Delhi Court March 2004 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.
Oleofine Organics (India) Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2004
Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT98TriDel
1. Heard both sides. The applicants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 18-2-2003 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Nhava Sheva, Mumbai-II.2. The appellants made import of Erucic Acid from Germany. They declared the price at the US $ 1375 PMT. The Customs authorities rejected the price declared by the importer and enhanced to US $ 1480 PMT on the ground that appellant earlier imported the same goods form the same manufacturer at this price.3. The contention of the appellant is that earlier they had imported only 108 MTs. of the acid whereas the present consignment is part of contract which is for 216 MTs. and the appellants produced certificate from the overseas manufacturer to the effect that in view of higher quantity and reduction in the price of raw material the goods were sold at the rate of US $ 1375 PMT.4. The contention of the appellant is that there is no other evidence on record to show that import price of the goods in question is higher than ...
Nirma Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2004
Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC671
1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Detergent Cakes, Detergent Powder, Toilet Soaps etc. and are availing benefit of Cenvat credit on inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of their final products. Soda ash is one of their inputs. In the year 1998, the appellants imported 4750 MTs of soda ash through Mumbai port. Bill of Entry No. 1800 dated 25.6.98, which was filed for clearance of the goods for home consumption, was assessed provisionally by Mumbai Customs and accordingly the duties of Customs including CVD were paid on 17.7.98. The consignment was split into three parts, which were directly delivered from the dockyard to three factories of the appellant company, one at Mandali (Gujarat), another one at Kanpur (U.P.), and the third one at Pithampur (M.P.). In the Pithampur unit, Modvat credit of CVD of Rs. 17,43,596 on a quantity of 1584 MTs of soda ash was taken by the appellants on 22.8.98 on the basis of a certified copy of triplicate copy of the Bill of...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Siddharth Tubes Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2004
Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC83
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by Revenue, is whether a second show cause notice for demanding Central Excise duty can be issued to an assessee on gathering additional 2. Mrs. Charul Baranwal, learned SDR, submitted that M/s. Siddharth Tubes Ltd., manufacture M.S. Black Pipes and Galvanised M.S. Pipes; that in the price list filed by them, they had claimed deductions on account of post removal expenses (PRE in short) and sought permission for provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules; that a show cause notice, dated 24-12-1997 was issued to them for denying the permission for provisional assessment and for recovering the duty on account of PRE for the month of November, 1997; that subsequently five more show cause notices were issued for demanding duty on account of PRE for the period from December, 1997 to 14-3-1999; that the Assistant Commissioner adjudicated three show cause notices under a common Order-in-Original Nos. 7-9/99/1A/AC, dated 29-149...
Colour Makers Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2004
Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC542
1. In this appeal, M/s. Colour Makers are challenging the demand of duty and penalty on the ground that they were engaged in dyeing the bleaching of grey cotton fabrics, both with the aid of power and without the aid of power.2. Shri R.P. Singh, learned Consultant, submitted that after intercepting a cycle rickshaw loaded with processed cotton fabrics, the central excise officers visited the factory premises of the appellants and found that two semi-automatic jiggers and two hand operated jiggers were installed in the factory for processing fabrics; that after investigation, the Additional Commissioner confirmed the demand of central excise duty for the period from 12.8.98 to 22.6.99; that on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) had held that they had started processing of fabrics with the aid of power only w.e.f. 6.6.99 and the demand would be payable only from that date onwards; that both the Revenue and the appellants came in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal; that in the appeal, ...
S.P. Tools and Processors Pvt. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2004
Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC492
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. S.P. Tools & Processors Pvt. Ltd., is whether the goods manufactured by them are bearing the brand name belonging to another person and consequently making them ineligible for the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-CE dated 1.3.86.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture excisable goods falling under Chapter Nos. 82 and 84 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that the duty had been confirmed against them on the ground that they were affixing brand name/monogram "D" on their product, which belongs to M/s. Dewas Tools Pvt. Ltd. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that the appellant is one of the seven companies belonging to DEE TEE Group; that all these companies manufacture different products; that none of the companies of the group manufacture the products which are manufactured by the appellants; that with a view to give an identity to the group, it was decided to denote t...
Veena Duggal Vs. H.S. Vedi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2004
Reported in: 2004(1)ARBLR590(Delhi); 110(2004)DLT747; 2004(74)DRJ54; (2004)137PLR1
Mukundakam Sharma, J. 1. By this order I propose to dispose of application filed by the defendant No.1 which is registered as is No.8678/2002 filed under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC; application filed by the defendant No.1 which is registered as is No.8677/2002 filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC; and also application filed by the defendant No.2 which is registered as is No.8584/2002 filed under Section 151 CPC.2. The plaintiff herein filed a suit seeking for rendition of accounts / settlement of the claim of the plaintiff, which was registered as Suit No.2079/1986. In the said suit an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act was preferred by the defendants. The plaintiff also filed two petitions under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, which were registered as Suit Nos.2312-A/1986 and 2313-A/1986. All the aforesaid suits were directed to be listed together. On 4.12.1998, the following issues were framed in suit No.2312-A/1986:1. Whether this Court has no...
Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals Vs. Intas Pharmaceuticals and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2004
Reported in: 110(2004)DLT732; 2004(74)DRJ407; 2004(28)PTC456(Del)
Mukundakam Sharma, J. 1. This order shall dispose of the application registered as I.A.4626/2002, which is filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for grant of a temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants restraining passing off of the goods of the defendants as that of the plaintiff under the trademark LIPICOR.2.The plaintiff herein adopted the trademark LIPITOR for a pharmaceutical product containing aforevastating calcium which is a synthetic lipid lowering agent and an important medicine for the treatment of cardio-vascular diseases especially for reducing cholestrol. The aforesaid trademark of the plaintiff is registered in several countries. The plaintiff is not so far in the Indian market with the aforesaid drug. It is, however, stated that although the plaintiff has not commenced marketing and selling its product LIPITOR in India yet by virtue of extensive use of the said drug under the trademark LI...
Smt. Sushma Rani and ors. Vs. Sh. Sushil Kumar Dua and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2004
Reported in: 2005ACJ318; 114(2004)DLT418
A.K. Sikri, J.1. This appeal is filed by the appellants who are four in number. Appellant No.1 is the widow of Sh. Ajit Kumar Sharma (hereinafter referred to as `the deceased') and appellants 2 to 4 are his children. The mother of the deceased was also arrayed as respondent No.5 before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (for short `the Tribunal'). However, she died on 13th December, 1985 and as the appellants 1 to 4 were her legal representatives and already on record, her name was deleted from the array of parties by the Tribunal.2.The cause of filing the petition before the Tribunal was the death of Sh. Ajit Kumar Sharma as a result of accident caused by car No.DIB-2391 on 8th March, 1985 which was driven by Sh. Sushil Kumar Dua, respondent No.1. This car was insured with respondent No.2, M/s New India Assurance Company Ltd. Sh. Sharma died on account of injuries on 11th March, 1985. The deceased was aged about 42 years and was working as a teacher in Lions Vidya Mandir, Kashmir Hous...
Ashok Jaia Vs. State (Cbi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2004
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT734; 2004(77)DRJ357
ORDERR.S. Sodhi, J. 1. This petition has been filed seeking to quash Complaint No. 58/1 of 1998 titled 'Supreme Court of India v. Milap Chand Jagotra' under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code').2. The petitioner has taken various grounds in his petition but has confined his arguments only to the question that the Supreme Court of India had committed an error in directing the filing of complaint by Registrar General of the Supreme Court and as such the complaint was not legally maintainable inasmuch as Section 340(3) of the Code provides how the complaint is to be made under Section 195 of the Code and who is competent to sign the same. Clause (a) of Sub-section (3) of Section 340 of the Code provides that on an application made under Section 340 of the Code for filling a complaint under Section 195(1)(b) of the Code, the complaint is required to be made and the same has to be signed. Clause (a) of Section 340(3) of the Code provides that in case a compla...
Cce Vs. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-2004
Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC291
1. In this appeal, filed by the Revenue, the issue involved is whether the extracts of various herbs & shrubs manufactured by M/s. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd, are leviable to Central Excise duty.2. Shri Vikash Kumar, learned SDR, submitted that the Commissioner under the impugned Order has dropped the proceedings initiated against the Respondents under show cause notice dated 28.7.94 on the ground that vegetable extracts are not marketable and hence not goods; that even if the impugned vegetable extracts are held to be marketable they would be classified as Ayurvedic medicaments under Sub-heading 3003.30 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act which attracted exemption from payment of duty during the relevant period; that the Commissioner had also relied upon the Board's Circular No, 334/50/97-CX dated 16.9.97 wherein it was clarified that liquid vegetable extracts unless subjected to fermentation or other preservative process are not liable to be considered good...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »