Delhi Court February 2004 Judgments

Zyg Pharma Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC537

1. In this appeal the issue raised is whether the advertisement charges incurred by M/s. Fulford India Ltd. buyer of six items of P&P medicines manufactured by the appellant is to be included in the assessable value of the product. Commissioner (Appeals) following the ratio of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Alembic glass Industries Ltd. vs CCE reported in 2002-TAXINDIAONLINE-82-CESTAT-MUM took the view that the advertisement charges incurred by the buyers has to be included in the assessable value.2. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the decision in Alembic Glass Inds. Ltd. has to be understood in the facts of the case and that the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble supreme Court in the case of Philips India Ltd. reported in 2002-TAXINDIAONLINE-127-SC-CX be applied to the appellant's case. Ld. Counsel for the appellant took us through the decision of the Alembic Glass Inds. and contended that the facts as detailed in the order would clearly show that ...

Ergo Auto Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT60TriDel

1. The issue involved in the these three appeals arising out of a common order-in-Appeal is whether driving goggles manufactured by M/s.Ergo Auto Ltd. are classifiable under sub Heading 9004.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by them or under sub Heading 9004.10 as sunglasses as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Shri N.K. Gupta, learned Advocate, submitted that sub Heading 9004.10 applies only to sunglasses other than those used for correcting vision and sub Heading 9004.90 applies to all other spectacles, goggles and the like, corrective, protective or other; that sunglasses as understood in the trade parlance and as known to the user are meant for protection against sun; that the meaning of the sunglasses as per Oxford Advance Learners' Dictionary of Current English is "glasses of dark coloured glass to protect the eyes from bright sun"; that the coverage of sub-Heading 9004.10 is well defined, clear and without ambiguity and covers only sunglass...

Bhupinder Steels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT239TriDel

1. The issue raised in these appeals at the instance of the assessee is whether the value of pattern calculated at the rate of 4% of the total value of the castings are to be included in the assessable value or not. The castings are tailor made for various customers who supplied their own patterns. The patterns are given on loan basis by the customers and the patterns are non-consumable and capable of repeated use and producing innumerable cast articles. Neither in the SCN nor in the order impugned, the Revenue has shown the basis of calculation of value of the pattern @ 4% of the total value of the castings. On the other hand, the appellant/assessee has calculated the value as 0.0044% of the value of the steel castings on the basis of certificate issued by the Chartered Engineer and Cost Accountant.2. We have gone through the certificates relied on by the appellant.While in the Order-in-Appeal, the above certificates are not accepted, no reason is given to substantiate the stand take...

Texla Towers Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Bank and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 109(2004)DLT975

Manmohan Sarin, J.Rule.With the consent of parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.1. The petitioner by this writ petition seeks a writ of mandamus to the respondent-Bank to forthwith return to the petitioner, title deeds of property bearing Plot No. 2, Khasra Nos.1243/741/2 and 1297/1244/1 situated at Bala Saheb Gurudwara, Village Kilokari, New Delhi. Petitioner M/s. Texla Towers Ltd. claim that it stood as a guarantor for a loan from Bank being advanced to respondent No. 2, who was the borrower namely M/s. Bestavision Infotech Ltd.2. It is not disputed before me that the loan in question of Rs. 1 crore stands fully repaid. Petitioner, claiming to be the owner of the property, sought a direction for return of the title deeds which had been deposited by way of equitable mortgage. Respondents are not willing to return the same.3. Counsel for respondent submitted that based on the sale deed in respect of property, the owners are Mr. Sukhvinder Singh and Inderjit Singh, while the ...

Kartongen Kemi Och Forvaltning Ab and ors. Vs. State Through Cbi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(72)DRJ693

J.D. Kapoor, J.1. The petitioners, M/s A.B. Bofors, S.P. Hinduja, G.P. Hinduja and P.P. Hinduja, have through these petitions challenged the impugned order dated 14.11.2002 passed by the learned Special Judge whereby he has charged them for having entered into criminal conspiracy with the public servants late Shri Rajiv Gandhi, Shri S.K. Bhatnagar, Win Chadha, Ottavio Quattrocchi and Bofors' President Matin Ardbo to cheat the Government of India inasmuch as that they had agreed to do or caused to be done illegal acts or acts which are legal by illegal means to cause wrongful loss to the Government of India to the tune of SEK 8410.66 million i.e. Rupees 64 crores for the award of the contract for supply of 410 guns of 155mm and by deceiving the Government of India by fraudulent representation that the said gun and gun system was better in quality and cheaper in price and that no agent or middlemen would be used in the negotiations for the contract and they would reduce the price of the ...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Radhika Sanghi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Del)559

