Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : May-26-1995
Reported in : (1995)LC258Tri(Delhi)
1. All the above appeals arises from a common order-in-original dated 27-7-1990 passed by Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore.2. By this order, the ld. Collector has held that the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. is not available to them and that the fragmentation of manufacturing activities has been done in a manner to avail the benefit of the said notification only to evade payment of duty. In that view, he has confirmed the duty invoking larger period under Section 11A of the Act to the extent of Rs. 1,25,88,822.03 and also imposed penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on M/s. Santha industrials and Rs. 25,000/- each on the other ten units. The facts of the case arising in his appeals are that on 7-1-1989, the Headquarters Preventive Unit along with other officers of this Collectorate visited M/s. Santha Industrials and the other ten units and scrutinised the records and recovered certain documents. On further scrutiny and investigation conducted by M/s. Santha Industrials, the foll...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-23-1995
Reported in : 1995IAD(Delhi)1434; AIR1995Delhi293; 58(1995)DLT162; 1995(33)DRJ121
ORDERArun Kumar, J. 1. The question for consideration by the Full Bench is whether aLetters Patent appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent applicable to this court is maintainable in view of the provisions of Sec. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The reference has arisen on the basis of an objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent questioning the maintainability of the present appeal. Reliance was placed on two judgments of Division Benches of this Court in L.P.A. No. 97 of 1980 (Basant Kumar v. UOI) and L.P.A. 148 of 1988 (Jugti (deceased) through LRs. v. UOI). These judgments are based on a judgment of the Supreme Court dated 30-7-1987 in Civil Appeals No. 1663 to 1668 of 1982 Baljit Singh etc. v. State of Haryana, holding that a Letters Patent appeal is not maintainable against the judgment of a single Judge of the Court. It is noted in the referring order dated 22-8-1994 that the said Supreme Court decision arising in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-22-1995
Reported in : 1995(35)DRJ11
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) On 26th May, 1995 while issuing summons to the defendants, the plaintiffs' application for an order of injunction was considered. Defendants were restrained by an ex parte order from interfering, selling or offering for sale to any party in India, Steam Leak Detection Equipment, which might be similar in technical specifications to the plaintiff's Acoustic Steam Leak Detection System registered under Indian Patent No.162647. Defendant has now applied for vacation of the order of injunction. I heard learned counsel for the parties at length, after notice of application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been given to the plaintiffs. (2) PLAINTIFFS' case is that plaintiff No.1 company is engaged in the manufacture, marketing and installation of highly sophisticated automatic steam leak detection equipment and is also the exclusive licensee of Indian Patent No.162647 dated 12th February, 1985, which is equivalent to European Patent No.0108556, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-01-1995
Reported in : 62(1996)DLT28
Mahinder Narain, J.(1) By this order I propose to dispose of the writ petition C.W. No. 2453 of 1995, which is filed as public interest litigation by (1) Common Cause (a registered Society under the Societies Registration Act) and (2) Forum for justice and Peace (a registered Society under the Societies Registration Act). (2) The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court in public interest in view of 'the serious situation created due to various acts of commission and omission of respondent No. 3 in relation to the respondent No. 2 Institute which is the most prestigious medical and research facility in the country.' The respondents in the petition are Union of India, respondent No. 1, Ail India institute of Medical Sciences, respondent No. 2, and B. Shankaranand, respondent No. 3. (3) The writ petition was amended by the petitioners, and the amended petition was taken on record by order dated 12.7.1995. In the amended petition the following reliefs were claimed by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-03-1995
Reported in : 57(1995)DLT135; 1995(32)DRJ207
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) The plaintiffs have filed this suit for specific performance of contract for sale of a property and in the alternative for recovery of damages. The suit is valued at Rs.4,90,000.00 and a court fee of Rs.7,126.40p has been paid. The suit was filed in the year 1980. Since then it has been vigorously prosecuted and contested. (2) The defendants No. 1 and 2 have been residing in U.K. It is their case in the written statement that they are British passport holders. On 16th July, 1991, the defendant's counsel delivered an information under Order 22 Rule 10 A Civil Procedure Code of Davinder Singh Mehta, the defendant No.1, having expired on 24th May, 1991. No certificate of death was filed. (3) On 29th July, 1991, the counsel for the plaintiff gathered information in the Court, at the time of hearing, that the defendant No.1, Davinder Singh Mehta had died in U.K. Counsel for defendant No.1 was directed by the Court to file the death certificate on or before 28.8.91. That ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-04-1995
Reported in : (1995)52TTJ(Del)694
ORDERB. S. SALUJA, J. M. :The assessed is in appeal against separate orders of CIT(A)-V, New Delhi, dt. 29th Dec., 1989 and 18th Dec., 1989 for the asst. yrs. 1986-87 and 1988-89 on the grounds of carry forward of losses and addition of Rs. 22,955 made on account of incentive paid to doctors.ITA No. 1616/Del/1990 :2. The assessed filed a return on 14th Nov., 1986 declaring loss of Rs. 22,138. The Assessing Officer noted that the return of loss was accompanied by copy of audited balance sheet and P&L; account and he accepted the loss as returned by the assessee. However, he mentioned in the assessment order that no carry forward of loss was being allowed as the return had been filed late.2.1 The assessed filed an application dt. 15th July, 1987 made under S. 154 of the IT Act, 1961 claiming that the loss of asst. yr. 1986-87 should be allowed to be carried forward for subsequent years. The Assessing Officer observed that the matter had been considered in the assessment order dt. 28th Ja...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-23-1995
Reported in : 1995IAD(Delhi)1093; 58(1995)DLT729; 1995RLR219
Arun Kumar, J.(1) The petitioner claiming to be the owner/landlord of premises No. M-134, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi, filed an eviction petition against the respondents under clause (e) to Proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petition was filed on 14/05/1982. After a protracted trial it was dismissed by the Addl.Rent Controller vide judgment dated 22.1.1990. The petitioner has challenged the said judgment of the Additional Rent Controller in the present proceedings.(2) Briefly stated the facts are that the premises in suit was let out to the respondents by the mother of the petitioner in February 1969 in pursuance of an agreement of lease for Ii months entered into between the parties on 23/05/1971.Vide gift deed dated 29/03/1971 the property in suit was gifted by the mother of the petitioner. The gift deed is a duly registered document. The property has been mutated in the name of the petitioner in the recor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Sep-21-1995
Reported in : (1996)(83)ELT49TriDel
1. M/s. Jaypee Forge have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) in his impugned order had held that the classification of the subject goods has been done correctly by the Assistant Collector. The Asstt. Collector in his order had held that "In view of the foregoing discussions, I classify these forgings and forged products as motor-vehicle parts under Chapter sub-heading 8708.00 of the CETA, 1985." 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of forgings and forged articles and claimed classification of their products under Chapter sub-heading No. 7224.00 in their classification lists w.e.f. 13-5-1988, 1-3-1989 and 20-3-1989.Later on the appellants claimed classification of these products under Chapter sub-heading 7326.90. However, the department was of the view that these forgings had already attained essential character of finished products ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Dec-01-1995
Reported in : (1996)(82)ELT49TriDel
1. In both these appeals, common question of law and facts arises, hence they are taken together for disposal as per law. The question which arises for our determination in these appeals is the question of correct classification of the product "Siloderm Ointment". The appellants had sought the classification under sub-heading 3003.10 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 while the department has classified the product under sub-heading 3304.00 attracting duty @ 110% ad valorem.2. Appeal E/871/92-C arises from order-in-appeal dated 13-1-1992 12/821 50 EXCISE LAW TIMES passed by the Collector (Appeals), Bombay, who, allowed the application filed by the Assistant Collector and rejected the appeal of the assessee. The assistant Collector in the order-in-original had accorded approval to classification list No. R.II/H/27/90-91 for the Siloderm Ointment under sub-heading 3003.10 which had been challenged by the Revenue on the ground that the product contains Dimethicone B.P.C., Zinc Oxide I.P....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-21-1995
Reported in : AIR1995Delhi300; 1995(34)DRJ109
Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) This is an appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated October 31, 1994 whereby the application of the respondents (who are plaintiffs in Suit No.1705/94) under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code seeking an ad interim injunction restraining the appellants(defendants in the above said suit) from passing off their goods as that of the respondents was allowed and the appellants were restrained from manufacturing, selling, advertising or in any way using the trade mark 'WHIRLPOOL' in any other trade mark deceptively or confusingly similar to the trade mark 'WHIRLPOOL' in respect of their goods. The appeal arises in the following circumstances:-(2) The first respondent which is the first plaintiff in the suit, is an American Corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA. The second respondent a Company registered in India, is a joint venture company established by the first respondent and a company called Sund...
Tag this Judgment!