Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1997VIAD(Delhi)955; 69(1997)DLT359
K. Ramamoorthy, J. (1) The four plaintiffs have filed a suit for injunction against the defendant restraining the defendant from carrying on its business as manufacturers or vendors of the electrical goods using the trade mark Comet and for injunction restraining the defendant from using the trade style Reliable INDIA; for injunction restraining the defendant from passing off the electrical goods except the electrical fans, cooler pumps under the trade mark Comet and for account of profits. (2) The case of the plaintiffs briefly stated is this. The plaintiffs and the defendant had been carrying on the business of manufacturing and marketing of electrical goods and appliances such as electric, iron, immersion heaters, room heaters, hot plates, mixer grinders, juicers, toasters, geysers, heat convectors, fans coolers, table lamps, cooking heaters, ovens and gas tenders etc. for the several years. For the year 1975, the plaintiffs and the defendant adopted the trade mark Comet for selling...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(100)ELT503TriDel
1. This stay application is filed with reference to Order-in-Appeal dated 27-3-1997 wherein demand of duty amounting to Rs. 32,725/- has been confirmed on the ground that the appellants did not account some quantity of brown sugar lost during storage and process.2. Arguing for the appellants the ld. Advocate submits that brown sugar is not sugar at all and therefore no duty can be demanded on it unless it is converted into marketable sugar. He submits that in their own case in a similar matter Writ Petition No. 613/1994, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that no duty shall be demanded on such brown sugar.4. Considered. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Writ Petition 613/1994 referred to Tribunal's earlier decision rendered on 22-3-1993 vide E/1566/85-D as well as D/1723/85-D in case of New Swadeshi Co-operative Sugar Mills. The Hon'ble High Court held that Rule 9 and Rule 49 could not apply to brown sugar which is not shown to be excisable goods as specified in the Tariff.5. In view of this...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1997)(96)ELT295TriDel
2. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original 7/Collr/MP/89, dated 27-9-1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur.3. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of steel and aluminium cops (tariff sub-heading 7608) was filing price lists from time to time and paying duty on the approved price. Dispute in the appeal relates to the period from July, 1985 to April, 1987. Central Excise Officers who visited the premises of the factory on 30-6-1987 and verified the accounts and records found that the appellant was clearing manufactured aluminium cops clandestinely without payment of duty. Premises was searched on 2-7-1987 and certain records were seized. Scrutiny of the records showed various irregularities. We are concerned in this appeal with the manufacture and clandestine clearance of cops out of unaccounted aluminium rods and clandestine clearance without payment of duty, excess stock of scrap over and above that accounted for, undervaluation of scrap and manufacture of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(98)ELT776TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. (TELCO) the issue for consideration is whether the Compressor Housing imported by TELCO was a part which was interchangeable part of motor vehicles for the purposes of concessional rate of customs duty under Notification No. 69/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987. There is no dispute that the goods were classifiable under sub-heading No. 9806.00 of the Customs Tariff which covered parts of Machinery, equipment, appliances, instruments and articles of Chapters 84, 85, 86, 89 and 90. The importers claimed the benefit of Notification No. 69/87-Cus. on the ground that the parts imported by them were for the compressor which was covered under Heading No. 84.14 of the Tariff. The matter was adjudicated by the Asstt. Collector of Customs who observed that Turbocharger could be used/fitted in passenger cars, diesel engine and as the parts of Turbochargers were capable of being used in motor vehicles they were not eligible for th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. All these appeals involve consideration of common points. Hence, we find it convenient to dispose of all these appeals by this consolidated order.2. All these assessees are foreign technicians and are employed by a non-resident company called M/s. GEC Turbine Generator India Ltd., a non-resident company registered in U.K. (hereinafter referred to as 'GEC'). M/s. GEC was engaged in the business of errecting, setting up, etc., of Power Stations. It had undertaken the contract of setting up of a Power Plant at Balco, Korba, in Madhya Pradesh for M/s. Bharat Aluminium Corporation. It had also undertaken a sub-contract in the matter of erection of power plant at Rihand, UP to be set up by NTPC.This sub-contract was taken from the principal contractor known as Northern Engineering Industries. The object of sub-contract was only to provide technicians for supervision and erection. These employees were all working in India at different places or work sites.3. The survey operation under sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1997VIAD(Delhi)265; 69(1997)DLT431; 1997(43)DRJ321; 1997RLR660
Jaspal Singh, J.(1) The petitioner is a young Metropolitan Magistrate still measuring his wings while respondent No. 2 is an Additional Sessions Judge having weathered many a seasons of judicial life, Unfortunately, in a judicial order, respondent No. 2 has passed certain remarks against the petitioner. While the petitioner has found them unpalatable and has prayed for their expunction, the State too has found them indefensible. (2) It so happened that on an application of the State for cancellation of an F.I.R. the petitioner took cognizance and passed an order for summoning of the accused. Aggrieved by that order the accused persons preferred a criminal revision. An Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order with a direction to the petitioner to reconsider the matter, and to spell out the offences of which he had taken the cognizance 'with reasoned order and also to what persuaded him not to accept the police report.' Consequent upon that order, the petitioner passed an order, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1997VIAD(Delhi)952; 69(1997)DLT349
K. Ramamoorthy, J.(1) The petitioner has filed the writ petition for the following reliefs: (I)Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the Notification No. 7(58)/ 62- C8H dated the 15th September, 1962 (published in Part Iv of Delhi Gazette on the 27th September, 1962) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act in so far as it violates to the land which was acquired from the petitioner. (ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents not to use the land comprised in the premises known as I, Factory Road, New Delhi - 110029, for a purpose different from and/or unrelated to the purpose for which the same was acquired. (iii) Quash the allotment made by the respondents. Nos. 1 to 5 of any part of the land comprised in the premises now known as 2 Factory Road, to respondents Nos 6, 7 and 8 or to any other i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1998(79)FLR821]
1. All these petitions raise similar question of law and they are being disposed of by this being disposed of by this judgment. For convenience only facts of CWP No. 3106/1995 are recapitulated. The petitioner Delhi Multistoreyed building Employees' Congress, is a registered Trade Union. It has a membership of about 35,000 employees who are employed in various buildings in Delhi. 14 petitioners have approached this Court by which they have prayed that the order dated March 27, 1995 issued by Respondent No. 4 threatening to terminate their services be quashed. The petitioners have further prayed in this Petition that Respondent No. 2 be directed to absorb the petitioners. 2. The members of the petitioner Congress have been employed by Respondent No. 4 on Contract basis for doing the work for respondent No. 2, Oil and Natural Gas Commission (hereinafter to be referred as ONGC). The ONGC has now decided to terminate the contract with Respondent No. 4. On termination of the contract, the e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998IAD(Delhi)581; 1998(1)ARBLR96(Delhi); 1998(44)DRJ476
Vijender Jain, J. (1) It has been contended by learned counsel for the Dda that award under claim no.3 by the Arbitrator regarding refund of Rs.98,000.00 is bad and violates the terms of the agreement and that part of the award be sent aside. Ms.Salwan has contended that the contractor had agreed to give rebate on road rollers and bitumen vide his letter dated 19.9.1984. She has contended that at that relevant time, the bitumen was cheaper in open market then the rate at which it was given by DDA. thereforee, the contractor had written to the Chief Engineer of the respondent that he was prepared to supply bitumen by procuring it from outside sources at a cheaper rate and for that reason, he gave rebate of 4% on bitumen as well as for using his own road rollers. However, respondent by their letter dated 29.9.1984 categorically stated that work had been accepted by the respondent at the rate of 40.81% above the estimated cost of Rs.8,89,599.00 and thereafter in the said letter it has bee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2002)(146)ELT709TriDel
1. These are two appeals one filed by M/s. Kinetic Technology India Ltd. and the other by the clearing agent M/s. Air Impex Cargo Agency being aggrieved by the common order-in-original dated 31-10-91 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, New Delhi. As both the appeals arise out of the common order-in-original they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. M/s. Kinetic Technology (hereinafter referred to as the importers) had imported a consignment of seamless pipes which they declared as nickel iron based alloy tubes.They declared the classification under sub-heading 7507.02 of the Customs Tariff. (Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the correct classification should have been 7507.12 as there is no sub-heading 7507.02 in the Customs Tariff). Subsequently the show cause notice was issued proposing the classification under sub heading No. 7304.39 of the tariff. In the show cause notice the charge of under-valuation was al...
Tag this Judgment!