Delhi Court December 2000 Judgments

M/S. Vindhya Enterprises Vs. Cce, Raipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Shri N.R. Khaitan, Advocate appearing with Ms. Rohina Nath, Advocate submits that it is a fact that the Mumbai Department of M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (BHEL) could not obtain registration prior to 31.12.94 but it is also a fact that the appellants were a bonafide purchasers and had purchased goods on the basis of the invoices and there was no doubt that the duty has been paid and the goods have been received. He submits that under the similar circumstances the Tribunal has taken a view that the modvat credit was not to be denied in the absence of any other infringement of the law. He refers to the Tribunal's decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I Vs. Vasumati Printers = 2000 (115) ELT 731 (Tribunal).3. I have heard Shri A.K. Jain, SDR for the respondents/revenue and Shri N.R. Khaitan, Advocate and Ms. Rohina Nath, Advocate for the appellants, M/s. Vindhya Enterprises and have gone through the record.4. In para-5 of his order-in-appeal, the Commiss...

Sawanmal Shibumal Steel Rolling Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT46TriDel

1. M/s. Sawan Mai Shibu Mal Steel Rolling Mills manufactures hot re-rolled products of non-alloy steel by operating a hot steel re-rolling mill. They are liable to pay duty at compounded rates in terms of Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944. The duty is determined depending on the annual capacity of production, or such factors relevant to the annual capacity of production of the factory in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. Further, Hot Rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 issued under subsection (2) of Section 3A of Central Excise Act laid down, how the annual capacity of hot re-rolling mills is to be determined. Rule 3 of these rules stipulates that annual capacity shall be determined in the manner laid down therein. The formula for determination of the annual capacity as stated under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 is as under :- "Annual Capacity = 1.885 x 10-4 xdxnxixexwx Number of utilised hours (in metric tonnes)" Rule 4 of the s...

Gwalior Polypipes Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC779

1. Both these appeals are directed against Order-in-Original No.14/2000, dated 5-5-2000 passed by Commissioner, Central Excise, Jaipur.The Order-in-original had demanded a duty of over Rs. 50 Lakhs from the appellant/manufacturer M/s. Gwalior Polypipes Ltd. The order inter alia has also imposed penalty on the manufacturer as well as Shri S.P. Sahu (the second appellant) who is the Director of the appellant/manufacturer. As both the appeals are directed against the same order, we consider it convenient to consider both the appeals together. Accordingly, this common order disposes of both the appeals.2. The dispute is in regard to valuation of PVC corgated pipes manufactured by the assessee and supplied for Rajasthan Agricultural Drainage Project (RAJAD). The project itself was for reducing solidity of soil in certain parts of Rajasthan. This project was funded by Canadian International Development Agency. In terms of the Canadian assistance agreement to which Government of Rajasthan an...

S.K. Garg Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT870TriDel

1. Vide Stay Order No. S/439/98-NB, dated 3-6-1998, the applicants were directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- within a period of ten weeks and report compliance on 28-8-1998. For non-compliance with the above order, the appeal was dismissed vide Final Order No. A/757/98-NB, dated 28-8-1998. The applicants who are represented by their Counsel Shri Gopal Prasad, submitted that against the pre-deposit order, they moved the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court which vide its order dated 11th August, 1998, modified the Tribunal's order by directing deposit of Rs. 50,000/- and the applicants have complied with the High Court order. In these circumstances, he prays that the order of dismissal may be set aside and the appeal restored.2. The learned DR Shri S.K. Das fairly leaves the matter for decision by the Bench.3. In view of the above submission which we find to be correct, we set aside the dismissal order, restore the appeal and fix it for hearing on 19-1-2001. The ROA application is hereb...

