plaint that Sanjeev Kumar, son of the plaintiff, aged about seven years, was playing near the Water Works Sewer near Aruna Nagar, Majnu Ka Tilla, Delhi and had fallen into the open sewer of Chandrawal Water works No. 2 belonging to the defendant and had died in the said sewer. The dead body was recovered and handed over to the plaintiff after the post-mortem was conducted. It is pleaded that the death of the child had occurred due to gross negligence of the employees of the defendant inasmuch as they had kept uncovered the said sewer and had also not made any proper arrangement for the safety of the public by keeping the sewer covered with lid. It is pleaded that the average age of the family members of the plaintiff is about 60 years and the plaintiff's son would have started earning after attaining the age of 18 years and would have supported the plaintiff and other family members from the income which he ...
Tag this Judgment!