Delhi Court July 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 1 of about 277 results (0.018 seconds)Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Diamond Cement
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT777TriDel
1. Revenue filed these appeals against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order, the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of explosives used in mines and in respect of hydra- zine hydrate used for softening the water, which was used in generation of electricity was denied.2. Ld. DR, appearing on behalf of the revenue, submits that the issue in respect of Modvat credit on explosives used in mines by the cement manufacturers is settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jaypee Rewa Cement reported in 2000 (38) RLT 1111.3. In respect of hydrazine hydrate. ld. DR submits that it is not used as input in the manufacture of final product and, therefore, is not entitled for the benefit of Modvat credit.4. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that in the show cause notice, issued to the respondents, the allegation is that the respondents were availing the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of hydrazine hydrate withou...
Tag this Judgment!Gurunanak Refrigeration Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC133
1. This is the second application for rectification of mistake (ROM) filed by M/s. Gurunanak Refrigeration Corpn. (hereinafter referred to as "GRC") with reference to the Tribunal's Final Order No. 2730/96-A dated 14.08.1996. The Tribunal under Final Order dated 14.08.1996 while disposing of the appeal of M/s. GRC had confirmed the order-in-original dated 21-11-1986 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Delhi.Thereafter, M/s. GRC filed ROM application which was listed as E/ROM/4/97-A. In addition, a Misc. Application was also filed which was listed as E/Misc/78/97-A. Both the ROM application and the Misc.application came up for hearing on 21.02.1997 and were disposed of by the Misc. Order No. 62/97-A dated 30- 5-1997. While the ROM application was rejected, the Misc. application was partly allowed and it was ordered that from the total demand confirmed by the Tribunal, the part of the demand which pertained to the period beyond the period of extended limitation of five years, wil...
Tag this Judgment!Pure Drinks Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT253TriDel
1. The dispute centers around the question whether, in the facts of the case, it is Rule 57F(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 or whether it is Rule 57F(5) thereof which is applicable.2. We have heard Shri J.S. Agarwal, ld. Advocate for the assessee and Shri M.M. Dube, ld. JDR for the Department.3. Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of aerated waters falling under Chapter 22 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. They were also availing of Modvat credit of duty paid on glass bottles received by them as inputs. They were served with a Show Cause Notice dated 4-3-1997 asking them to show cause as to why Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 42,78,164.20 should not be demanded on the value of clearances of glass bottles sold by them as such and on sale of waste and scrap of glass bottles not paid during the period 1-4-1992 to 19-10-1995 and why penalty should not be imposed. By the impugned order, the Commissioner, Central Excise, New Delhi confirmed the duty demand and imposed a pen...
Tag this Judgment!Three F Filters (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT53TriDel
1. In these three appeals file-I by M/s. Three F. Filters Pvt. Ltd., the issue involved is whether filter elements manufactured by them are classifiable under Sub-heading 8421.10 as claimed by them or under Sub-heading 8421.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the Impugned Order.2. Appeal No. E/1409/2000-E was listed today for hearing of waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 7534/- and penalty of Rs. 750/-.Shri Naveen Mullick, Ld. Advocate, submitted that his two earlier appeals involving the same issue filed by the Appellants are listed for hearing today and in those cases the entire amount of duty had been deposited by them. He requested that considering the small amount of duty and penalty involved in this appeal, the requirement of pre-deposit may be waived and the appeal itself may be taken up for disposal alongwith other two appeals. The Ld. D.R. Shri Ashok Kumar, leaves the matter to the discretion of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Prince Valves Industry Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT100TriDel
1. The appellants filed these appeals against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals).2. In the impugned order the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993 was denied to the appellants on the ground that the exemption is not available on the specific goods bearing its brand name or trade name registered or not of an another person as the appellants were clearing the goods under the brand name 'SANT' which is the registered trade mark of Sant Brass Metal Works, Jalandhar. Therefore, the appellants were not entitled for the benefit of this notification.3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that M/s. Sant Brass Metal Works was registered owner of the trade marks of the SANT and they were manufacturing different kinds of valves and cocks with ISI specification and of IBR grade under the brand name of 'SANT'. The Sant Brass Metal Works also manufacture such type of valves and cocks which were not of ISI specificati...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Hilton Roulunds Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT782TriDel
1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 7-7-1999 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals).2. In the impugned order, the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of flex oil and lubricating oil was allowed to the respondents.3. Ld. DR, appearing on behalf of the revenue submits that flex oil and lubricating oil are not inputs in terms of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules and these are not used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product and these are used merely for maintenance of machinery.5. The issue whether the lubricating oil is entitled for the benefit of Modvat credit is now settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Meerut v. Modi Rubber Ltd. 718. In this case the Tribunal held that the lubricating oil used in machines for manufacture of final product is entitled for Modvat credit as incut.6. In respect of flex oil, the contention of the respondents is that the flex oil is used as an inputs at the stage of...
Tag this Judgment!Rudra Bilas Kisan Sahakari Chini Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC508
1. The appellants manufacture sugar and mollasses. The bagasse is produced as a by-product in the process of manufacture of sugar and molasses. The bagasse is chargeable to 'Nil' rate of duty under Heading No. 23.01 of the Tariff. The appellants are availing Modvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of sugar and molasses. As per the provisions of Sub-rule (1) of rule 57CC, a manufacturer engaged in manufacture of products which are not charged to duty along with products which are chargeable to duty and take credit of duty on inputs used in or in relation to the manufacturer of the two categories of the final products and whether contained in the said final products or not, the manufacturer shall pay an amount equal to 8% of the price of the second category of the final product at the time of their clearance from the factory.2. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Rampur Division initiated proceedings against the appellants and vide his Order-in-Original dated 29-5-98 c...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Triveni Conductors (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT363TriDel
1. In all these appeals preferred by the Revenue, the common issue involved is whether winding wires manufactured by the Respondents are eligible for exemption under Notfn. No. 69/86 as amended by Notfn. No.106/88-C.E., dated 1-3-1988.2. Shri R.K. Sharma, ld. SDR, submitted that the Respondents purchase Copper rods/bars from the market which are being sent by them to the rolling mills for converting them into wire rods of 8 mm diameter; that on receipt of the wire rods the Respondents further reduce their gauge from 8 mm to less than 6 mm and thereafter these wires are enamelled for purpose of winding wires; that Notfn. No. 69/86 as amended provides 'NIL' rate of duty in respect of winding wires, if these are made from wire bars, billets of circular cross section, bars and rods or wires of maximum cross sectional dimension exceeding 6 mm of copper on which the duty of excise has already been paid at the rate of Rs. 6,200/- per tonne; that as the Respondents are making the winding wire...
Tag this Judgment!New Bharat Rice Mills Vs. the Registrar of Trade Marks and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1071; 2000(3)ARBLR629(Delhi); 88(2000)DLT110; 2000(56)DRJ560
ORDERKhan, J.1. Trade Mark 'Taj Mahal' is the bone of contention between the parties. Both sides are claiming it for their rice which they are selling in India and Australia. 2. Respondent applied for registration of this Trade Mark (word & device) before Registrar on 30.8.89 and Appellate filed his opposition to it on 27.6.96. Respondents' application was allowed but Appellant's opposition rejected by impugned order dated 14.3.2000. Hence this appeal. 3. L/C for Appellant, Mr. Amarjeet Singh assailed the order on the plea that Registrar had passed it in ignorance of Section 55 of the Trade Marks Act which, according to him, provided by a legal fiction that application of a Trade Mark in India for goods to be exported would constitute a use of such Trade Mark in India and that Registrar was obliged to examine whether the otherwise identical Trade Mark was likely to create deception and confusion to honest and bona fide purchaser. 4. Mr. Sen Gupta, Ld. counsel for respondent however jus...
Tag this Judgment!Prabash Chandra Sharma Vs. Lizzie Jacob and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1085
ORDERB.A. Khan, J1. Petitioner filed CWP 342/1975 complaining about his reversion from the post of Principal. Writ petition was allowed by order dated 21.12.1984 and his reversion set aside. He was found entitled to consequential benefits. Respondents filed appeal against this order, but failed. 2. Petitioner has filed this petition alleging breach of court order. His grievance is that he was not given all consequential benefits as per court judgment. 3. This Court by order dated 17.12.1999 delineated areas of dispute between the parties and directed petitioner to appear before Deputy Commissioner (Finance) of respondent Sangathan to seek consideration of his grievances. Pursuant thereto, Deputy Commissioner has passed order dated 21.1.2000 holding that nothing was due to be paid to petitioner and that his past service rendered by him in Rajasthan Government, was not liable to be counted. 4. Petitioner now feels aggrieved of this and says that his past service in question was required ...
Tag this Judgment!