Delhi Court February 2000 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
J.K. JaIn and ors. Vs. Ziff-davies Inc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-2000
Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ806
Devinder Gupta, J. 1. This appeal is against an order passed by learned Single Judge on 23.9.1998 allowing the application of Plaintiff/Respondent filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. thereby restraining the Defendants/Appellants from using the stylized logo and trade mark PC MAGAZINE, INTERNET USER, COMPUTER SHOPPER and PC WEEK subject to furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 5 lakhs to compensate the defendants/appellants, in case suit is Finally dismissed. Learned Single Judge on appreciation of the material placed before him concluded that there was prima facie case for grant of injunction; balance of convenience also lay for grant of injunction in favor of the Plaintiff/Respondent; and the Plaintiff/Respondent will suffer irreparable loss and injury in case injunction, prayed for, is not granted. Learned Single Judge noticed that the defendants/appellants had taken a license with respect to PC MAGAZINE from the Plaintiff/Respondent. On referring to clause 12 of the said agreemen...
Gita Times Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2000
Reported in: (2000)LC814Tri(Delhi)
1. This Reference Application has been filed by the applicants against the Final Order No. A/99/98 NB dated 3-3-1998 by which a penalty of Rs. 50,0000/- was confirmed against the present applicants under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Applicant has formulated the following question of law for reference to the Hon'ble High Court: "Can provisions of Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 be invoked on an importer who even prior to import, has relinquished his title to the goods in terms of Section 23 (2) ibid?".3. Ld. Counsel for the applicants briefly narrated the facts of the case as under : Applicant had in January, 1995 placed an order for 600 cartons of dry battery cells on a company in Hongkong. Such items were freely importable under the Advance Import Licences under the DEEC Scheme and were transferable under para 127 of Import Export Policy 1992-97. Since they could not arrange for the said licence in time, they had cancelled the order subsequently in February, 1...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Corona Cosmetics and Chemicals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2000
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT356TriDel
1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 5-11-1998 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants filed a refund claim and the adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund claim of Rs. 5,83,512.78 under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and ordered the same to be paid to Consumer Welfare Fund. Against this order, the respondents filed appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals), in the impugned order, held that the respondents had proved that the incidence of duty had been passed on to the customers. Therefore, the refund is admissible to the appellants and not to the Consumer Welfare Fund.3. Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) granting refund to the respondents.4. Ld. D.R., appearing on behalf of the Revenue, submits that as per the provision of Section 12B of the Central Excise Act, the incidence of duty of excise of any goods be deemed to have been passed on to...
Manoj Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2000
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT465TriDel
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 21-6-1999 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants made an import of a consignment of Khus Khus (Poppy seeds) from Afghanistan. The appellants filed a bill of entry. As per the Export & Import Policy 1997-2001, the import of poppy seeds is permitted subject to the condition that the importer shall produce a certificate from the competent authority of the country of origin that opium poppy has been grown licitly and legally in their country as per requirements of the International Narcotic Control Bureau and the importer will import under special import licence. The appellants could not fulfil both the conditions.They also waived the issuance of show cause notice. The adjudicating authority confiscated the poppy seeds imported by the appellants under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 75,000.00 under Section 112(a) of the A...
C.C.E. Vs. Indian Glycoles Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2000
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC92
1. By this appeal Revenue has contended that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly allowed Modvat credit on furnace oil pressure gauge and wires and cables.2. We have heard Shri Mewa Singh, Ld. DR. None appeared for the respondent. We note that the question of admissibility of Modvat credit on furnace oil was examined by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Balmpur Industries Ltd. v. CCE The Tribunal observed that furnace oil for captive generation of electricity which in turn is used for manufacture of final products of assessee, is entitled for Modvat credit even prior to 16.3.95. Since the Larger Bench has already taken a view on the issue and we do not find any reason to discharge with this view, we hold that Modvat credit will be admissible on furnace oil.3. Insofar as wires and cables are concerned, the issue of admissibility of Modvat credit on wires and cables came up for consideration before the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. ...
Smit Enterprises Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2000
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT69TriDel
1. This appeal has come before us in a larger Bench of five Members, on a reference. The Bench, which referred the matter, doubted the correctness of the decision given by a Bench of this Tribunal consisting of three Members in G.T.C. Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, 1995 (78) E.L.T. 779. In the reference order, the South Zonal Bench consisting of two Members observed : "The wrapper or the wrapping paper is understood in the trade as paper. Therefore, in our view, the correct classification of the wrapper in question would be as paper and for that reason, therefore, the same would be classifiable under 4823.19 as held by the learned lower authority. Inasmuch as we find a view has been taken by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal that by reason of printing the same is to be treated as an article of paper for the reason that some characteristics and sales appeals has been added to it by printing we are of the view that the matter will have to be resolved by hearing by...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Gabrial India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2000
Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT406TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the classification of the two products bushes and thrust washers which were parts of the machine. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had classified the same under Heading No. 84.83 which covered transmission shafts (including can shafts and crank shafts) and cranks; bearing housings and plain shaft bearings . . ..". According to the. It learned appellate authority, the bushes and thrust washers were covered by the expression 'plain shaft bearings'. The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise who had earlier adjudicated the matter was of the view that these two items were not covered by Heading No. 84.83 and as they were not specifically described in any heading, their classification will be along with the machines of which they were the parts. Earlier the respondents were classifying the same along with the machines and he ordered that their practice of classifying the said products along with the machines of which they w...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Overseas Auto Parts
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2000
Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT144TriDel
1. The Revenue has filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.GS/232-33/B1/93, dated 21-4-1993 allowing the benefit of Notification No. 217/86 to the respondents M/s. Overseas Auto Parts Manufacturers.2. The respondents under their letter dated 3-11-1999 have requested to decide the mater on merit. We, therefore, heard Shri A.K. Jain, learned DR and perused the records.3. The respondents manufacture brass forged items falling under sub-heading 7419.91 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff and claimed exemption under Notification No. 217/86, dated 2-4-1986. They were using these brass forging items captively in the manufacture of final products namely, Elbow, Tee etc. falling under Heading 84.09. The Asstt. Commissioner disallowed the benefit of Notification No. 217/86 in the classification list and in his letter dated 13-3-1992 while forwarding the classification list it was mentioned that the benefit of Notification No. 217/86 would be applicable after the aggregate clearanc...
D.S. Grewal, Ips Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2000
Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ60CAT
1. In this O.A. filed on 16.8.99 applicant seeks a declaration that this replacement by a junior ineligible officer as Director General of Police (DGP), Manipur, and the posting of another ineligible officer junior to applicant as DGP Tripura is bad in law, besides being unconstitutional and unethical, and seeks a direction to respondents to appoint him forthwith as D.G. Police either in Manipur State or in Tripura State.2. Applicant is an IPS Officer of 1965 batch allocated to the Manipur-Tripura Joint Cadre. As per his own averments, he being seniormost in the Manipur Tripura Joint Cadre, we appointed as DGP Manipur State in February, 1996 and held that post till 27.3.98. When he was transferred to the ex-cadre post of OSD Manipur Bhawan, New Delhi, and he was succeeded by Shri L. Jugeshwar Singh (Respondent No.4), who are accordingly to applicant had at that point of time only 29 years of service, and hence did not passed the 30 years of service required his appointment as DGP vide...
Shakuntla Garg Vs. Shri Megh Raj
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2000
Reported in: 2001ACJ354; 86(2000)DLT423; 2000(54)DRJ543; (2000)126PLR42
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. FAO. 352/80 is appeal by the claimants and FAO. 353/80 is appeal by the Insurance Company. The claimants filed the petition u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 claiming a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs on the death of 35 years old man on 8.10.1971 at about 2.15 P.M. on the Ring Road, Near defense Colony. The Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.60,868/- towards compensation with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition by order dated 30.4.1980. The following issues were framed by the Tribunal:- '1. Whether G.D. Garg sustained fatall injuries due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. DLL5127 on the part of the respondent No.1 as alleged? 2. Whether the petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased? 3. Whether the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased as alleged in the written statement? 4. To what amount of compensation, if any, is the petitioner entitled? 5. Relief.' 2. On issues No. 1 & 3, the Tribunal held:- 'For the fore...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »