Delhi Court December 1996 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.
Ludhiana Bottling Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-1996
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT776TriDel
1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh confirming demand of duty of Rs. 2,42,629.77 and imposing personal penalty of Rs. 40,000/-, the appellants have filed the said appeal. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of aerated waters for which they were licensed during the relevant period. During the period August 1988 to December 1989, the appellant fabricated and erected two conveyer systems in their factory for the extension of the already existing plant and machinery. It is this conveyer system for transmission of crates of bottles which is the subject matter of dispute before us. Whereas it is the Revenue's case that the said conveyer system falls under sub-heading No. 8428.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and assessable to duty, the appellants contention is that the same is outside the scope of Central Excise law being immovable property as the same is embedded to earth. A show ...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Talbros Automotive Components
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-1996
Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT210TriDel
1. Respondent, engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicle parts covered by Chapter Heading 87.08 of CET filed two price lists dated 2-3-1987 and 9-3-1987 claiming deducting of 30% trade discount and 4% as cash discount. Show cause notices dated 30-8-1986 and 204087(Sic) were issued stating that actually trade discount was given only at the rate of 22.5% and no cash discount had been given and requiring the respondent to show cause why deduction of trade discount should not be limited to 22.5% and why deduction of cash discount should not be disallowed. Respondent resisted the notices. Assistant Collector passed two separate orders dated 2-5-1987 and 10-8-1987 respectively agreeing that cash discount was allowable but restricting trade discount to 22.5%. The manufacturer filed two separate appeals before the Collector (Appeals) who disposed of the same by a common order dated 13-4-1988 allowing deduction of trade discount at 30% and allowing the appeals.The Collector of Central Excise...
Unichem Lab Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-1996
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT267TriDel
1. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein had applied for exemption for patent and proprietary medicines (Unizyme Syrup-170ml) cleared as physician's sample under Notification No.48/77-C.E. during the period May, 1986 to September, 1986. The exemption Notification contains 3 conditions (1) clearances of such samples in any month are limited to a quantity not exceeding 4% by value of total duty paid clearances during the preceding month of all types of PP Medicines; (2) such samples are intended for supply to Hospitals, Nursing Homes or Medical practitioners and (3) such samples are packed in a form distinctly different from regular trade packing and each smallest packing is clearly and conspicuously marked "Physician Sample, not to be sold". The Assistant Collector denied the benefit of the Notification on the ground that condition (3) of Exemption Notification was not fulfilled because the packing of the physician sample was the same as the regular trade packing. ...
Pharma Research and Analytical Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-1996
Reported in: (1997)LC94Tri(Delhi)
1. Appellant is absent and is unrepresented in spite of notice of hearing. Even on the last occasion, namely, 26-8-1996, appellant was absent. We have heard Shri M. Ali, JDR and perused the papers.2. Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of patent or proprietary medicines falling under erstwhile T.I. 14E. Appellant filed price list claiming deduction of certain expenses. Assistant Collector by order dated 8-7-1981 rejected the price list as he found that the deductions were inadmissible. This order was challenged by the appellant before the High Court of Madras by a Writ Petition. The High Court ultimately directed the Assistant Collector to decide the controversy on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bombay Tyre International case, 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896 (SC). The Assistant Collector called for information from the appellant regarding various deductions and the details thereof. Appellant submitted the actual expenses in regard to each item for the years 1981-82 and 19...
Kandivali Metal Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-1996
Reported in: (1997)LC329Tri(Delhi)
1. Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of aluminium strips sheets from aluminium ingots and scrap both as job worker on its own account.The dispute in the appeal relates to the assessable value and duty payable on the cost of goods manufactured as job worker. Appellant has been filing Price List tinder Part I for its own products and Price List in Part VII in regard to goods produced on job work basis. Price List indicated assessable value on the sum total of cost of raw materials and job work charges which were supported by Costing Certificates issued by the Chartered Accountants of the supplier of raw materials. The dispute arose in regard to Price List No. 26/81, dated 18-12-1981, No. 6/82, dated 29-1-1982 and Price List No. 7/82, dated 29-1-1982. Price Lists had been approved provisionally and were sought to be reopened by three show cause notices issued to appellant stating that since the appellant was manufacturing and selling on its own account comparable goods, assessable ...