Basera Exports Vs. Commissioner of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT720TriDel

1. This application is taken up finally since the issue lies in a narrow compass.2. We have heard Shri M. Chandrasekhraran, learned Senior Advocate appearing along with Shri Roopesh Kumar, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri M.M. Dubey, learned DR for the Department. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner who has vide the impugned order, determined the duty demand as made in the show cause notice of the appellants and ordered the confiscation of the goods imported on the Advance licence under Sections 110 (d) and lll(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, as the goods were not available for confiscation, he imposed a penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs on the importers.The exemption which was granted under Notification No. 203/92 was denied in respect of the imports made by them, against licence No.P/K/2049018, dated 24-12-1992 and the demand of Rs. 6,0,00182/-along with interest was confirmed and demanded under the provisions of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 and penalt...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bhai Chand U. Doshi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT472TriDel

1. These appeals of the Revenue are directed against Order-in-Original No. 53/91 dated 11-7-1991 of the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay II. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of Collector in his not imposing penalties on the Directors of the Company M/s. Neoluxe India.During hearing of the case today, ld. Counsel for the respondents submitted that M/s. Neoluxe India, a limited company, was the manufacturer of the goods in respect of which certain duty demands were raised. The respondents were only Directors of the Company. The main party to the proceedings namely M/s. Neoluxe India have availed themselves of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme and settled the disputes. Ld.Counsel submitted that in such a situation where the main party to the case (manufacturer) has settled the dispute with the Revenue, it is not permissible for the Revenue to continue the dispute for penalty on the Directors of the Company. He drew our attention to Trade Notice of Commissioner of Central Excise and Custo...

Peshawar Soap and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. M/S. Godrej Soaps Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)452; 90(2001)DLT289; 2001(58)DRJ170

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. The allegations in the plaint and the interim application are that the Plaintiff is using the trade mark 'Kesh Nikhar' since 1935 and is its proprietor under registration No. 216597 of 17.7.1963. This trade mark has been renewed from time to time. The Plaintiff has also applied for registration of the trade mark 'Nikhar Beauty Bar' on 3.3.1997 vide application number 216597 in Class 3. It has also been pleaded that the Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the Copyright No.A-30760/70 of Kesh Nikhar Label. Kesh Nikhar has been continuously, regularly and extensively used by the Plaintiff in respect of soaps since 1935 with past sales of approximately Rs.200 crores, and `present' sales of Rs.30 crores. It is the Plaintiff's assertion that the word 'Nikhar' is an essential and integral part of the registered trade mark. Approximately Rs.2 crores are being spent annually on advertisement of 'Kesh Nikhar'. In June 2000 the Plaintiff learnt that the Defendant ha...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. State Bank of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Del)470; [2001]250ITR308(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the capital gain arising from the sale of capital assets in Pakistan was not taxable in India irrespective of the fact whether it was subjected to tax in Pakistan or not for the assessment year 1966-67 ?'2. The factual position as indicated in the statement of case is as follows: The assessed, i.e., State Bank of India, was the successor to National Bank of Lahore Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Lahore Bank'). For the assessment year 1966-67, the Income-tax Officer levied tax of Rs. 2,51,197 in respect of certain properties sold in Pakistan holding them taxable under the head 'Cap...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Modern Woollen Mills Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT108TriDel

1. The dispute is about valuation of goods manufactured on job work basis by the respondent. Yarn is manufactured by the respondent both on its own and on job work basis. The appeal of the revenue contends that since the yarn manufactured on job work basis is of the same quality and count as the yarn manufactured by the respondent on his own, the price of the latter should be taken as the assessable value of the former. The Commissioner (Appeals) had held against the Revenue relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kandivali Metal Works v.CCE [1997 (90) E.L.T. 187]. Appeal against this order of the Tribunal had been dismissed by the Supreme Court reported in 1998 (97) E.L.T.A222 (S.C.).2. When the matter came up for hearing today none represented the respondent, despite notice. Accordingly, we are proceeding to dispose of this appeal of the Revenue after hearing learned Departmental Representative. He explained that the yarn in the present case manufactured on job work b...

Carrier Aircon Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT792TriDel

1. This appeal is against the order of Commissioner of Customs, an imported item declared as 'Refrigerating Machinery' (Air Cooled Chiller) Model : 30 GNP-110-913 found that it was a full machine described as such and was not described a component of a machine and therefore, the importers claimed that the imported machine was in the nature of a component for manufacturing a complete machine was not to be upheld. There was no L/C and the invoice and the sales order also made it clear that it was a full machine and DGFT's clarification dated 17-3-1994 was of no help to the importers because the said letter only clarifies for 'compression type refrigeration equipment is freely importable by actual users subject to actual user condition in terms of Public Notice No. 32, dated 17-7-1992'. He found the importers not to be an actual user and they had proposed to supply machines to M/s.Siemens Ltd. who would be actually using it. This fact was found to him to be declared in the bill of entry ...