Delhi Court June 1997 Judgments

Southern Petrochem. Indus. Vs. Collr. of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT683TriDel

1. This appeal arises from the order dated 17-1-1989 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) who held that the impugned goods are carbon neck bushes which are parts of recycle solution feed pump and classifiable under Tariff Heading No. 6815.10, CTA/CET Heading No.68.07 read with CEN 96/86, dated 10-2-1986 as amended as claimed by the appellants. He has however, rejected the appeal of the appellants claiming the benefit of Notification No. 69/87 in view of the exclusion of goods falling within Heading No. 84.13 CTA from Heading No. 98.06 in terms of Notification No. 132/87, dated 1-3-1087.3. Ld. DR submits that there is no merit in the appeal in view of the exclusion of goods under proviso to (xii) of Notification No.69/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987.4. We have carefully considered and perused the Notification No.69/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987. Under the proviso to (xii) of the said Notification, it excludes the goods which are millstones, grindstones or other articles specified in Chapter ...

Collector of Customs Vs. Medical College

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT693TriDel

1. These Revenue's appeals are directed against the Order-in-Appeal No.160/90 (Cus.), dated 16-7-1990 of Collector of Customs (Appeals). The respondent filed a Bill of Entry No. 98/7-6-1989 for clearance of "Image Intensifier T. V. System and Accessories" on behalf of importers, Medical College, Trichur. The goods were cleared allowing the benefit of duty exemption under Notification No. 63/88 which grants exemption to hospital equipments. Respondent subsequently imported one Akai VCR and claimed duty free clearance under Notification No. 63/88 on the ground that this was the part of the earlier consignment imported vide B/E No. 98/7-6-1989. This VCR was not allowed duty free as it was not a hospital equipment. Considering the goods, they cannot be considered as hospital equipment. The respondents were issued a show cause notice demanding differential duty in regard to image intensifier T.V. system and accessories as cleared under B/E No. 98/7-6-1989. The Collector (Appeals) however, ...

Vikas and Co. Vs. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that M/s. Vikas andCo. a partnership concern had two connections namely Nos. 640062 IP and 640061 IL. The opposite party raised two bills of Rs. 21,058.08 and Rs. 5,218.13 for the said connections respectively. These were payable upto 28.3.1989. The bills having not been paid, both the aforesaid connections were disconnected on the ground of non-payment on 7.8.1989. On 16.3.1991, the complainant made a request for restoration of the connections followed by a legal notice dated 1.3.1993 but the connections were not restored and, accordingly, complaint was filed before the District Forum on 11.7.1994. Written version was filed on behalf of the opposite party. Whereas some other objections were raised, no plea of limitation was taken. The District Forum on its own took up the question of limitation and observed that disconnection had been made in August 1989 and the com plaint was filed by July, 1994 and the same was ...

Hariram Govindram Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT574TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Hariram Govindram, the matter relates to the classification of the plastic moulded C.O. cassettes without magnetic tape called C.O. Cassettes. The appellants under their classification list No. 223/86-87 effective from 1-3-1986, after the introduction of the new tariff under Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, sought classification of such plastic moulded C.O.Cassettes without magnetic tapes under sub-heading 3922.90 of the Tariff which during the period from 1-3-1986 to 9-2-1987 covered other articles of plastics and articles of materials of Heading Nos. 39.01 to 39.14 of the Tariff. A show cause notice was issued on 3-10-1986 to the appellants alleging that the plastic moulded C.O. cassettes without magnetic tapes merited classification under Heading No. 85.48 which covered electrical parts of machinery or apparatus not specified or included elsewhere in Chapter 85 of the Tariff. The matter was adjudicated by the Asstt. Collector of Centr...

Carona Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT566TriDel

1. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of footwear filed two price lists 14/986 and 22/86 declaring prices of footwear and also claiming deduction of trade discount at 12% per annum. The prices lists were approved and clearances were made on payment of appropriate duty. It was subsequently found that appellant was paying 12% discount to buyers in Bombay and lower discount raging from 5% to 7.5% to dealers outside Bombay. Accordingly notice was issued proposing to allow only the minimum quantum of discount. The notice was opposed by the appellant but was confirmed by the Assistant Collector (Appeals). In other words, deduction of trade discount was restricted to 5% in all cases. Hence, the present appeal.2. The appellate authority disallowed the deduction claimed at 12% on the ground that 12% discount was allowed to M/s. Bombay Footwear who deposited Rs. 5,000/- to the appellant while 7.5% discount was allowed to M/s. Raunaq Rati Manga of Bhatinda who deposited Rs. 3,000/- to the app...

Annapurna Organics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT703TriDel

1. The Order-in-Original No. 14/MT/88, dated 2-12-1988 passed by Additional Collector of Central Excise, Baroda is under challenge in this appeal.2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of various products covered under erstwhile Tariff Item Nos. 14D, 15A, 15AA and 68 had availed small scale exemption under Notification 44/82 in respect of the year 1982-83. The benefit of Notification was conditional on the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods by the manufacturer or on his behalf for home consumption from one or more factories during the preceding financial year not exceeding Rs. 20 lakhs. Appellant was also enjoying the benefit of exemption in respect of surface active agents.(T.I. 15AA) during the previous year. Appellant by classification list filed on 5-4-1982 in respect of synthetic organic dye items (T.I. 14D) declared the value of all clearances for home consumption in the preceding year as Rs. 19,10,000/-. Classification list was approved. Subsequently, it was...

Dlf Universal Ltd. Vs. International Marketing Services

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)305; 1997(2)ARBLR145(Delhi); 70(1997)DLT361; 1997(42)DRJ539

J.B. Goel, J.(1) Suit No.1487-A/84 is an award dated 11.4.1984 in the matter of D.L.F. Universal Ltd. vs. International Marketing Services filed by Shri B.S. Sistani, Arbitrator whereas is No.7249/84 are the objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter called the Act) filed by the aforesaid claimant.(2) Briefly the facts are that M/s American Universal Electric (India) Ltd. (for short AUE) were inter alias manufacturing and selling 'Cooler Pumps' and 'Cooler Fans' under the Brand name of 'Cool Home'. It has appointed International Marketing Services (for Short IMS), the respondent as their selling agents vide agreement dated 3.8.1978 for the sale of these goods manufactured by the former in Delhi. This agreement was valid for one year but was later extended to 30.6.1981.(3) In the meantime, by a scheme of amalgamation the said Aue was merged with M/s. Dlf Universal Ltd., the claimant with effect from 18.6.1980 and all its assess and liabilities stood transfer...

Anand and Associates Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997(2)ARBLR135(Delhi); 67(1997)DLT745; 1997(42)DRJ458

J. B. Goel, J. (1) By this order I will dispose of the plaintiff's application (I.A. No.346/97) under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 for restraining the defendants from enforcing the recovery of security amount of Rs. 2 lacs and levy of penalty of Rs. 14,55,237.00 by withholding these amounts due and payable to the plaintiff in respect of other pending bills towards other works executed by the plaintiff.(2) This application has been filed in a suit for declaration and injunction against the action of defendants in levying the penalty and enforcing it.(3) Briefly the facts are that the work 'SH: Construction of peripheral storm water drains in Sector 22 relating to development of 1769.88 hectors of land at Papankala (Dwarka) Project Phase I, including alternative plots around Village Amber Hai, Bagdola and Manglapuri was awarded by defendant No. 3 to the plaintiff vide acceptance letter No. F. 55 (488)/EEWD-171, DDA/95-96/1863, dated 13.9.1995 for which a formal contract No. 9/EF/WD-7/DDA/95-96...

Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. Vs. Girnar Food and Beverages Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997(2)ARBLR559(Delhi); 69(1997)DLT8

J.B. Goel, J.(1) By this order two applications, (1) I.A. 6973/96 under0rder39 Rules I and 2, Civil Procedure Code filed by the plaintiff for ad interim injunction and (2) I.A. 7896/ 96 under Order 39 Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code filed by the defendant for vacating the ex parte interim injunction granted on August 2, 1996 are being disposed of. (2) On the aforesaid application of the plaintiff an ex parte injunction was granted on 2nd August, 1996 restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale or distributing tea with the trade mark Super Cup or any other trade mark deceptively similar thereto. (3) The plaintiff has filed a suit for injunction, passing off action with other ancillary reliefs. (4) The case of the plaintiff is that they have been carrying on business inter alias manufacturing and selling various brands of tea and in the year 1988 they had adopted and started selling tea under new trade brand Super Cup and since then they have been advetisiing th...