Delhi Court July 1994 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.
Unicon Air Conditioning Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-1994
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT655TriDel
1. On 31-5-1983, Central Excise Officers visited the factory premises of the appellants herein. According to the said officers, the appellants were found engaged in manufacture of 'cabinets' for air conditioners without obtaining Central Excise licence or without filing any declaration.1.2 On examination of the appellants records, it was observed by the said officers that they were showing the goods as "sheet metal parts with aluminium covers" whereas actually cabinets for air conditioners were manufactured and removed by them. This fact is alleged to have been admitted by Shri Balvinder Singh, partner of the appellant firm.1.3 On follow up action at the premises of the customers to whom such 'cabinets' were sold by the appellants, some 'cabinets' were seized.1.4 On scrutiny of records, a show cause notice was issued to the appellants as also to some of their customers from whom seizures were made as to why duty of Rs. 2,65,646.71 be not recovered from the appellants, penalties be not...
Phoenix Appliances Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-1994
Reported in: (1994)LC108Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants herein are manufacturers of stainless steel kitchen sinks. They filed a classification list dated 25-7-1991 pursuant of Budgetary changes of 1991-92. They claimed the classification of the said product under Tariff Heading 73.23 CETA, 1985 being kitchen article and also claimed exemption under Notification 175/88-C.E., dated 13-5-1988 as amended by Notification 63/91-C.E., dated 25-7-1991.Assistant Collector by a speaking order dated 18-10-1991/30-10-1991 upheld the contention and declaration of the aforesaid goods as classifiable under Tariff Heading 73.23 and entitled to benefit of the aforesaid notification.2. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-IE, excercising his power under Section 35E directed filing of an application before the Collector (Appeals) for classification under Tariff Heading 73.24 and denial of benefit of the said notification. The impugned order upholds the application (appeal) of the Revenue. Hence this appeal before the Tribunal.3. Learned advo...
Kesho Ram and Sons (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-1994
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT377TriDel
1. These are two Stay applications filed by the above applicants with reference to the common impugned order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi dated 21-06-1993. By the impugned order the applicants M/s. Kesho Ram & Sons (P) Ltd. are required to deposit the duty amounting to Rs. 55,04,137.86 and a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- and similarly the applicants M/s. Sachdeva Industries are required to deposit a penalty of Rs 5,00,000/- imposed on them for the purpose of hearing these two appeals.2. The issue relates to clubbing of clearances of both the units and denial of exemption in terms of relevant notification for the period in question. The Collector confirmed the demand based upon the charges in the show cause notice. Hence these two Stay applications.3. Arguing for the applicants in support of the Stay applications filed by the applicants Shri L.P. Dhir, learned Advocate submitted that the clubbing of clearances of both the units in the instant case is not correct...
M/S. Bhatia Plastics Vs. M/S. Peacock Industries Ltd. and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Delhi144
ORDER1. The plaintiff has filed a suit for perpetual injunction infringement of trade mark, passing off and rendition of account Along with the suit an application was filed (IA No. 2/93) under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, CPc, for restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling offering for sale, dealing in plastic goods under the trade marks 'PEACOCK' along its device, further prayer was sought by the plaintiff to restrain the defendants from using the marks PEACOCK in respect of their corporate name or nay other trade marks or the word which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade mark 'MAYUR'. The case of the plaintiff is that plaint it has been carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling wide range of plastic goods since the year 1968 and it is registered proprietor of the following trade marks:-- (a) Trade mark MAYUR registered under No. 36981 in class 21 in respect of buckets, wash basins and water jugs, small household containers, brus...
Bhatia Plastics Vs. Peacock Industries Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-1994
Reported in: ILR1995Delhi620; 1995RLR63
Vijender Jain, J.1. The plaintiff has filed a suit for perpetual injunction, infringement of trade mark, passing off and rendition of account. Along with the suit an application was filed (I.A. No. 2/93) under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC for restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, dealing in plastic goods under the trade marks 'PEACOCK' along its device. Further prayer was sought by the plaintiff to restrain the defendants from using the mark. PEACOCK in respect of their corporate name or any other trade marks or the word which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade mark 'MAYUR'. The case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff has been carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling wide range of plastic goods since the year 1968 and it is registered proprietor of the following trade marks : (a) Trade mark MAYUR registered under No. 369817 in class 21 in respect of buckets, wash basins and water jugs, small household cont...
