Delhi Court December 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Braham Pal Singh Gautam Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through), Ministry o ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Delhi314; 109(2004)DLT466; 2004(72)DRJ626
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner is seeking the quashing of the impounding circular/order dated 10.11.2003, bearing No. VI/405/2/82/03 whereby the petitioner's passport No. E-1258052 dated 21.3.2002 issued by the Regional passport Office, New Delhi has been ordered to be impounded under the provision of Section 10(3) (a), (b) and (c) of the Passport Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). 3. Prior to the passing of the impounding circular, a show cause notice dated 15.10.2003 had been issued to the petitioner requiring him to show cause as to why the passport should not be impounded under Section 10(3)(b) of the said Act on the allegation that while applying for the passport which was impounded i.e. passport E-1258052 dated 21.3.2002, the petitioner had not disclosed the factum of his official passport No. O-103585 dated 05.02.2001 in the application form. As such, it was alleged that the...
Shiva Tobacco Co. Vs. Naresh Kumar JaIn and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-2003
Reported in: 2004(72)DRJ683; 2004(28)PTC151(Del)
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. By this order, I would be deciding the plea of the petitioner in CO. 11/97 that the present Co. is not liable to be transferred to the Appellate Board, constituted under Section 100 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. By this petition, petitioner seeks that the trade mark 'TIGER' in the name of Madan Lal Jain trading as Ramji Lal Madan Lal Jain, be expunged from the Register of Trade Marks.2. On a point of background, it may be noted that earlier IA. No. 10962/2002 was moved in this petition, seeking transfer of Suit No. 268/97, then pending in the Court of Sh. Chandershekhar. Additional District Judge, titled Shiva Tobacco Co. v. Madan Lal Jain and Anr.3. With the consent of the parties, the said suit was transferred to this Court, to be tried Along with the present petition and Co. Nos. 22, 23 and 24/2001. On 14.10.2003, it was urged before the Court that the order dated 29.7.2003, transferring Suit No. 268/97 was liable to be recalled as Co. Nos. 11/97, 22, 23 and 24/...
Maheshwari Mills Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-2003
Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC9
1. Appellant, M/s Maheshwari Mills Ltd. is a manufacturer of yarns of various materials like cotton, cellulosic etc. Part of the yarns produced are also captively woven into fabrics by the appellants. The dispute in the present appeals relates to valuation of yarns. Further, penalties under Section 173Q(2) of the Central Excise Rules and demand for interest under Section 11AB for the period 28.9.96 to 31.3.99 have been made.2. Under the impugned orders, Commissioner, Central Excise, Ahmedabad held that M/s Maheshwari Mills had misdeclared the assessable value of the yarns during the period 1.6.94 to 31.3.99 and evaded a large amount of duty amounting to over Rs. 80 lakhs. Accordingly, by invoking proviso (extended period) to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, Commissioner has demanded the duty so evaded and has imposed a penalty of Rs. 80 lakhs on M/s Maheshwari Mills. Separate penalties have been imposed on its officers. Appeal No. E/2766/01-NB(A) is by M/s Maheshwari Mills and o...
Key Locks (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-2003
Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC525
1. The main issue involved in these six appeals, arising out of a common Order-in-Original No. 1/Commr/LKO/2002, dated 17-1-2002, is whether R.P. Locks Co. are the manufacturers of locks bearing brand name "Harrison".2.1 Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, learned Advocate, submitted that M/s. R.P.Locks Co., Appellant No. 6, a partnership firm established in 1950s, are engaged in the purchasing and selling of various types of locks in the brand name "Harrison"; that the locks are manufactured by various artisans in Aligarh; that parts required for the manufacture of locks are purchased by the artisans and the assembly of locks is undertaken by hand without using any power; that consequently no duty of excise is payable by the artisans in terms of exemption Notification No.167/86-C.E. dated 1-3-1986; that the Appellant No. 1 also purchase locks from M/s. Key Locks (India) who manufacture locks under their brand name "Harrison" using power and clear the locks on payment of duty.2.2 He mentioned tha...
Ultra Flax (P) Ltd. and Shri Rajeev Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-2003
Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT354TriDel
1. The issue involved in these two appeals, arising out of a common order-in-Appeal is whether the lay flat tubings which come into existence during the manufacture of LDPE bags are leviable to Central Excise duty and whether the extended period of limitation is invokable.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate Submitted that the issue regarding excisability of lay flat tubing has been decided by the Tribunal in the case of A.S. Processor Ltd. Vs. CCE Chandigarh [1992 (112) ELT 706] wherein the Tribunal has held that plastic tube coming into existence at intermediate stage of manufacture of plastic bags are dutiable under Heading 39.17 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. He, however, submitted that the entire demand for the period from 1-4-97 to 31.3.98 is time barred as the show cause notice was issued on 25.1.99; that the Appellants were under the bonafide belief that lay flat tubes were not excisable goods and also not marketable items; that even otherwise lay flat tubes...
Cisco Systems (India) P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-2003
Reported in: (2004)(164)ELT281TriDel
1. Appellant M/s. Cisco Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. is a wholly owned subsidiary of M/s. Cisco Systems Management BV (Netherlands). The issue raised in this appeal is the valuation of goods imported by the appellant from its holding company.2. Customs Authorities at Bangalore enhanced the value of the imported goods by 70% and subjected the goods to duty on provisional basis. The appellant contended that such enhancement is contrary to the instructions on valuation contained in the Board's Circular No.11/2001-Cus., dated 23-2-2001. Under the impugned order, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has confirmed the assessment at the enhanced value despite the instructions of the Board.3. We have perused the records and have considered the submissions made by both sides. Cases of this kind are required to be investigated by the Special Valuation Branch (SVB) of the Customs. On November 15, 2002, (SVB) of Delhi Customs registered the appellant's case for investigation of valuation. Appellant...
Finolex Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-2003
Reported in: (2004)(164)ELT421TriDel
1. The appellants imported Ethylene-Di-Chloride (EDC). The transaction value declared by them was enhanced in respect of one import from US $ 295 PMT to US $ 350 PMT. In the second import the declared value of US $ 305 was enhanced to US $ 345 PMT. The enhancement was made on the basis of import by Reliance Industries Ltd. It is contended on behalf of the appellant/applicant that they are regular importers of Ethylene-Di-Chloride (EDC) and their annual import would come to 1,30,000 to 1,50,000 MTs every year. On the other hand, Reliance Industries are producers of EDC. Apart from referring to the price at which Reliance had imported, no other material is relied on by the Revenue to raise a doubt as to the correctness of the transaction value declared by the appellant. It is further contended that there will be difference in the price on the basis of the quantity imported and also on the basis of the difference in the country from where the import is made. The appellant has further poi...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Rahul Rubber (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-2003
Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT50TriDel
1. In this appeal the Revenue has challenged the validity of the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 18/95-C.E., dated 16-3-1995 to the respondents.2. The learned SDR has contended that the benefit of above said notification which provides NIL rate of duty on plates, blocks, sheets and strips of micro-cellular or non-cellular rubber could not be extended to the respondents as they had failed to use the same for the manufacture of soles, heels or soles and heels combined for footwear.Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.3. On the other hand, the learned Counsel has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.4. We have heard both sides and gone through the record. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of goods, such as, rubber hose pipes, rubber sheets etc. There is no material on the record to suggest if the goods cleared by them were not meant for making heels and soles fo...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Jaitu Steels, Hukum Chand Rolling
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-2003
Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC439
1. These are three appeals filed by the Revenue against common Order-in-Appeal No. 35-37/03 dated 21.2.2003 2. When the matters were called, no one was present on behalf of the respondents. In fact notice issued to M/s. Hukum Chand Rolling Mills and M/s. Ram Darshan Rolling Mills had been received back from the postal authorities undelivered. We, therefore, heard Ms. Charul Baranwal, learned Senior Departmental Representative, and perused the records. Learned Senior Departmental Representative submitted that the duty on the basis of annual capacity of production was initially introduced with effect from 1.8.97; that a Notification No. 50/97-CE dated 1.8.97 was issued extending exemption to the goods manufactured prior to 1.8.97 and cleared on or after that date by a hot rerolling mill; that subsequently the introduction of compound levy scheme was postponed to 1.9.97 and consequently Notification No. 52/97 was amended by Notification No. 57/97 dated 30.8.97 extending exemption to the ...
Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-2003
Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT409TriDel
2. Duty demand is raised on the basis of the price shown at the rate of Rs. 10/- per bottle of Coca Cola as per the advertisement board placed before three dhabas/restaurants in Varanasi. The issue raised in these appeals is that even if the above three retailers have sold Coca Cola at the rate of Rs. 10/- per bottle, it cannot be generalised and no demand could be raised on the entire product of the unit at Varanasi at the rate of Rs. 10/- per bottle when the MRP shown was only at the rate of Rs. 9/-. In the appeal memorandum, the appellant has stated that it has sold its product within Varanasi for more than 2,500 shops, dhabas/restaurants and cinema halls. Therefore, reference to the price at the rate of Rs. 10/- per bottle in advertisement board placed in front of three dhabas cannot be generalised.3. This is matter which has to be examined at the time of final hearing of the appeals. Since an arguable case is made out and also in the light of the submission of the appellants that...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »