Delhi Court September 2003 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.
Delhi Administration Through Directorate of Social Welfare Vs. Presidi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)528; 108(2003)DLT119; (2004)ILLJ910Del; 2003RLR112; 2004(2)SLJ350(Delhi)
Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. This writ petition challenges the order under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') proceeding to compute the Minimum Wages as per the Minimum Wages Act payable to respondents 2 to 19. 2. Originally the order was passed in favor of 18 respondents. It is not in dispute that the sheltered workshop employing respondents 2 to 19 was run by the Directorate of Social Welfare and was a part of the Scheme framed in 1976. The scheme inter-alia provided for a training-cum-production centre for physically handicapped persons to train them to attain proficiency in the trade learnt in the training period. The sheltered workshop was to provided long term earning opportunities to the handicapped persons said to be less productive. The aims and objects of the scheme was to provide work opportunities to physically handicapped workers and to enable them to attain higher level of productivity. One of the eligibility clauses for the benef...
Sant Ram and Co. Vs. Satnam Overseas and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2003
Reported in: 107(2003)DLT691
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The present judgment disposes of CM(M) No. 303/1993, CM(M) No. 327/1993 and CM(M) No. 313/1996, since they arise out of a common set of facts between the parties and relate to 3 different orders passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks.2. Sant Ram and Co., the petitioner in all the petitions obtained registration of the Trade Mark 'KOH-I-NOOR' vide Trade Mark Registration No. 274996 in respect of rice in Class 30. This registration was granted to the petitioner on an application filed before the Registrar of Trade Marks claiming user of the trade mark in respect of their goods since the year, 1961. Registration was accorded on 15.9.1971.3. The second respondent in all the petitions, M/s. Satnam Overseas filed an application for rectification of the trade mark obtained by the petitioner on the allegation that the impugned mark was got registered without any bona fide intention to use it and as a matter of fact there has been no bona fide use of the trade mark by th...
General Electric Company of India Limited Vs. Goel Engineering Company ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2003
Reported in: 107(2003)DLT766; 2004(72)DRJ374; 2004(28)PTC74(Del)
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. The present petition is directed against the order dated 26th April, 1994 passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks disallowing Opposition No. DEL 6426 and allowing application No. 446960 filed by the respondent.2. The respondent Goel Engineering Company filed an application for registration of the trade mark 'Gec' in respect of hand pumps, chaff cutter, blades and chaff cutter machines in Class 7. The application was filed on 17.12.1985 and on being advertised, the petitioner, 'GEC ALSTHOM INDIA LIMITED' filed its objection averring that it was the registered proprietor of the trade mark 'G.E.C.' (Special scripts) and that these registrations were in respect of electronic machinery and electronic goods in Class 7, 9, 11 and 12. It was averred that the mark 'Gec' for which the respondent had sought registration was deceptively similar and was likely to cause confusion, and thereforee, should not be registered.3. The Registrar of Trade Marks held that the trade mar...
Nova Corporation Ltd. Vs. Neena Electrics Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2003
Reported in: 108(2003)DLT573; 2004(72)DRJ372; 2004(28)PTC80(Del)
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. The respondent applied for registration of the trade mark 'NOVA' in respect of 'television, tape recorder radio receiving set, transistors, car cassette players, cassette recorders and players radio transistor cum tape recorders' falling in Class-9. The application was registered as No. 444828. It was advertised before acceptance and in response to the same on 9th Augut, 1990, the petitioner gave the notice of opposition to the registration averring that the petitioner was the registered proprietors of the trade marks 'NOVA' in respect of 'radio receiving sets' registered in their favor vide registered marks under Nos. 211525 and 211526. By the impugned order, the Registrar of Trade Marks held in favor of the respondent herein and returned a finding that the petitioner had failed to substantiate their objections. In that, it was not proved that by prior user they had attained a reputation. The Registrar of Trade Marks, as per the evidence adduced by the respond...
Shiva Fabtex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-2003
Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC605
1. In these appeals challenge is against the enhancement of the value of second hand sulzer shuttleless projectile weaving looms imported by the appellants. The dispute related to the year of manufacturing of the machine and also its valuation. The adjudicating authority took the view that the machines were more than 10 years old and they were undervalued. In the case of M/s. Shiva Fabtex Pvt. Ltd. the declared value of two machines imported was Rs. 25,62,741.68. This was enhanced by the Commissioner to Rs. 29 lakhs. He passed an order to confiscate the two machines and imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 3 lakhs. In addition to the duty leviable and other charges he also imposed a personal penalty of Rs, 5 lakhs on the importer-appellant. In the case of M/s. PR Textiles declared assessable value of the two machines was Rs. 25,76,693.32. The Commissioner enhanced the assessable value as Rs. 29.50 lakhs. After holding that those machines were more than 10 years old, an order for confiscat...
Electrolux Kelvinator Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-2003
Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC839
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Electrolux Kelvinator Ltd., is whether the Modvat Credit of duty paid on inputs used in relation to manufacture of goods destroyed in fire is available to them.2. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture refrigerator; that on 17.6.200 there was a fire accident due to which refrigerators stored in newly constructed bonded room were destroyed; that immediately after fire accident the information was given to the department; that they filed an application dated 14.12.2000 with the Commissioner for seeking remission of the duty payable on 5900 refrigerators which were burn in fire accident; that the Commissioner under the impugned Order granted remission of duty on the said refrigerators; that he, however, disallowed that Modvat Credit contained in the said refrigerators on the ground that as soon as the duty is remitted the goods acquired the status of exempted goods/ not liable to discharge duty...
Sheela Foam Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-2003
Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC710
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Sheela Foam Pvt Ltd. the issue involved in whether the goods manufactured by them are classifiable under Sub-heading No. 3921.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff as claimed by them or under Heading No. 94.04 of the Tariff as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeal) under the impugned Order.2. Shri Parveen Sharma, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture P.U. Foam sheets, Composite sheets, Taped PU Foam sheets and cushions; that the process of manufacture in brief is that PU Foam Blocks are obtained by chemical reaction from inputs namely Polyol and Isocynates; These blocks are thereafter cut into blocks of regular geometrical shape by removing side/top/bottom skins; These Blocks are further cut into specific dimensions to result in PU Foam sheets; that PU Foam sheets in dispute have the dimensions as 36" x 72" x 4"; that in some cases self adhesive textile tape is affixed on the sides which bear the Brand name of the appella...
Minda Wires Links Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-2003
Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT737TriDel
1. The appellants had imported goods described as "Cables AVS" and valued at Rs. 1,60,716/-, and filed Bill of Entry dated 1-1-98 claiming Customs clearance under Open General Licence (OGL). They classified the goods under sub-heading 8544.20 of the Customs Tariff Schedule for the purpose of paying Basic Customs duty and under ITC (HS) Exim Code 854420 29 for the purpose of OGL clearance. They also imported another consignment of similar goods described as "Cables" and valued at Rs. 20,033/-, and filed Bill of Entry dated 16-3-98 for Customs clearance under OGL claiming classification as above. Both the consignments were subjected to First Check examination in the Custom House, in which it was observed by the Customs authorities that the goods were Plastic-coated Wire classifiable under ITC (HS) EXIM Code 854419 02.Items of this heading were restricted for import at the material time and could be imported only against a specific licence issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade ...
Alang Ship Breakers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-2003
Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT322TriDel
1. The issue raised in this appeal at the instance of the assessee is whether its application for refund of duty paid under protest can be denied on the ground of principle of unjust enrichment. It is not disputed that pursuant to the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad, dated 8-2-2000 the appellant is entitled to refund of excess duty paid. The appellant is engaged in the activity of ship breaking. The Commissioner (Appeals) took the view that the appellant was liable to pay duty only on the revised value of the vessel. After giving detailed directions as to how basic duty, surcharge, CVD and Special Additional Duty to be computed, the Commissioner (Appeals) concluded by stating that 'the appellants shall be refunded the differential amount of duties, the difference being in the price of the vessel, the price of the vessel shall be taken as per the revised memorandum of agreement, dated 16-7-99'. The lower authority was directed to work out the amo...
U.P. State Irrigation Workshop Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-2003
Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC91
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. U.P. State Irrigation Workshop Division against Order-in-Original No. 5/2003 dated 28.2.2003 by which the Commissioner has demanded Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 5,72,691 and imposed equivalent amount of penalty.2. Shri Anil Mittal, learned Advocate, submitted that the duty demand is not being challenged by the Appellants; that the Commissioner has imposed equivalent amount of penalty under Rule 173Q and Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act.He, further, submitted that the period involved is 1993-94 to 1999 and when the matter was earlier heard by the Appellate Tribunal the matter was remanded vide Final Order No. 475 & 476 dated 14.9.2001 observing that provisions of Section 11AB and 11 AC cannot be made applicable for the period prior to 28.9.96 and the Adjudicating Authority would be at liberty to impose the penalty and interest, if any, for the clearances made subsequent to the introduction o...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »