Delhi Court September 2002 Judgments

Castrol Ltd. and anr. Vs. Auto Link Sales Corporation and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(26)PTC154(Del)

C.K. Mahajan, J.1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of copyrights, passing off, rendition of accounts of profits, delivery up etc.2. The plaintiff No. 1 is the registered proprietor of various trademarks in India, including the trademark 'CASTROL' registered under No. 1494 in Class 4 as of 29th June, 1942, in respect of oils for heating, lighting and lubricating. The said trademark 'CASTROL' is also registered in India under No. 260626 dated 17th November 1969 in respect of industrial oils and greases (other than edible oils, fats and essential oils), hydraulic fluids being oils, lubricants, fuels and illuminants, as a distinctive logo comprising a solid coloured circle across which is an irregularly shaped white portion occupying about one half of the total area of the mark. The word 'CASTROL' appears in an oblique script across the horizontal member of the said white portion. The plaintiff No. 1 has licensed the use of 39 of i...

Punjab Chemical and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC46

1. This is an appeal against the order dated 19.2.2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Chandigarh. The issue relates to classification.2. Shri L.P. Asthana, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellant and he submitted that the appellants are engaged in the extraction of silica from rice husk ash, which is composed entirely of silica. The appellants have classified it under sub-heading 2621.00 claiming nil rate of duty; that for the last 20 years, they have been classifying it under the said Chapter Heading and there has never been any dispute and the same was duly approved by the Department; that on 28.8.95, the Department issued show cause notice proposing to classify the same under sub-heading 2811.90 instead of under Heading 2621 as claimed by them under Rule 173B of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and asking for why Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 16,024 should not be recovered from the appellants under Section 11A of the Central Exci...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Surya Roshni Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT674TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dated 1-11-2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Bhopal. The issue relates to sanction of refund claim of Rs. 33,352/- under Rule 173L of Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Shri A.S. Bedi, learned SDR has appeared on behalf of the Revenue and he submitted that the items in question are Tubler Glass Shell; that findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the goods returned were defective is not correct, in view of the fact that the respondent had received the goods F.T.L. Glass Shells from M/s. Hind Lamps Ltd., Shikohabad under Invoice No. 574 and 575 both dated 28-5-99, superscribing on the top of invoice as "Removal of incoming inputs after payment of duty under Rule 57F(2) (3)."; thus it is clear that the goods cleared by M/s. Hind Lamp Ltd. were not for being remade, refined, reconditioned or subject to any other similar process, but the goods were simply cleared as removal of inputs as such; th...

Malhotra Industrial Corporation Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC229

1. The appellant is a hot re-rolling steel mill. It was discharging its Central Excise duty liability in terms of Section 3 A of the Central Excise Act based on the annual capacity of production determined by the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise in accordance with Hot, Re-Rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. Even so, impugned order has held that higher duty amount is payable by the appellant on account of re-determination of the annual capacity of production. A penalty of Rs. 25 Lakhs has also been imposed on the appellant. This appeal challenges those findings.2. The facts of the case are that the hot steel re-rolling mills are liable to pay duty on compounded levy basis in terms of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. The compounding is done based on the annual capacity of production of the machinery installed in a re-rolling mill.Further, the annual capacity of production is determined by the jurisdictional Commissioner based on information a...

Elcon Clipsal India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT360TriDel

1. The issue involved in this Appeal, filed by M/s. Eicon Clipsal India Ltd., is whether the benefit of exemption under Notification No.67/95-CE., dated 16-3-95 is available in respect of moulds dies and press tools.2. We heard Shri Jitendra Singh, learned Advocate for the Appellants, and Shri Jagdish Singh, learned Departmental Representative, for the Revenue. The facts in brief are that the Appellants entered into a contract with one M/s. Gerard Industries Pvt. Ltd. for manufacture of various electrical goods. It was also agreed upon that the Appellants would manufacture press tools, moulding dies for use within their factory for manufacture of the contracted goods. The Appellants, though did not remove these tools and dies from their factory premises, issued invoices dated 2-10-1998 to their customers for getting payment. The Assistant Commissioner, under Order-in-Original No. 81/99, dated 11-6-1999 disallowed the benefit of Notification No. 67/95-C.E. holding that the clearance ca...

Cc Vs. Shakeel Ahmad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC478

1. On 9.5.99, the respondent was intercepted at the Customs Barrier at Nepalganj Road on his way from Nepal to India, by officers of the Customs. 41 Indian currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 500 were recovered alongwith currency notes of lower denomination from his person and the same were seized by the officers believing that the currency notes of denomination of Rs. 500 were liable to confiscation under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act. After recording a statement of the respondent under Section 107 of the Customs Act, the department booked a case against him and accordingly issued a show-cause notice to him for confiscating the currency notes and imposing penalty on him.The original authority ordered absolute confiscation of the seized goods worth Rs. 20,500 (Rs. 500 x 41) and imposed on the appellant a personal penalty of Rs. 500 under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The appeal preferred by the party against the order of the original authority was allowed by the Commissio...

Amtek Auto Ltd. and ors. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(105)LC874Tri(Delhi)

1. These appeals are filed by the appellants against the order dated 21.11.2001 passed by Commissioner Central Excise Delhi-Ill. The issue relates to denial of modvat credit on capital goods. Since the issue in all the 5 appeals is common, all the appeals are being disposed of by this common order. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that M/s Amtek Auto Group of companies (herein after called "appellants") at the material time was comprised of 5 manufacturing units namely: and were engaged in the manufacture of Motor Vehicle Paris falling under Chapter 84, 87, 73 and 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985.The appellants were availing modvat credit facility in respect of duly paid on capital goods under Rule 57-Q of the Central Excise Rules 1944 (for short "Rules"); that all the above five units including head office situated at J 206-Saket, New Delhi were raided by the Central Excise Officers of M.T. Division Branch Delhi-III, Commissionerate, Gurgaon at a time on 22.12.1998. E...

Sant Steel and Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT92TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the order dated 28-2-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-1. The issue relates to abatement of duty for closure period.2. Shri Alok Arora, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellant and he submitted that the period in dispute is from 1-9-97 to 8-9-97; that the intimation of closure of factory was given by registered post to the Assistant Collector on 1-9-97; that the intimation for restart of the factory was given by registered post on 8-9-97; that since the appellant had given information regarding the stocks and meter reading in his letter dated 8-9-97, denial of abatement is unjustified, keeping in view that the compounded levy under Section 3A was introduced from 1-9-97 and it was the appellant factory's very first day for compliance of provisions of Rule 96ZO; that the Department's instructions regarding following the provisions of Rule 96ZO(2) were received by the appellants on 8-9-97 and immediately without complyi...

Opal Auto Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT434TriDel

1. Appellants filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise.3. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of diesel engines, generating set and pump sets. The unit of the appellants was visited by the officers of the revenue department on 1-12-99. During verification of the records, it was found that 1340 pcs. of crank shafts of different varieties and 135 pcs. of diesel engine sets were found in excess than the recorded balance in their R.G. I register. The goods were taken into possession. During verification, it was also found that the appellants were clearing the goods with the brand name of 'OPEX' belonging to M/s. Opal Engg. Corpn.and were availing the benefit of small scale exemption notification.Show cause notice was issued to the appellant's for confiscation of the goods found in excess and also for demanding duty in respect of branded goods by denying the benefit of small scale exemption notifica...

Opal Auto Industries Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Appellants filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise.3. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of diesel engines, generating sets and pump sets. The unit of the appellants was visited by the officers of the revenue department on 1.12.99. During verification of the records, it was found that 1340 pcs. of crankshafts of different varieties and 135 pcs. of diesel engine sets were found in excess than the recorded balance in their R.G. I register. The goods were taken into possession. During verification, it was also found that the appellants were clearing the goods with the brand name of OPEX' belonging to M/s. Opal Engg. Corpn.and were availing the benefit of small scale exemption notification.Show cause notice was issued to the appellants for confiscation of the goods found in excess and also for demanding duty in respect of branded goods by denying the benefit of small scale exemption notificati...