Delhi Court October 1998 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1998 Page 18 of about 203 results (0.011 seconds)Weston Electronics Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(81)LC472Tri(Delhi)
1. The appeal is directed against order in Original No. 148/94 dated 26.9.1994 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi confirming demand of Central Excise duty of Rs. 82,53,150 on 16506 Colour Television sets manufactured by the appellant M/s. Weston Electronics Ltd. and imposing penalty of Rs. 7.5 lakhs.2. The demand of duty relates to the period 16.12.1987 to 28.2.1989 on Colour Television sets manufactured and cleared by the appellant.During the period upto 28.2.1988, the said goods were covered by exemption Notification 77/87 dated 1.3.1987 according to which such Television sets attracted duty of Rs. 1500/- if the value did not exceed Rs. 5000/- and duty of Rs. 1750/- if it did. For the period from 1.3.1988, the higher duty of Rs. 1750/- applicable for sets of value exceeding Rs. 5000/- was increased to Rs. 2000/-. Appellant had cleared 19660 sets during the subject period paying the lower rate of duty of Rs. 1500/-. Show cause notice dt. 7.4.1992 was issued to the a...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Gold Seal Engg. Products Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT679TriDel
1. The question involved in this appeal is the classification of Door Beadings and Glass run channels etc. The Assistant Collector has classified them as motor vehicle parts under sub-heading 8708.Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this order and held that they merit classification according to their constituent material. Appellate order was passed based on Section Note 2 to Section XVII which reads as under :- '2. The expressions "parts" and "parts and accessories" do not apply to the following articles, whether or not they are identifiable as for the goods of this section :- (a) Joints, washers and the like of any material (classified) according to their constituent material or in (Heading 84.84) or other articles of valcanised rubber other than hard rubber (Heading No. 40.16);' In appeal, the revenue has contended that the Collector (Appeals)'s order is erroneous and as the goods are solely made for use in motor vehicles, they should be classified as motor vehicle parts. It also con...
Tag this Judgment!Devkinandan and Sons Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT671TriDel
1. M/s. Devkinandan & Sons manufactured G.I. threaded stay rods and anchor plates. Both the products were classified under Tariff Item 7326.90 under the classification list w.e.f. 1-4-1988. Subsequently, w.e.f. 21-12-1988 through another classification list, G.I. threaded stay rods was classified under 7318.10 and anchor plate was classified under 7326.90. The appellants were also claiming benefit of Notification No. 175/86 as small scale unit. The adjudication proceedings held that since two items classifiable under different Tariff Headings were being manufactured, the exemption had to be limited to Rs. 15 lacs per year in respect of each item. The order held that for the purpose of bifurcation of the products, the classification list as approved; from time to time should be taken as conclusive.Accordingly, differential duty was demanded. Appellant submits that both items under the same Tariff Heading being exempted, bifurcation should be done according to the correct classifica...
Tag this Judgment!intron Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(82)LC743Tri(Delhi)
1. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of Washing Machines filed price lists--1/91 and 2/91 respectively in respect of Factory gate sales and Depot sales declaring the cum duty price as Rs. 13,228/-per unit and Rs. 13,628/- per unit respectively. In regard to Factory gate sales, appellant claimed deduction on various accounts, one of the deductions being on account of charges for installation, demonstration and plumbing in the premises of the buyers. Appellant had claimed additional deduction of Rs. 400/-as depot expenses of the depot prices.We are not now concerned with the depot price as such. The present dispute relates to the decision of the Assistant Collector and Collector (Appeals) disallowing deduction of Rs. 275/- claimed as charges for installation, demonstration and plumbing.2. Washing Machines, the excisable products involved in the present dispute come into existence in the factory and they are cleared as such from the factory on payment of Central Excise duty. The mach...
Tag this Judgment!Everest Asbestos Mfg. Co. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC267Tri(Delhi)
1. We have heard both sides. By the impugned order the adjudicating authority namely C.C.E. & C. Ahmedabad, has confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 24,63,971.23 against the appellants herein. He has also confiscated goods valued at about Rs. 2,60,219.70. However he has given an option to the appellants to redeem them on payment of a fine of Rs. 50,000/-. A penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs has also been imposed on the appellants.2. Briefly stated. Facts of the case leading to the aforesaid order of the Collector are as follows :- "The appellants herein were manfacturers of Asbestos yarn and other products of Asbestos. Their premises were visited by the Central Excise Officers, on information on 5-12-1995. Certain records were seized from the room of Mr. N.J. Pandya one of the partners of the appellants firm. A search was also carried out in the residential premises of Shri N.J. Pandya. Certain records were also seized from his residential premises. Records related to the 5 proprietary firms ...
