Delhi Court March 1997 Judgments

Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT512TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. The classification of the following products are involved: 2. About the spade, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had already decided the matter in favour of the appellants and held that they were agricultural implements.3. In respect of the rest of the items, Ms. Amrita advocate for the appellants submitted that in respect of hammers, the matter was already covered by the Tribunal's decision in the appellants' own case in Appeal No. E/163/87-B1 Final Order No. E/55/97B, dated 18-9-1996 1997 (91) E.L.T. 211 (Tribunal). In so far as the hammers are concerned she submitted that in their own case the appeal No. E/1504/88-B1 final order dictated in open court on 5-3-1997, the Tribunal had taken a view that hammer was a general purpose item and was not covered by the description agricultural implements. We find that the exemption was available under 82.08 to the other tools and implements including those of a kind used...

Haryana Milk Foods Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT320TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal dated 2-1-1991. The appellants imported a consignment of one complete Aseptic Processing and Packaging System called as "ELECSTER" consisting of Elecster 1000 Sterilizer, Homogenizer, Balancing equipment etc. The impugned goods were assessed to duty under CTH 84.20 read with Notification Nos.47/84-Cus. and 125/86-Cus. The appellants subsequently filed a refund claim claiming classification under Heading 84.19 read with Notification No. 189/86, dated 1-3-1986. This claim was rejected and Collector (Appeals) in appeal held that goods were classifiable neither under 84.20 nor 84.19 but under 84.79 as machines having individual function not specified elsewhere.2. Arguing for the appellants, ld. Advocate submits that they were not put on notice in regard to the classification.3. Ld. DR reiterates the department arguments but fairly concedes that matter would have go back by remand in order to enable the appellant to explain their case.4. W...

Ravindra Tubes Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(71)LC616Tri(Delhi)

1. This appeal is directed against order in appeal dt. 26.2.1991 of Collector of Customs (Appeals). The appellants imported Oscillator Valves. These were classified under CTH 85.11(1) as parts of welding machines. Subsequently it was, however, found that these parts were specifically covered under 85.18/26 as electronic valves and therefore, a demand for differential duty was issued.2. Arguing for the appellants, Id. Advocate submits that Assistant Commissioner held against them on the ground that in order to be eligible to concession under Notification 179/80, the parts must not be thermionic valves. He therefore, confirms the duty against them on the ground that these are Oscillator valves and they are excluded under Notification No. 179/80. He submits that it is true that thermionic valves are excluded from the benefit of this Notification but they were specified as excluded parts only vide Notification No. 42/Cus. In their case, the impugned goods were imported in 1981 and therefo...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Daurala Sugar Works

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)LC463Tri(Delhi)

1. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut passed an order-in-original No.1/95 confirming the demand of Rs. 9,36,241 /50 under Section 11A of the Central Excises Act, 1944 (for short, the Act). Collector (Appeals), having confirmed this order, the Department has filed the present appeal.2. Respondent is engaged In the manufacture of sugar, molasses being a by-product. The dispute in this appeal relates to the period March, 1994 and April, 1994. The period in question was governed by order issued by the U.P. State Government under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam 1964 (Act 24 of 1964), directing the sugar mills to sell 65% of the molasses produced as per the prescribed quota at the price of Rs. 32.00 per quintal and allowing the sugar mills to sell the remaining 35% in open market. The respondent used 35% of the molasses captively for manufacture of other products on the strength of gate passes declaring the value under Rule 6(b)(i) of the Central Excise (Valu...

Puri International (P) Ltd. Vs. National Building Construction Co. Ltd ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997(1)ARBLR691(Delhi); I(1997)BC646; [1998]94CompCas528(Delhi); 66(1997)DLT698; 1997(41)DRJ592

M.K. Sharma, J. (1) In the present suit instituted by the plaintiff a decree for permanent injunction is prayed for by the plaintiff against the defendant No.1 restraining it from encashing or seeking to encash or recovering the whole or any part of the amount with respect to the bank guarantees given by the defendant No.2 to the defendant No.1 on behalf of the plaintiff. On or about 5.4.1990 Indian Railway Construction Corporation (in short referred to as IRCON) awarded the contract of construction of Railway Station and Commercial Complex at Belapur to defendant No.l. The defendant No.1 on its part desired to split up the total contract work into smaller parts and give the same on subcontracts. The plaintiff submitted its tender for a part of the works proposed to be sub- contracted by defendant No.1 and in pursuance thereof on or around 14.11.1990 the defendant No.1 issued a letter of intent and around 22.11.1990 the defendant No.1 issued a work order to the plaintiff company. In te...

Biofarma and anr. Vs. Sanjay Medical Store and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)451; 1997(1)ARBLR558(Delhi); 66(1997)DLT705

M.K. Sharma, J. (1) In the suit instituted by the plaintiffs praying for a permanent injunction restraining the.defendants, their servants, agents, dealers and stockists from using the trade mark 'trivedon' or any other trade mark which is stated to be deceptively similar with the trade mark 'flavedon' of the plaintiffs and for infringement of trade mark and passing offdamages. The plaintiffs also filed an application under Order 39 Rules I and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code praying for grant of a temporary injunction against the defendants from manufacturing and selling, offering for sale medicinal preparations and pharmaceuticals under the trade mark 'trivedon' or any other trade mark which is deceptively similar with the trade mark of the plaintiff's 'flavedon'. The aforesaid application was registered as is 11683/ 95. The defendants have filed their written statement as against the suit instituted by the plaintiffs and have also filed reply to the application. The said application w...

Cadila Laboratories Ltd. and anr. Vs. Dabur India Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)750; 1997(1)ARBLR704(Delhi); 66(1997)DLT741

M.K. Sharma, J. (1) According to the plaintiffs, in the year 1989, the first plaintiff coined a unique and unusual trade mark 'Mexate' in respect of its methotrexate sodium injections used in the treatment of various types of cancers. According to the plaintiffs, the said trade mark is an invented word of the first plaintiff and has no meaning whatsoever. It is stated that the plaintiff No.1 is also a registered proprietor of the said trade mark 'Mexate' having been granted registration on 5.12.1989 and registered in Class V. The trade mark 'Mexate', according to the plaintiffs, is being extensively used by the plaintiffs since as far back as in August 1991. It is stated that the plaintiffs received information around January, 1996 that the defendant has recently introduced in the market a product under the brand name 'zexate' and the only difference between the plaintiff's registered trade mark 'Mexate' and the defendant's trade mark 'zexate' is the letter 'M' replaced by the letter '...

i.K. Mehra Vs. Wazir Chand Mehra and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)713; 66(1997)DLT683

M.K. Sharma, J.(1) This order shall dispose of I.A. 4497/ 1995 filed by the plaintiff against the defendants under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for restraining the defendants No. 5 to 9, their agents and employees from conveying, transferring, alienating and/or encumbering or dealing with the suit property in any manner till the disposal of the suit. (2) The plaintiff instituted the suit against the defendants for declaration claiming l/5th share in the suit property and also for claiming partition of the suit property by metes and bounds in accordance with the shares of the parties and allot to the plaintiff his share in severality as also for a declaration that defendants No. 5 to 9 have no right, title or interest in the suit property and to surrender possession to the undivided co-owners of the suit property. (3) The plaintiff is the son of defendant No. 1 and he is claiming 1/4th share, although during the course of arguments in the present applicati...

Mohd. Saleem Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)488; 66(1997)DLT826; 1997(41)DRJ508

J.K. Mehra, J.(1) This is an appeal arising out of an order of conviction passed against the appellant whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and pay fine of Rs.1 lac and in default of payment of the fine, the appellant is to undergo a rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 2 years under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ndps Act'). (2) Briefly the case, according to the prosecution is :- (3) That on 21st of June 1989, Asi Ilam Singh, posted as Special Staff, Central District, was on patrol duty with Head Constable (HC) Nanak Chand, Asi Jai Narain, Constables Ishwar Dayal, Virender Kumar. Head Constable Dilawar Singh under the supervision of Inspector Harish Chand Joshi in government vehicle No.DED-3756 driven by Asi Pyara Singh were present at Ajmeri Gate Chowk at about 3.40 p.m. A secret information was received by Asi Ham Singh that a person residing in Government ...

Surinder Kumar Sethi Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. The complainant took an insurance policy regarding his truck HR-29-8399 for the period 21.2.90 to 20.2.91. On 25.4.90, the truck met with an accident. The complainant lodged information with the police vide D.D. No. 125 dated 25.4.90, P.S. Dharuhera, District Rewari (Haryana). The Insurance Company was also informed about the accident the same day. On 9.7.90 the complainant sent a remainder requesting for the Surveyor to carry-out the final survey which was carted out. The complainant submitted his claim. By letter dated 29.12.90, the complainant re-iterated his claim for a sum of Rs. 1,11,209.50. The Insurance Company sent no reply. Ultimately on 30.6.92, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that the driving licence held by Ram Narayan s/o Dal Singh, driver of the truck, was not found to be genuine and, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any amount under the policy. The complainant served legal notice dated 24.8.92 b...