Delhi Court June 2001 Judgments

B.L. and Co. and Others Vs. Pfizer Products Incl.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT346

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. The appellants have preferred this appeal, assailing the ex parte order dated 1.6.2001, passed by the learned Single Judge by which the appellants have been restrained from manufacturing, marketing their medicinal product 'PENEGRA'. The ex parte order had been passed on the application of the respondent under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC in a suit for injunction and damages for passing off, instituted by the respondent. The operative part of the order dated 1.6.2001 is as under:'I am satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a case for ex parte injunction. The defendants, its directors, principals, proprietors, franchises, representatives and assigns are restrained from producing, manufacturing, advertising, promoting, displaying for sale, offering for sale, sale, or distributing any articles of merchandise, or for any purposes whatsoever, the trade mark VIAGRA or any colorable imitations thereof or any mark confusingly or deceptively similar thereto, with th...

M/S. Shakti Zarda Factory Shri Vs. Cce, Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Shri Kamaljeet Singh, Ld. Advocate submits that the appellants had already deposited a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs in the year 1988 when the search and seizure operations in these proceedings took place. He prays that the balance pre-deposit of the duty amount and the penalty amount including penalty imposed on the Director maybe waived and recovery stayed and the appeal itself be heard at an early date.2. Shri Mewa Singh, Ld. DR Agrees/with the factual position as submitted by the Ld. Advocate.3. After hearing both the sides and after going through the facts on record subject to the condition that the amount already deposited will remain with the Department till the disposal of the appeal we waive the requirement of pre-deposit of the balance duty amount and the penalty amount including the penalty imposed on the Director and stay its recovery till the disposal of the appeals.4. As both the sides agree for early hearing of the case, we fix the hearing on 11.7.2001....

Asian Alloys Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. By stay application, the applicant has requested for unconditional stay of recovery of penalty amount. He has submitted that out of the amount of Rs. 27,703/-, amount of Rs. 25,000/- has already been appropriated by the Department against the Bank guarantee.2. Ld. JDR, Shri J. Singh, agrees that the penalty amount of Rs. 25,000/- has been appropriated by the Department as confirmed by the Superintendent in his letter dated 12.10.99 at page 22. Since the penalty amount of rs. 25,000/- has already been appropriated by the Department against the Bank guarantee, the recovery of the balance amount of penalty is stayed till the pendency of appeal. Matter may be listed for final hearing on 29.92001....

M/S. Ramco Steel (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. By stay application, the applicant has sought for the waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs.3,24,691.05 p and stay its recovery pending disposal of the appeal. Shri M.P. Devnath, ld. advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has inter-alia submitted that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Eicher Motors Ltd. vs. Union of IndiaCollector of Central Excise Pune, vs. Dal Ichi Karkaria Ltd. reported in 1999(112) ELT 353 (SC),the applicant is entitled to avail modvat credit which has already accrued to them.2. Ld. JDR, Shri J. Singh, appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that both the cases are distinguishable on the facts as the cases cited by the ld. advocate for the applicant relate to the availment of modvat credit on motor vehicle parts. Moreover, the applicant has opted out of the modvat scheme and as such the issue involved is highly debatable.3. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is directed to deposit 25% of...

M/S. Shakumbari Sugar and Allied Vs. Cce, Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(148)ELT1138TriDel

1. In this appeal, the issue relates to the availability of Modvat credit of Rs. 14,14,702/- on the goods in question as detailed in the impugned order itself, of the Commissioner (Appeals) dt. 13.10.97. The appellants took Modvat credit on those goods by projecting as capital goods but the Commissioner (Appeals) had affirmed the order-in-original of Asstt. Commissioner that these were not capital goods.2. It has been submitted by both the sides that the question as to whether the disputed goods fall within the ambit of 'capital goods' or not under Rule 57Q read with Explanation 1 appended/thereto, requires re-examination in the light of the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Indore vs Surya Roshni Ltd. reported in 2001 (42) RLT.817, wherein guidelines have been laid down in that regard. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent of disallowing Modvat credit of Rs. 48,14,702/- to the appellants, is set aside, while the rest of his ...

M/S. Jaipur PolyspIn Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. By stay application, the applicant has prayed that the condition of pre-deposit of duty and penalty be dispensed with and the recovery thereof be stayed till the decision of the appeal. Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has inter-alia submitted that the credit was debited when the defect goods were returned. This fact is not disputed by the Department. Besides, he has also relied upon the decision of this Tribunal reported in 2000 (119) ELT 595.2. Ld. JDR, Shri J. Singh has reiterated the last para of the impugned order wherein the reasons for the denial of the modvat credit are recorded.3. After carefully examining the rival submissions, it is directed that the applicant shall deposit 25% of the amount of duty within six weeks from today. On compliance, recovery of the balance amount shall remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal. Failure to comply with the order shall automatically result in dismissal of appeal without any further notice. Appeal may be fixe...

M/S. Stericat Outstrings (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Shri J.S. Agarwal, Ld. Counsel submits that for hearing the appeal filed by M/s. Stericat Outstrings (P) Ltd., they were request to pre-deposit duty of Rs. 2,44,029/- and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- and that when the matter had come up earlier before the Tribunal, the appellants had already deposited Rs. 2,99,102/- on 7.3.94 and this amount is still with the Department with regard to the present proceedings and the appellants will not pray for withdrawal of this amount and that the present appeal be heard without insisting for any further pre-deposit.3. In view of the submissions made by Ld. Advocate, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit of duty and penalty amount subject to the condition that the amount already will remain with the Department till the disposal of the appeal, deposited earlier in terms of Tribunal's order dt.19.2.96. The appeal to come up on its own turn....

M/S. Colombia Electronics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Shri Z.Z.Alvi, Ld. Advocate submits that in these proceedings, the relevant Advance Licence was the Quantity Based Advance Licence and not the Value Based Advance Licence. The Notification No.203/92-Cus dt 19.5.92 was not applicable to the Quantity Based Advance Licence and thus the Ld. Commissioner of Customs had gone on wrong facts. He also submits that the appellants did not received the Show Cause Notice and no effective opportunity for presenting their case could be availed of.When the notice for hearing was received, they have made a request for adjournment and the copy of the telegram is at page 67 of the paper book. The request was made on 19.92000 while the personal hearing had been fixed on 20.9.2000 and the order had been passed on 21.9.2000 itself. It is his submission that the matter be remanded so that they could present their case before the Jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs.2. We have heard Shri Mewa Singh, Ld. DR and have gone through the facts on record. We f...

Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Ace Build(P.) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal, filed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh, the issue involved in whether steel structural and parts there of manufactured by M/s. ACE Build P.Ltd. for addition or alteration to the existing Guru Nanak Stadium and for construction of multi-purpose hall, are chargeable of Excise duty. We heard Shri. M.P. Singh, learned D.R.for the Revenue and Shri. J.P. Kaushik, learned Advocate for the Respondents. Both, the learned D.R. and learned Advocate, intimated that neither in the Order-in-Original nor in the impugned Order the details of steel structural fabricated by the Respondents have been given. A copy of the show cause notice which has been filed alongwith appeal papers did not pertain to the matter before us as it related to the fabrication of structural for M/s. Mohan Fibre Products Ltd. In a recent judgement the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Jaipur vs. Main Structural Ltd., 2001 (44) RLT 113 (SC) has remanded a large number of cases...

Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Fenner India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT455TriDel

1. Respondent herein fabricated, assembled, tested and commissioned conveyer belt system at Srinagar Airport without obtaining licence under Central Excise Rules without following Central procedure. Hence demand was raised for recovery of duty of Rs.1,88,504.66/- ,treating goods as classifiable under CET sub-heading No. 8428.00, and proposing imposition of penalty. Adjudicating authority dropped proceedings, holding that the goods were not manufactured or transported to site nor did they came into existence prior to being permanently attached to the earth and that conveyer system came into existence as part of immovable property. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) following the tribunal's decision in the case of Elecon Engineering Company Ltd. 1993 (31) RLT 5, hence this appeal.2. We heard Shri. M.P. Singh, Ld. DR and Shri M.P.Devnath, Ld. Adv. and note that very same issue regarding excise ability and dutiability of conveyer system fabricated by the same...