Delhi Court July 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.
Collector of Customs Vs. Mcdowell and Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT506TriDel
1. After the clearance of goods on payment of customs duty, the respondents filed refund claim in regard to the addition of US $ 798 per MT C&F to the invoice price as also the landing charges. The Assistant Collector allowed refund on the former, but rejected the claim in regard to the landing charges. The Collector (Appeals), however, allowed refund in regarding to the landing charges also.2. The initial assessment was not provisional but final. That was why the respondents paid the customs duty under protest. We have been consistently following the view taken by the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Customs v. India Polyfibres Ltd., 1988 (38) E.L.T. 517, wherein it has been held that landing charges are to be added on notional basis as adoption of actual amount of landing charges for arriving at the assessable value would add enormous amount of infructuous work for the Customs Houses as well as the importers.3. The learned counsel for the respondents places reliance on the d...
Searle (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT640TriDel
1. This appeal arises from the Order-in-Appeal dated 12-11-1987 passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay. The appellants imported Gas Chromatography Software and claimed assessment under Heading 9.027.90 as against sub-heading 8524.90 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 assessed by the department. The said plea was rejected by Assistant Collector on the ground that the software has been separately valued in the invoice and is assessable separately on merits under sub-heading 8524.90.2. Before the Collector (Appeals), the importer stated that 'Gas Chromatography cum Spectrometer' is one of the most complicated analytical tools used in separation and structural elucidation of mixtures of organic compounds. The entire function of the instrument is controlled by Mass Chromatographic Software. It monitors on line analysis of Gas Chromatogram and mass spectrum and it cannot be used for any other purpose in any other instruments. They replied upon the letter dated 5-2-1987 issued by the Depart...
New Vedio Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT509TriDel
1. Appellants are absent in spite of notice of hearing. We have heard Shri T.R. Malik, SDR and perused the papers.2. Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of TV Projectors and allied equipments. They imported projection T.V. picture tubes from a manufacturer in USA. According to them, during the warranty period certain number of picture tubes were replaced free of cost as per the terms of the contract and when replaced items were imported, appellants submitted Bill of Entry showing only the freight charges on the ground that they were not liable to pay duty on the value of the picture tubes. Notice was issued to show cause why duty should not be imposed on the value of imported goods also. The notice was resisted by the appellants. However, the Additional Collector passed the impugned order holding it to be a case of mis-declaration and directing duty to be paid on the value of goods imported, confiscating the goods under Section lll(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 but permitted redem...
Anjendra Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Kruzer Herbals
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)803; 63(1996)DLT660; 1996(38)DRJ416
K. Ramamoorthy, J.(1) The plaintiff Ajendra Kumar Aggarwal, Proprietor of Dayal Medico carrying on business in Mathura has filed the above suit against two defendants for an injunction restraining infringement of trade mark and injunction on the ground of passing off. The product invented and manufactured by the plaintiff and the first defendant arc Ayurvedic medicines. According to the plaintiff he is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing Ayurvedic medicines for the treatment of Stop Menses Clear. He has been in the business since January, 1990 carrying on business under the trade Mark MENSUROL. The trade mark according to the plaintiff is registered. Originally the business was carrying on by a parter and now he is the proprietor. According to the plaintiff, relating to the carton and logo the plaintiff has applied for registration. It is the assertion in the reply on account of distinctiveness acquired by the plaintiff and no one else in the market could use the tra...
Jagsonpal Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Senor Laboratories
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)877; 1996(26)ARBLR425(Delhi); 63(1996)DLT671; 1996(38)DRJ748
K. Ramamoorthy, J.(1) The plaintiff has filed a suit for injunction against the defendant on the ground of passing off the trade mark Seflox used by the plaintiff for manufacturing its pharmaceutical preparations, now used by the defendant and selling products in the same name SEFLOX.(2) In para 5 of the plaint the plaintiff has stated that it has filed an application for registration under Applicant No 589743 in relation to medicinal and pharmaceutical products falling in class 5 of the Fourth Schedule of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The application was published in the Trade Mark Journal on the 1st February 1993. In para 7 the plaintiff has stated thus: That the Plaintiffs trade mark Seflox has already become distinctive and associated with the aforesaid goods on account of its long, continuous, extensive and exclusive user thereof. The public at large associates the said trade mark to the aforementioned goods of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has been using the said t...
Harprashad and Co. Ltd. Vs. A.N. Pahuja, Inspecting Assistant, Commiss ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-1996
Reported in: ILR1997Delhi15; [1998]229ITR101(Delhi)
Usha Mehra, J.(1) A very short and interesting point has been raised in this petition; whether criminal proceedings to continue in spite of quashing of the order of penalty by the final authority under the Income Tax Act i.e. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter called the Tbunal) (2) Petitioners M/s Harprashad Company Limited & Ols. (hereinafter called appellant company) filed its return declaring loss of Rs.4,48,578.00 . The Assessing Officer while processing the return noticed that one of the items of expenditure representing payment of commission to Smt.Ritu Nanda was not justified and, thereforee, asked the Explanationn. Statement of Smt. Ritu Nanda was recorded by the Income Tax Officer (Circle) Circle-1 on 20th March, 1982 wherein she testified that she procured the contract for the appellant company as she had been visiting Iran frequently and was known to M/s Essar & Company in Iran. She was the Director of the appellant company but resigned in 1977. She had set up her o...
Ultramarine and Pigments Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT693TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Customs, Madras dated 30-7-1986.2. Learned Counsel stated that the appellants had imported a calorimeter for use in their pigment factory and filed a bill of entry in which it was classified under 90.25(1) and duty was paid accordingly. Subsequently, it was, however, noticed that all the component parts of the calorimeter had not been received and some parts were short-shipped. The suppliers admitted the fact and, therefore, sent the short-shipped goods subsequently under a no-charge invoice.3. Since they had initially paid full duty on calorimeter complete, as had been ordered, therefore, they filed a refund claim and the Department accepted the fact of short-shipment and accordingly granted them refund.4. Subsequently, when the short-shipped parts arrived the department did not apply the earlier classification, instead the items were classified under 84.51/55 (2) CTA.5. They, therefore, filed a refund claim....
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Statfield Systems (Coating) Pvt.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT510TriDel
1. These Revenue appeals are directed against the common Order-in-Appeal No. HN-47 & 48/PN-8 & 9/87, dated 25th February, 1987 of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. The issue relates to admissibility of otherwise of exemption under Notification No. 105/80 in the light of charges incurred on drawing, designing, erection/commissioning charges of plant, bought out items, packing and forwarding charges and surcharges.3. The Collector (Appeals) held that primarily the respondents undertake setting up industrial paints shops on turnkey basis where the removal takes place at the customers site. For setting up all these paint shops the respondents also procure bought out items from others and which are fitted at the site during the course of erection. The Assistant Collector's finding that the value of the bought out items and charges like erection charges, commissioning charges etc. have to be taken into consideration while determining the value of clearances under Noti...
Escorts Finance Limited Vs. Solar Farmachem Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)849; 63(1996)DLT712; 1996(38)DRJ579
K. Ramamoorthy, J. (1) The Petitioner has filed two suits under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for appointment of arbitrator and for referring disputes for arbitration mentioned in the petition. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents represented that the Respondents have no objection to the appointment of the Arbitrator. Accordingly, I appoint Hon'ble Ms. Justice Santosh Duggal a retired Judge of this Court, AB/13, Tilak Marg, New Delhi - (Tele: 3386460) as an Arbitrator. It shall open to the Hon'ble Arbitrator to fix her fees and other expenses for arbitration proceedings to be paid by the plaintiff. The Learned Arbitrator shall publish her Award within four month from the date of entering upon the reference. (2) The question arises whether the claim of the Escorts Finance Limited for the seizure of the machinery should be allowed or the claim of the respondents that they should be permitted to retain the machinery pending the disposal of the arbitration should be ente...
Vikas Pathania Vs. U.S.i.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-1996
Reported in: 1996RLR443
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) There are certain rules for eligibility for entrance exams. for admission to MBBS/BDS course. The essential qualifications for general category are : 'B.ESSENTIAL Qualifications For General Category : Candidates who have appeared/passed 12th Class Exam. under 10+2 system conducted by the C.B S.E / Council for the Indian School Certificate Exam./Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi (Except Patrachar Vidyalaya and Open Schools) with required subjects i.e. Physics, Chemistry, Biology. Botany & Zoology) and English (Core or Elective) securing minimum 50% marks in aggregate in these subjects from the Recognised Schools conducting regular Classes situated within the National Capital Territory of Delhi only will be eligible for the University of Delhi.'(2) The grievance of the petitioner is that though he is a bonafide permanent resident of Delhi, the above qualifications completely debar him from sitting in the entrance examination in the General Category because he did not p...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »