Delhi Court March 2004 Judgments

Municipal Corporation Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT66TriDel

1. Through the present COD application, the appellant Municipal Corporation has sought condonation of delay of 75 days in filing the appeal. Shri K.B. Sharma, Superintending Engineer of the Municipal Corporation has filed an affidavit for explaining this delay. One of the grounds mentioned by him in Para 2 of the affidavit is that the Counsel appearing for the Corporation before the Excise Commissioner was not aware of the period of limitation under Section 35B for filing the appeal before the Tribunal, But he has fairly conceded in Paragraph 3 that the very papers by the Corporation office was sent to the Counsel in Delhi to file the appeal before the Tribunal, only after the expiry of the period provided under Section 35B. Why and in what circumstance the delay took place in the office of the Corporation in approaching the Counsel for filing the appeal after the expiry of the period of limitation, has not been explained by him satisfactorily in the affidavit. He has no doubt in Para...

indo British Garments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC567

1. The appellants M/s Indo British Garments Pvt. Ltd. manufacture articles of apparel. The dispute in these appeals relate to dutiability of uniforms manufactured by them. The uniforms are made to order according to the specification given by the buyers. The buyers are generally security agencies. The uniforms are for security guards. It is not being disputed that these uniforms figure for Central Excise duty under Tariff Headings 6201/6202.2. Despite this, the appellants took up a contention before the Central Excise authorities that no excise duty is payable on these items in view of Notification No. 81/01-CE (NT) dated 01.03.01 and Notification No.20/01-CE dated 30th April 2001 whereunder tariff values were fixed for apparels. It is being pointed out that under the notifications, tariff value was fixed in respect of "goods bearing a registered brand name or sold under registered brand name" and the tariff value fixed was "60% of the retail sale price. It is further pointed out that...

Rishi Electronics Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC162

1. Under Final Order No. 919-920/2000-A dated 16.11,2000, this Tribunal allowed Appeals No. C/288-289/2000-A filed by M/s. Rishi Electronics Ltd. against Order-in-Original No. 22/2000 dated 16.2.2000 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta. Subsequently, a ROM (C/93/2001-A) was filed by Revenue submitting, inter-alia, that the Tribunal had not considered the liability to confiscation of certain items under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act. Tribunal passed Miscellaneous Order No. 61 /2001-A dated 14.9.2001 allowing the ROM in order to consider that issue.2. The issue of confiscation under Section 111 (d) is being raised in respect of items like PCBs, Transformer, Transistors, Capacitors, Diodes, Ceramic Capacitors, Time Kits and Cables. Revenue's contention is that these items required specific import licence and since the appellant had not produced such a licence, the adjudicating authority was justified in confiscating these goods under Section 111 (d) and imposing fine and pen...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Maa Kamakhya Marbles (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT580TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by the Revenue, is whether Maa Kamakhya Marbles (P) Ltd. were liable to pay an amount equal to 8% of the value of exempted products in the manufacture of which modvatable inputs were used.2. Mrs. Charul Barnwal, learned SDR, submitted that the respondents manufacture marble slabs and sand stone slabs and avail Cenvat credit of the duty paid in respect of lubricants; that the Deputy Commissioner, under the Order-in-Original No. 25/2002, dated 26-3-2002, demanded Rs. 30,338/- and imposed a penalty of equivalent amount on the ground that the respondents had used the lubricating oils and greases in the manufacture of exempted goods and they had not maintained separate accounts for receipt, consumption and inventory of the inputs in question; that the respondents were, therefore, liable to pay an amount equal to 8% of the total price of the exempted goods; that, however, on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned order, has set asi...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Indian Acrylic

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT342TriDel

2. Revenue filed these appeals against the order-in-appeal whereby the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of HDPE fabric was allowed under Rule 57A of the Rules on the ground that these are not bags and sacks.3. The contention of the appellant is that during the period in question the bags or sacks made out of fabric woven from strips were specifically excluded from the definition of inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules.4. The contention of the respondent is that they are receiving only fabric which were cut into pieces and their final product fibre was covered by this fabric. The fabric is used as bale cover and not as bags or sacks. The contention of the respondent is that bags or sacks never come into existence even during the packing of their final product.5. This factual finding that bags or sacks never come into existence is not disputed by the Revenue. The contention of the Revenue is also that the intention of statute is to deny the Modvat credit on bags and sack...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Johari Digital Health Care Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT418TriDel

1. The issue involved in these two appeals, arising out of two Orders-in-Appeal, is whether M/s. Johri Digital Health Care Ltd. are eligible to avail the benefit of exemption Notification No.21/2002-Cus.2. Mrs. Charul Barnwal, learned S.D.R, submitted that the respondents had imported batteries and power cords and claimed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 (Sl. No. 363 of the Table); that the goods were classified under Heading 85.44 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act and the benefit of exemption Notification was disallowed; that the Commissioner (Appeals) has, however, allowed the appeal filed by the respondents, on the ground that Serial No. 363 of the Notification allows concessional rate of duty to medical equipment and accessories thereof; that batteries and power cords are accessories of the medical equipments. She, further, submitted that batteries and power cords cannot be called accessories; that, as per Para 9.2 of the Exim Po...

Sham Agencies Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)STR93

1. In this appeal the appellants have questioned the validity of the imposition of penalty of Rs. 1000/- under Section 77 for late filing of the service tax returns and of Rs. 5000/- under Section 76 for delay in deposit of th service tax. The appellants have prayed for decision on merits. Therefore, 1 have gone through the record and heard the learned DR.2. The perusal of the record shows that there was a delay of 90 days in submission of the service tax returns by the appellants and 84 days in making payment of the service tax. They have failed to justify these delays by offering any cogent and convincing explanation. The plea of the appellants that they were not conversant with the new service tax law and for that reason, the delay took place, has been taken note of by the authorities below and for that reason the authorities below have imposed less penalties under Section 76 and 77 of the Act. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the...

Fenner (India) Ltd. Vs. Farms and Farms (i) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 110(2004)DLT769b; 2004(28)PTC358(Del)

H.R. Malhotra, J.1.This is a suit brought by the plaintiff seeking decree for perpetual injunction against the defendants for infringement of their trade mark, copyright and also seeking decree for passing of and rendition of accounts. Brief facts as stated in the plaint are as under:- 2.The case of the plaintiffs as averred in the plaint is that the plaintiff is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1958, having its registered office at Madurai. It is further averred in the plaint that plaintiff is one of the leading manufactures in India of Oil Seals and sealing rings, rings made of rubbers, synthetic or plastic, for sealing purposes, auto belts, V Belts and other transmission belts, in particular, raw edge cogged auto power transmission belts adopted by the plaintiff since 1983 and from the said date has been continuously and regularly using the mark in respect of all kinds of products of its manufacture with or without the house mark 'FENNER'. It ...

Ti Diamond ChaIn Ltd. Vs. Mr. Santhokh Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 110(2004)DLT817; 2004(74)DRJ302; 2004(28)PTC400(Del)

H.R. Malhotra, J.1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiff seeking a decree for perpetual injunction against the defendant for infringement of their trade mark, copyright and also seeking a decree for passing off and rendition of accounts. Brief facts as set out in the plaint are that the plaintiff company is one of the leading, pioneer and well reputed manufacturers of chains, land sprocket used in the Motorcycles, Mopeds under the trade mark Diamond/Diamond Super . According to the plaintiff, their products are well-known for their quality not only in the domestic market but they are also exporting their product outside India. The plaintiffs are stated to be the registered proprietors of the trade mark 'Diamond' registered in Class 12 as of 2nd June,1942 in respect of chains. The registration have been duly renewed from time to time and they are still valid and subsisting. It is further the case of the plaintiff that their company is not only the registered proprietor of the trade m...

Fore School of Management Vs. Ashu Mittal

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Mahesh Chandra, Member: 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) against the order dated 11.8.1999 passed by District Forum (South), in Complaint Case No. 2059/1996 entitled Shri Ashu Mittal v. Fore School of Management. The facts of the case relevant for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: Respondent Shri Ashu Mittal sought admission to the Post Graduate Diploma in Business Management (PGDBM-Full Time) Wave V in the appellant institute and deposited fee of Rs. 39,500/-. In the meanwhile, the respondent was also admitted in K.J. Somaiya Institute of Management Studies and Research, Bombay and he decided to joint the other institute and deposited fee there. Subsequently, the respondent on 19.6.1996 requested the appellant to refund the deposited fee. However, the appellant refused to refund the fee and stated that fee once deposited cannot be refunded as per terms of the brochure given t...