Tag this Judgment!Puri Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Baldev Sahai and Sons
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 77(1999)DLT310
Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. None appears for any of the parties. As the revision petition is of 1980 and it being taken up today. This revision petition arises from two suits filed by respondent against the petitioner wherein decrees were passed. The respondent has been labouring to have the decrees executed. The decrees have not been executed since 1980 when the execution proceedings were transferred to the Court of Sub-Judge, Delhi. However, by virtue of interim orders the petitioner has been able to delay the execution proceedings. I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order particularly when the petitioner has not chosen to file the impugned order dated 1.12.80 even up to date. In any event the impugned order only refuses to grant an interim stay pending the decision of the application filed by the petitioner Company under Order 21, Rule 58 & Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure.2. Even otherwise the objections to the execution are of a frivolous nature. Accordingly the revisi...
Tag this Judgment!Electro Appliances and ors. Vs. Arora Crockery and Gift Corner and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 75(1998)DLT873
ORDER ADMIT,Heard learned Advocates on the issue of interim relief. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, by way of interim relief till final hearing and disposal of this appeal, appellant personally is permitted to manufacture and sell under the Trade Mark 'Crystal' Spoons, Forks and other table cutlery, not in set but as separate pieces, included in Class 8 as stated in the impugned deed of assignment dated 2.9.1992 but shall not manufacture and sell items under the Trade Mark 'Crystal' retained by 2nd Respondent firm in respect of kitchen knives, table cutlery set consisting of spoons, forks and knives and kitchenwares under the said assignment deed. Appellant shall not be entitled to permit others to use the trademark 'Crystal' and shall maintain the accounts of the product.'13. The younger brother would complain that the elder brother had been instituting cases on frivolous grounds,14. In paragraph 27 of the is 2571/96, he would state:'That the mala fides of Shri Mad...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Shanta @ Chanchal Vs. Raja Ram and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 76(1998)DLT261; (1999)122PLR1
Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. The matter was called out. None appears for any of the parties. Since the revision petition is of the year 1983, it is being taken up today. By the impugned order dated 11.11.1982 the learned Sub-Judge ordered that the suit shall stand abated qua the deceased defendant Sunder Singh. 1 am not satisfied that after the 1976 amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, the impugned order could have been passed particularly when the amended Order 22, Rule 10A, CPC casts an obligation on the Lawyer of a deceased party to intimate the death of the party he represents to the Court. The said Order 22, Rule 10A reads as follows :'Wherever a Pleader appearing for party to the suit comes to know of the death of that party, he shall inform the Court about it, and Court shall thereupon give notice of such death to the other party, and, for this purpose, the contract between the Pleader and the deceased party shall be deemed to subsist.'2. There is no record of such steps having...
Tag this Judgment!Electro Appliances and ors. Vs. Ramesh L. Vadodaria and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998(47)DRJ274
K. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The petitioners have filed this contempt petition against three respondents. The respondents are:-1. Mr.Ramesh L.Vadodaria, S/o Shri Laxman Bhai Vadodaria, IInd Floor, Chandan Bldg., 23, Swastik Society, Juhu Scheme, 2nd Road, Vile Parle (West), BOMBAY-400 056. and also C/o M/s.Crystal Kitchenware's Private Limited, Mittal Industrial Estate, Unit No.2, Building No.2, Andheri Kurla Road, BOMBAY. 2. Mr.Amit J.Patel S/o Jairam Bhai Patel, IInd Floor, Chandan Bldg., 23, Swastik Society, Juhu Scheme, 2nd Road, Vile Parle (West), BOMBAY-400 056. and also C/o M/s.Dynapack, Ansa Industrial Estate, Gala No.E-116, Saki Vihar Road, Sakinaka, Andheri(East), Bombay. 3. Shri Rupesh Gandhi C/o M/s.Dynapack, Ansa Industrial Estate, Gala No.E-116, Saki Vihar Road, Sakinaka, Andheri(East), Bombay.2. On the 13th of November, 1995, this Court appointed the Local Commissioners and they were directed to visit the premises of the third and fifth defendants in S.No.2622/95. On the 16th...
Tag this Judgment!Electro Appliances and ors. Vs. Classic Creations and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 76(1998)DLT855; 1998(47)DRJ515; (1999)121PLR40
Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The first plaintiff in this suit is also the first plaintiff in S.No. 2622/95. The second plaintiff in this suit is not a party in S.No. 2622/95. The third plaintiff is the third plaintiff in S.No. 2622/95. The plaintiffs have filed this suit for injunction on the ground of infringement and passing off. The plaintiffs have referred to the registration of trade mark 'CRYSTAL' in the following manner:-'a) No. 415740 dated 7.1.84 for trade mark CRYSTAL (Label) in class 8 in respect of spoons, forks, kitchen knives and other table cutlery of all kinds claiming to have used the mark since October, 1982. b) No. 415741 dated 7.1.1984 for trade mark CRYSTAL (label) in class 9 in respect of Electronic gas lighters claiming to have used the mark since October 1980. e) No. 415742 dated 7.1.1984 for trade mark CRYSTAL (label) in class 11 in respect of gas lighters and electric heaters claiming to have used the mark since October 1979.' 2. Relating to the passing off, it is state...
Tag this Judgment!