ORDER1. These two appeals are filed against the order of the Tribunal against the same assessed. IT Appeal No. 57 of 2003 filed for a subsequent year has already been admitted.2. In view of the fact that IT Appeal No. 57 of 2003 has been admitted, we admit the appeal and frame the question for adjudication as under:'Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that a diagnostic centre is an industrial undertaking and, thereforee, entitled to investment allowance (sic-and deduction) under Section 80-I of the IT Act, 1961?'3. Appellant to file paper book within a period of three months as per rules.4. To be listed along with IT Appeal 57 of 2003 and IT Appeal 361 of 2003....

Mehsana District Cooperative Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC69

1. The issue, involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Mehsana District Co-operative Milk Producers' Union Ltd., is whether skimmed milk powder produced by them is classifiable under Sub-heading 0401.19 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff ct as claimed by them or under Sub-heading 0401.13 as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order.2. Sh. P.M. Dave, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants, a Co-operative Society, produced various diary products including skimmed milk powder; that a show cause notices was issued to them challenging the classification of their products, namely, Amul Spray (Partially skimmed milk powder for feeding infants), Amulya (sweetened partially skimmed milk powder) and Amul/Sagar (skimmed milk powder); that the Assistant Commissioner has allowed their claim for classification of partially skimmed milk powder and sweetened partially skimmed milk powder under Sub-heading 0401.19 of the Tariff; that the Assistant Commissioner, ...

Mount Everest Mineral Water Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC31

1. The appellants is a manufacturer of Mineral Water. Valuation of the product is required to be done under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, that is based on the MRP printed on the product. The appellant's water bottles contains the following with regard to MRP : "MRP INCL ALL TAXES NORTH/WEST RS. 15/16 EAST & SOUTH RS. 17/MFG. OCT 99 B.NO. 412H/BEST BEFORE OCT 2000".The contention of the revenue is that Explanation 2(a) under Section 4A applies to the valuation. That Explanation reads : "(a) Where on the package of any excisable goods more than one retail sale price is declared, the maximum of such retail sale price shall be deemed to be the retail price for the purpose of this section." The Revenue contends that since the bottle has three price market it was a case where "package of any excisable goods more than one retail sale price is declared" and in terms of the Explanation," maximum of such retail sale price shall be deemed to be the retail price for the purpose of val...

ind Swift Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The issue raised in these appeal at the instance of the assessee is whether the value of wyring which is admittedly a bought out item has to be added in arriving at the assessable value to the P & P Medicine manufactured by it and cleared for the reason that it has combination packet. Commissioner (Appeals) took the view that it cannot. According to Commissioner (Appeals), there is no manufacture of syringe by the appellant and if it does not become an integral part of the above P & P medicine, its value cannot be added to the assessable value of the medicine.2. Learned DR relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Glaxo (I) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Kanpur ( 2002-TAXINDIAONLINE-64-CESTAT-DEL-SB) which was affirmed by the Supreme Court [1996 (84) ELT A-160). He has also placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Geoferey Manners and Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune, 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that the view taken by the Comm...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Mahavir Metal Works

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT238TriDel

1. Heard. The facts of this appeal lies in a narrow compass and as such, the stay application of the Revenue is allowed. In my view, the appeal itself can be disposed of as the learned Counsel for the respondents has put-up his appearance and he has no objection if the appeal itself is decided.2. The issue in this appeal relates to the availability of Modvat credit to the respondents on CR coils. The adjudicating authority disallowed Modvat credit of the disputed amount to the respondents and imposed penalty also on them as detailed in the order-in-original. But the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the said order and allowed the Modvat credit.3. I have heard both the sides. The case of the Revenue is that in fact the respondents did not receive the CR coils as inputs and had even no machinery for converting the same into sheets and that their suppliers M/s. N.V. Enterprises issued them only modvatable invoices. However, the respondents had denied these allegations and maintained th...