Syndicate Bank Vs. Spencer and Blacksmith and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-1994
Reported in: 55(1994)DLT281
Sat Pal, J.(1) This is a suit for recovery of Rs.1,25,182.57p together with in pendente lite and future interest @ 16.5% p.a. from the date of institution of the suit till realisation.(2) The facts of the case briefly stated are that the plaintiff is a nationalised Bank constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer ofUndertakings) Act, 1970 having its Head Office at Manipal, Karnataka State and having one of its branches at East Patel Nagar, New Delhi. Mrs. Pran Bakshi is the duly constituted attorney of the plaintiff-Bank and was the Branch Manager of the East Patel Nagar Branch of the plaintiff-Bank at the relevant time. She is duly authorised to sign and verify the present plaint and to institute the presentsuit. In this regard she holds the power of attorney from the plaintiff-Bank.(3) As per the averments made in the plaint, the defendant No.1, which is a partnership concern of defendants 2,3 and 4 was granted Over Draft Facility to the tune of Rs.1.00lac by th...
Sukhbir Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-1994
Reported in: 55(1994)DLT701; (1994)108PLR75; 1994RLR450
Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) Two issues arise in this case-one relates to the validity of the disconnection notices. Annexures A-15 to A-17 and the other relates to the supplementary bills. Annexure A-12 to A-14 and A-18/A. These bills we reissued on the basis of an inspection report dated 11.10.91. The said report mentions the fact allegedly revealed to the department in the inspection. One of the items relates to the alleged unauthorised use of a compressor of 16 horsepower. According to the petitioner, the said compressor was not in use and was lying in open. While as per the respondents, the assessment and disconnection notices are made on the basis that the said compressor was in use. One of the questions that arises for consideration is whether even assuming that the petitioner was using additional load beyond sanction, or this compressor, whether the respondents could levy the charges for three years. The question that necessarily has also to be decided is as to whether even if the com...
Himachal Shoddy Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-1994
Reported in: (1994)50TTJ(Del)398
ORDERR. K. GUPTA, J. M. :In all these appeals, more or less common issue are involved and, thereforee, for the sake of convenience, these are being consolidated and disposed of by a common order.Asst. yr. 1969-70 :2. The first contention in the appeal before us is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex parte in spite of the fact that compliance was duly made. In fact, this ground is common to all the assessment years and, thereforee, it is being discussed for the assessment for the assessment year under consideration and our finding on this issue will be applicable to all the other assessment years.3. In his order dt. 29th May, 1992, the learned CIT(A) has observed as under :'This being a priority appeal, it was fixed for hearing on 31st March, 1992, thereafter, adjourned to 23rd April, 1992, 30th April, 1992 and 8th May, 1992 on the appellants request. On 8th May, 1992, Shri D. B. Sen, C. A. attended on behalf of the appellant. Written reply was filed and the case was...
India Lease Development Limited Vs. Ved Parkash
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1994
Reported in: 1994(2)ARBLR198(Delhi); 55(1994)DLT147
J.K. Mehra, J.(1) This is a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act filed by the petitioner-company against the respondents, praying for a direction for filing the arbitration agreement in Court and referring the disputes between the parties to the named Arbitrator, as mentioned in the said agreement.(2) During the pendency of the petition, respondent No.2, who was imp leaded as a Guarantor, died and the petitioner had given up the claim against the said respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 could not be served with summons in the ordinary way. As such, he was ordered to be served in the substituted manner.Notice of the petition was thus served on the respondent No.1 by way of a proclamation in the daily 'Statesman' in the issue of 24.4.1993. Despite service,none appeared on behalf of the respondent. As such, the respondent was proceeded against ex-parte and the petitioner was allowed to lead ex-parte evidence on affidavits.(3) The petitioner has filed the affidavit of Shri Ajay Ch...
M.G.F. (India) Ltd. Vs. Vijender Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1994
Reported in: 1994(2)ARBLR181(Delhi); 55(1994)DLT146
J.K. Mehra, J.(1) This is a petition under section 20 of the Arbitration Act filed by the petitioner company against the respondents, praying for a direction for filing the arbitration agreement in Court and referring the disputes between the parties to Shri Inderjit Gulati, the Arbitrator named in the said agreement.(2) Notices of the petition were served on 24.9.1993. Despite service, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. As such, they were proceeded against ex-parte and the petitioner was directed to lead ex-parte evidence on affidavits.Accordingly, the petitioner filed the affidavit of Shri Rajiv Gupta, Director In charge and constituted attorney of the petitioner company in support of the averments contained in the petition. The said deponent has proved and placed on record photocopies of the certificate of incorporation of the petitioner-company, which is Exhibit P.W.1/1. He has further proved the general power of attorney in his favor to file, institute the present petitio...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »