SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(Mad) 57

RAJU
Bell Products Company – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


Appearing Advocates:Mr. Rathina Asohan, Mr. T.R. Sethuraman, Advocates.

Judgment :-

These Writ Petitions may be dealt with together since they involve common issues for consideration and counsel appearing on either side also made submissions in common. These Writ Petitions have been filed for the following identical relief: -

"Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records comprised in the impugned Notification No. 59/94-C.E., dated 1-3-1994 issued by the first respondent and quash the paragraph 4 of the said Notification dated 1-3-1994 and consequently directing the respondents to grant exemption to the petitioner under Notification No. 175/86-Central Excise as amended by Notification No. 1/93, dated 28-2-1993."

2.The petitioner in W.P. No. 9869/94 claims to be a partner of the petitioner-firm carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of paper pins made of steel and brass falling under Chapter and Heading 7319.00 and 7415.29 respectively and paper clips made of steel falling under Chapter 8305.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, since 1952 onwards. The goods manufactured are said to be marketed under the brand name 'BELL' (with Emblem) duly registered with the Registrar of Trade Marks since 1959 (3-3-1959) in resp













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top