Delhi Court March 1997 Judgments

Emess Advertising Service Vs. the Hindustan Times Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1998Delhi14

K.S. Gupta, J. 1. This appeal by M/s. EMESS Advertising Service, appellant-defendant, is against the order dated January 31, 1996 passed by learned single Judge dismissing application (I.A. 2026/91) under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC filed in Suit No. 227/88 seeking to set aside ex parte decree date,d February 5, 1991. 2. The application was filed on March 5, 1991 by Smt. Vimla Sharma, claiming herself to be the proprietor of the appellant, on the allegations that the Hindustan Times Limited, respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 7,55,648/15P against the appellant. After the appellant was served with thesummons by publication, an ex parte decree was passed against it on February 5, 1991. She was not aware of the pendency of the suit before the evening of February 5, 1991 when her husband got in touch with Shri Yograj Sharma, Advocate, on telephone to find out as to in what connection he had telephoned him in the morning. It was revealed by Shri Yograj Sharma, Advoca...

K.C. Cherian and ors. Vs. Olympic Zippers Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Desh Bandhu, Member: 1. This is an appeal against order dated 15.3.1996 of District Forum-I. Complainant Company had bought from the opposite parties in March, 1994 an Attendance and Pay Roll Managing Machine which worked with a computer. This machine could not function and the complainants filed a complaint. District Forum-I held the opposite parties guilty of deficiency in service and directed the opposite parties to refund of Rs. 17,500/- advanced to opposite party by the complainant alongwith the interest @ 18% from the date of payment till the date of refund. Besides a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was awarded as damages and Rs. 4,000/- as legal expenses. The opposite parties have come up in appeal against this order. 2. We have gone through the record of the case and have also heard the parties. Mr. Talwant Singh, Advocate argued the case on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Inder Kumar Authorised Representative of respondents presented the case of respondents. 3. Facts of the case in brief ...

Jindal (India) Ltd. Vs. Jindal Pipe House

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)912; 1997(2)ARBLR106(Delhi); 66(1997)DLT867

M.K. Sharma, J.(1) The plaintiff instituted the present suit praying for issuance of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from carrying on their business of galvanised iron tubes, pipes and fittings thereof under the trade name and/or style as Jindal Pipe House or under any other trade name identical and/or deceptively similar to the trade mark 'JINDAL' and the trading style 'JINDAL India LIMITED' of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff Company is engaged in the manufacture and sale of galvanised iron pipes and tubes together with the fittings thereof since 1952 and that plaintiff has been using the trade mark 'JINDAL' on their aforesaid goods extensively and exclusively from the year 1956. The plaintiff Company is also the registered proprietor and owner of the trade mark 'JINDAL' in class 6 in respect of steel pipes and fittings which came to be renewed from time to time and is subsisting. It is stated that since 1956 the plaintiff has been regularly an...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Electro Steel Casting Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT243TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal dated 30-10-1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi who had set aside the Order-in-Original dated 9-1-1987 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ghaziabad. The matter relates to the availment of deemed credit in respect of iron and steel in terms of Ministry's order dated 7-4-1986 issued from F.No. B-22/5/86-TRU. The respondents had procured old and used scrap of iron and steel from the open market and the adjudicating authority observed that the inquiries regarding the varieties of scrap had revealed that the unit was purchasing from the open market the scrap consisting of cycle parts, agricultural implements, old house-hold utensils like bucket, pitcher and other like items. Such items are not charged to duty. He also mentioned in his order that the goods procured by them were in rusty and dusty condition.2. Before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) am...

A.M.D. Overseas Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT103TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original dated 30-8-1990 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Kandla.2. The appellants declared impugned goods as chain stitch Overedging Machine, Chainstitch Overedging and safety stitch machine, Class feed-off the arm industrial sewing machine, three needle chainstitch machine, essential spares. Addl. Collector held that catalogue of the machine describes the machine as interlock stitch machine against three needle chain stitch machine. He said such interlock stitch machines are not covered by any item mentioned in OGL Appendix 1 Part B S. No. 7 of Import Export Policy 1988-91. He also denied them the benefit of Notification No. 16/85 under S. No. 25.3. Arguing for the appellants the Ld. Consultant submits that interlock machines and chainstitch machines are the same and in this connection, refers to the certificate from the manufacturer placed at Page 54 of the appeal papers. Even if it is presumed that chain stitch and inte...

Sriram Fertilisers and Chemicals Vs. Collr. of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT568TriDel

1. The captioned appeal has been filed by the appellants agitating the order of the Collector (Appeals) in which the Collector (Appeals) had held that the isolating valves are defined in the Hand Book of Controlled Valves edited by J. W. Hutchison as" a hand-operated valve between packing lubrication assembly and packing box assembly to shut off the fluid pressure from lubricator assembly" and observed that only those types of valves could be termed as isolating valves which are hand operated and which are used between the packing lubricators assembly and packing box assembly to shut off. The Collector (Appeals) relying on the definition as above rejected the appeal.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants imported spares for their power plant - Economiser Inlet Feed Water Stop Valve No.V-04-109 Ex S.S. Kriti Garnet and claimed classification thereof under Customs Tariff Heading No.84.61 (2). However Revenue authorities assessed the imported goods under Customs Tariff Heading ...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Paliwal Glass Works

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT96TriDel

1. Respondent, a partnership firm, engaged in the manufacture of glass and glassware filed price list No. 11/81 effective from 10-8-1981 in respect of glass chimney falling under TI-23A (3) declaring prices as Rs. 3.75 per dozen USCO (Bata type) Chimney and Rs. 3.50 per dozen 250 Chimney. It appears that the entire production of the respondent was being sold to M/s. Kalatmak, another partnership firm. It appears there were three common partners in the two firms. The Superintendent of Central Excise (Valuation) issued notice dated 3-7-1982 to the respondent stating that there are some common partners in the two firms, that the manufacturing process was being completed by M/s.Kalatmak by grinding and embossing of the Chimneys, that M/s. Kalatmak was selling the products at Rs. 7.25/- and Rs. 7.50/- respectively and that the two partnership concerns are related persons and requiring the respondent to show cause why the prices charged by M/s. Kalatmak from the buyers should not be adopted...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Arihant Packaging

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT98TriDel

1. The revenue filed this reference application for referring the following points of law which were claimed to be arisen out of decision in Order No. A/1012/96-NB, dated 22-3-1996 passed by the Tribunal: (i) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal is correct in altering the expression in Rule 57C from whole of duty of excise... to "final product avails of exemption from whole of duty of excise leviable thereon" in order to allow the party to avail option. (ii) Whether in construing Rule 57C, the only question to be asked and answered is whether the final product is exempt from the whole of duty of excise or it is chargeable to nil rate of duty or any other condition is required to be considered. (iii) Whether embargo laid down by Rule 57C is absolute and categorical. (iv) Whether the provisions of explanatory notes appended to the Finance Bill 1994 will apply to the unregistered units also. (v) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of decision of A.P. High Court in the ...

S.K. Aggarwal Vs. Godrej Ge Appliance

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that Mr. S.K. Aggarwal, complainant for short, purchased a frost free refrigerator from the opp. party on 26.6.94 for Rs. 16,625/-. the fridge carried warranty for one year and a service agreement for four years from the date of purchase. The complainant found that the food articles kept in the fridge got frozen. The complainant got legal notice dated 4.4.95 served both on the manufacturer as well as dealer who were ultimately arrayed as Opp. parties 1 and 2 respectively. The manufacturer advised the local dealer to do the needful by its letter dated 11.4.95 with copy to the complainant. A mechanic deputed by the Opp, parties visited the complainant on 25.4.95 and noted in the job card that the thermostat was defective and required replacement. He was, however, not allowed to replace the same. The Opp. party, through its Senior Service Executive, is stated to have written to the complainant vide his let...

Aggarwal Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT615TriDel

1. These are appeals filed with reference to a common order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi dated 12-9-1995.2. Ld. Counsel submitted that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Hot Rolled untrimmed sheets/circles of copper/copper alloys falling under heading 7409.20 of the Central Excise Tariff. They were holding Central Excise Registration as required under Rule 174 of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Since product was liable to duty @ Rs. 1400/- per ton as per notification no. 178/88-C.E., dated 13-5-1988, (provided no benefit under rule 56A/57A has been taken). They were clearing the same on payment of duty accordingly. That vide Finance Bill, 1994 introduced on 28-2-1994 the notification no. 178/88, dated 13-5-1988 was withdrawn and the benefit of notification no. 1 /93 to the products falling under heading 7409.00 was extended, granting exemption upto Rs. 30 lakhs.Therefore, as advised by the local staff in a meeting held on 15-3-1994, the Registra...