Collector of Customs Vs. Tico Machines Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-1996
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT256TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue the only issue for our consideration is that whether the A.C. Servo Motors and A.C. Servo Controls imported by the respondents M/s. TICO Machines (P) Ltd., Hyderabad were eligible for the benefit of exemption Notification No.181/87-Cus., dated 29-4-1987 (as amended) or not. The respondents had claimed that these motors and controls were not part of CNC system or components of such system and were covered by the description as given in the said Notification read with the final orders as classifiable as per the Table annexed to that Notification. The Assistant Collector of Customs had held that the imported items A.C. Servo Motors and A.C.Servo Controls were components of CNC system and were not covered by the Customs Notification No. 181/87. On appeal the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras had held that the goods in question were not parts of the CNC System.2. In appeal the Revenue had contended that the imported components were used in CNC ho...
Kwality Steels Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-1996
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT172TriDel
1. The captioned appeal is directed against the order of the ld.Collector (Appeals) who held that in respect of Modvat credit availed by the appellants on the rods of non alloy steels, there was no declaration as required under Rule 57G(1) of the Central Excise Rules and that the appellants' request for treating their letter, dated 18-11-1991 addressed to the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi, as declaration under Rule 57G (1) is not acceptable in view of the fact that the requirement of Rule 57G (1) is very specific and a particular letter addressed to the Central Excise Authority cannot be claimed to be a declaration under Rule 57G (1) and that the requirement of Rule 57G (1) is of considerable importance in the scheme of Modvat system and must be scrupulously followed which the appellants failed to do.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of steel blocks residue products etc. They filed a declaration for availing Modvat credit o...
Kashmir Vanaspati (P) Limited Vs. State Trading Corporation of India L ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-1996
Reported in: 1997(40)DRJ114
Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) This is a suit for recovery of Rs.4,55,737.35 with future interest and costs. The facts as appear from the plaint are as follows :-(2) The Government of India decided to import edible oils/seeds in order to overcome the scarcity of the same and appointed the defendant State Trading Corporation of India as the canalising agency for importing edible oil from foreign countries and distributing the same to various manufacturers of vanaspati oil. The plaintiff is engaged in the manufacture of vanaspati at its factory situate at Jammu and the defendant had been selling imported edible oils to the plaintiff from time to time. By virtue of the orders of the Government of India, Ministry of Civil Supplies, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-clause (1) of clause 4 and sub-clause (1) of clause 4B of the Vegetable Oil Products Control Order, 1947, and the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and various other orders and notifications issued from time to time, the plaintiff a...
Delhi Administration Vs. Yogender Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-1996
Reported in: 1997IAD(Delhi)8; 65(1997)DLT605; 1997(40)DRJ55; 1997(2)SLJ155(Delhi)
Jaspal Singh, J.(1) The facts giving rise to this writ petition need to be recapitulated in some detail. (2) It appears that in December 1983 since there were posts of Horticulture Assistants/Plant Protection Assistants, the Employment Exchange was asked to sponsor names, consequent upon which the names of the respondents were forwarded. They were selected on July 17, 1984 and all of them joined between August 1, 1984 and August 9, 1984. The appointments, however, were as daily paid workers. They continued to so work till the year 1987 when the Department took the decision to appoint them on adhoc basis till regular appointments were made. This appointment on adhoc basis was up to February 28, 1989. Much before the said date, the respondents had made representations for being treated as regular/permanent employees from the date of their joining service. However, since the representations were found unpalatable, they gave birth to dispute regarding their regularisation and by order date...
Raja Pocket Books Vs. Radha Pocket Books
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-1996
Reported in: 1997(40)DRJ791
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) The plaintiff in this application is seeking temporary injunction against the defendant from circulating cover jackets, stickers or any other advertisement material promoting the impugned character under the impugned name 'NAGESH', in any manner whatsover, so as to be likely to amount to infringement of the plaintiff's copyright in the character 'NAGRAJ'. (2) The plaintiff in the suit filed against the defendant has claimed a decree for declaration to the effect that the copyright in the comic series Nagraj and the character of 'NAGRAJ' vests in the plaintiff and the intention of the defendant to bring out comic series under a closely resembling title and having a 'NAGRAJ- like' character as its hero, is unjustified and would amount to misrepresentation. In addition to praying for a decree for declaration, the plaintiff has also prayed for decree for injunction restraining the defendant, its distributors, servants, agents and representatives from circulating cove...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »