Delhi Court October 1997 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.
Sudarshan Chemical Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-1997
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT700TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Sudarshan Chemical Indus., the matter relates to the interpretation of Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which provided that the inputs in respect of which a credit of duty had been allowed under Rule 57A may be removed subject to the prior permission of the Collector of Central Excise, from the factory for home consumption or for export on payment of appropriate duty of excise or for export under bond, as if such inputs had been manufactured in the said factory in which the inputs had been brought for use in the manufacture of the final products. It was further provided that, where the inputs were removed from the factory for home consumption on payment of duty of excise, such duty of excise shall in no case be less than the amount of credit that had been allowed in respect of such inputs under Rule 57A of the said rules. The appellants had purchased their inputs from the small scale manufacturers who were eligible for the concessional rate of...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Arunodaya Mills Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT181TriDel
1. Department has filed the present appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 435/90 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad setting aside the Order-in- Original No. 52/85, dated 9-9-1985 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rajkot.2. Respondent is engaged in the manufacture of yarn. We are concerned in the appeal with the correct classification of cellulosic spun yarn blended with synthetic waste and manufactured by the respondent. There is no dispute that the yarn falls under Sub-item HI of erstwhile Tariff Item 18 which refers to cellulosic spun yarn. The dispute in the appeal is whether Clause (i) or Caluse (ii) of Sub-item III of Tariff Item 18 is attracted.3. Yarn in which man-made fibre or cellulosic origin predominates by weight and in or in relation to the manufacture of which any process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power falls under Sub-item III.In the yarn manufactured by the respondent, man-made fibre of cellulosic origin pr...
Ranjit Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-1997
Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)689; 69(1997)DLT188
Arun B. Saharya, J.(1) This is an appeal by the appellant Ranjit Singh under Sub-section 2 of Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against conviction by judgment dated 26th March, 1993 and order of sentence dated 27th March, 1993, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 33 of 1984. (2) The appellant has been convicted and sentenced under six heads. First, for conspiracy to kill Baba Gurbachan Singh, under Section 120-B, IPC. Secondly, for the murder of Baba Gurbachan Singh in pursuance of the conspiracy under Section 302 read with Section 120B, IPC. Thirdly, for the murder of Pratap Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC. Fourthly, for attempt to murder Kuldip Singh Walia under Section 307 read with Section 34, IPC. Fifthly, for conspiring to cause explosion of hand-grenades to endanger life and property under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. Lastly, for possessing arms and ammunition with intent to use the same fo...
Girnar Food and Beverages Pvt Ltd. Vs. Godfrey Phillips India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-1997
Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)260; 1997(2)ARBLR555(Delhi); 69(1997)DLT23; 1997(43)DRJ233; (1997)117PLR47
S.K. Mahajan, J. (1) The order of Hon'ble the Single Judge granting interim injunction against the appellant restraining it from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale or distributing goods in relation to the trade mark 'Super Cup Tea' or any other trade mark deceptively similar to the trade mark 'Super Cup' in relation to tea, has been challenged by the appellant in this appeal. (2) As we were satisfied that the matter needed consideration, the appeal was admitted for hearing on 28th July, 1997. By this order we are disposing of the application of the appellant under Order 41 Rule 5 for stay of the impugned order dated 23rd June, 1997. (3) A few facts which are relevant for deciding this application are being stated hereunder :- (4) The plaintiff/respondent before us had applied for the registration of their label as a trade mark. Their label comprised of the illustration of a cup and a saucer within a circle with the background of a triangle with a coequal board look which was pla...
Lg Electronics Inc. Vs. Onida Savak Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-1997
Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)267; 1997(2)ARBLR637(Delhi); 69(1997)DLT27; 1997(43)DRJ394
Mahinder Narain, J. (1) The appellant before us is M/s. Lg Electronics Inc. (hereinafter called as 'LG') who, aggrieved by an order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 29.7.1997 in I.A. No.6040 of 1997, has appealed to this Court. By the said order dated 29.07.1997, the appellant, its subsidiaries, its distributors, stockists and/or any one acting on its behalf or claiming through it, was restrained from transferring, causing to transfer or utilising or causing to utilise 'Fuzzy Logic Technology' or the sold technology by any other name for the manufacture, sale, assembly of automatic washing machines. The appellant was also restrained from manufacturing, assembling, selling, offering for sale, fully automatic washing machines and parts thereof with 'Fuzzy Logic Technology'. It was also restrained f(2) Onida Savak Limited (hereinafter called as 'ONIDA'), respondent herein, filed an application under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter called as 't...
Lion Metal Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT325TriDel
1. The above appeal arises out of the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) upholding the order of the Assistant Collector by which he has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 35,974/- on stainless steel pattas and patties manufactured by the appellants herein. The relevant period is 1-10-1986 to 16-11-1986. The appellants have asked for a decision on merits and hence, we have heard the learned DR and perused the records.2. The appellants are engaged in the production of stainless steel pattas/patties by cold rolling metal out of hot rolled pattas. They receive duty paid inputs viz. SS pattas/patties classified under sub-heading No. 7208.00 attracting rate of duty of Rs. 365/- PMT. They filed a classification list 2/86 effective from 18-9-1986 classifying the products viz. SS pattas under sub-heading 7208.00 at the rate of Rs. 365/- PMT and cleared the goods during the period from 1-10-1986 to 16-11-1986 on payment of duty at the abovementioned rate. From 17-11-1986 patt...
Oriental Carbon and Chemicals Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-1997
Reported in: (1998)(62)ECC261
1. In both these appeals common question of law and facts are involved, hence they are taken up together for disposal as per law. The question that arises for consideration in these appeals is as to whether the appellants are entitled for Modvat credit in respect of steam which is, in turn, used for manufacture of electricity and both these items are ultimately utilised for manufacture of final product namely carbon black falling under Chapter Heading 28.03 of Central Excise Tariff. The appellants had filed relevant Mod-vat declarations under Rule 57G for the purpose of availing Modvat credits on various duty paid inputs. It was stated by them that in terms of provisions of Rule 57A, which govern the definition of 'inputs' for the purposes of eligibility to Modvat credit, were amended vide Notification No. 4/94, dated 1-3-1994, which inserted sub-clause (C) in the Explanation to the Rule, whereby inputs used as fuel were also granted eligibility to the credit.Consequently, they filed ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Johnson and Johnson Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-1997
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT510TriDel
1. This Appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal passed by Collector (Appeals) dated 16-5-1989.2. The short question involved in this appeal relates to correct classification of electrical insulators. The Respondents claimed classification of the electrical insulating tapes made either from Polyester or from glass fabric under Heading 85.46. Assistant Collector however classified three types of tapes under Heading 3910.00 and the first type under Heading 70.14. In the Revenue Application, the department sought classification under Heading 70.14 in view of Note i(e) to Chapter 70. Collector (Appeals) while rejecting the departments application, holding that the insulators are correctly classifiable under Heading 85.46.3. Arguing on behalf of the Revenue, the ld. DR submits that the note to Chapter 70 specifically includes such insulators under Chapter 70, and in any case these insulators perform dual function and cannot be classified under Heading 85.46.4. Arguing on behalf of th...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Executive Engg. (Kseb)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT283TriDel
1. The appeal by the department is against the order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras holding that respondent herein should be held to have made the payment of duty in question under protest whereby their subsequent refund was held to have been filed in time. The main thrust of the department's appeal reiterated during hearing by learned SDR, Shri Satnam Singh is that the respondent had not complied with the requirements laid down under Rule 233B which lays down the procedure to be followed for payment of duty under protest. The appeal, however, does not disclose the precise deficiency in regard to the above mentioned Rule that has, according to die department, vitiated the procedure followed by the respondent and thereby deprived them of the protection available under the above said Rule. It has been urged in the appeal that the respondent's letter stating that they have remitted a sum of Rs. 84,366.95 towards excise duty under protest in respect ...
Uco Bank Vs. Shri Amar Nath Jindal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-1997
Reported in: (1998)119PLR14
ORDERS.N. Kapoor, J.1. This is a regular first appeal against judgment and decree dated 31st July 1996, decreeing the suit for recovery of possession, mesne profits amounting to Rs. 18,700/- up to 17th January 1994, along with pendente lite and future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 6,865/- per month and interest @ 15% per annum.2. Plaintiff/respondent Amar Nath Jindal is the owner and landlord of property known as Jindal House bearing No. 270/2-3, Shri Asha Ram Road, G.T. Road, Shahdara, Delhi. He had let out the ground floor and mezzanine floor of the aforesaid property for a period of five years w.e.f. 1st January 1989 to 31st December 1993 at a rent of Rs. 6865/- per month inclusive of all rates and taxes. This lease deed dated 8th November 1989 Ex.PW2/D-15 was duly executed and registered. This lease deed also provided for a renewal clause. Since the defendant did not get the lease renewed by giving one month's notice, before expiration of the term of the least on 31st December 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »