Delhi Court May 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.
Hotline Cpt Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC187
1. This is an appeal at the instance of the assessee challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise/ Indore, dated 29-8-2003. Under the above order the Commissioner has upheld the demand of duty against the appellant to the extent of Rs. 3,79,96,012/- under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and imposed an equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act and Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of colour picture tubes (CPTs for short) at their factory at Malanpur, District Bhind (MP). The CPTs so manufactured by the appellants are supplied to various colour TV manufacturers on payment of appropriate central excise duty.Sometimes buyers noticed defects in CPTs at the time of assembly of the TV. On receipt of complaint, appellants' engineers would go to the factory of the buyers and repair the same. Those CPTs which could not be repaired at the factory of the buyer were brought to the...
Acme Pharmaceuticals and Icom Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC321
1. This appeal is referred for consideration by a Larger Bench for the reason that there are two conflicting views expressed by this Tribunal on the issue raised herein. After hearing both sides and going into the facts of the case in detail, it came out that the issue relating to which there are conflicting decision of this Tribunal as such does not arise in this appeal.2. In the orders impugned the Commissioner (Appeals) took the view that even when the assessee sold the product at a price below the maximum price fixed under Drug Prices Control Order (DPCO, for short), 1995 for the purpose of computing the assessable value of the drugs under Section 4 of Central Excise Act the maximum price fixed under DPCO has to be taken as the normal price.3. We find that the products in respect of which demand is made as duty short levied are not bulk drugs. They are formulation of drugs. This factual position is not disputed by the Revenue before us. It is further seen that the maximum price fi...
Girnar Impex Ltd. and Siri Amar Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC539
2. Appellant filed these appeals against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs whereby the Commissioner of Customs extended the period of six months under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act.3. The appellants contested the impugned order on the ground that they had received the show cause notice on 7.4.04 and in the show cause notice three days time was given to file reply and personal hearing was fixed on 8.4.04. On 8.4.04 the appellants sent a telegram asking for time for filing reply. The impugned order was passed on 8.4.04. In these circumstances, the contention of the appellants is that the impugned order is passed ex-parte.4. The appellants are only contesting the order on the ground that the order is passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants. Admittedly, the show cause notice was issued on 6.4.2004 which was received by the appellants on 7.4.2004. The show cause notice was issued from ICD, Tughlakabad, Delhi and the appellants are situated at ...
S.G. International (P) Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC235
1. M/s. S.G. International (P) Ltd. have filed the present appeal as the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) has rejected their request for provisional release of the goods under the impugned Order.2. Shri Sudhir Kumar Mehta, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants, an Export Oriented Unit at Special Economic Zone, Falta, manufacture and export leather goods and leather items of various kinds; that they also procure goods from the Domestic Tariff Area and export the same; that on 15.1.2003 their representative Shri N.K.Maitra received a phone call from Mr. Farid Jamal of M/s. S.N.M.Clearing Agency who informed that two containers belonging to the Appellants have been seized at the Customs Port; that as they had not authorized M/s. S.N.M. Clearing Agency for export nor had filed any Shipping Bill they were astonished to receive the information; that during the course of search of residential and official premises they came to know that search was effected in respect of goods s...
Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT405TriDel
2. Appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-appeal where refund filed by the appellants was rejected as time barred.3. The contention of the appellants is that the issue in respect of repair of transformers is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court where the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed vide order dated 20-7-2000 [2003 (155) E.L.T. A235 (S.C.)] in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. S.D.O. Coil, Fabrication and while dismissing the appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the judgment of CEGAT is confirmed, therefore, some refund may be due to the respondents but whether this is to be paid or not, it will depend upon the applicability of the principle of unjust enrichment.4. The contention of the appellants is that as the Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically observed that the refund is to be decided while keeping in view the principles of unjust enrichment, now Revenue cannot reject the claim on the ground of time bar.5. The contention of the Revenue is that the refund...
Sharika International Vs. Cc, (Aircargo)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC648
1. This is an application by M/s. Sharika International for waiver of condonation of delay of 1073 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.2. Shri From Ranjan, learned Advocate, submitted that an advance licence dated 16.2.94 was issued to them having a validity period of 12 months and port of registration at Mumbai; that they applied for change of port of registration from Mumbai to New Delhi and the same was accordingly registered with New Delhi Customs for the purpose of monitoring; that they did not utilise the said licence in full but fulfilled the entire obligations undertaken for availing of the duty-free imports; that they also submitted a certificate from the Range Superintendent regarding non-availment of input stage credit; that the DGFT had also discharged the applicants vide letter dated 14.2.97; that all of a sudden they received a show cause notice dated 26.10.98 from the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai alleging contravention of provisions of Section 111 (o) of th...
Supriya Pharma Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC417
1. This appeal M/s Supriya Pharma Ltd. relates to denial of Modvat credit taken in respect of inputs used in the processing of bulk drugs on job work basis. The appellant receives processing contracts from pharmaceutical companies for processing of inputs supplied by them into bulk drugs. While the main inputs are supplied to the appellant, it also purchases and adds some of the inputs. In respect of the inputs supplied, credit of duty is taken by the supplier and is retained with him for use in the payment of duty on medicines manufactured for the bulk drugs. The appellant takes Modvat credit for the inputs purchased by it and uses that credit of payment of duty on other products manufacture by it. Under the impugned orders, the lower authorities held that the appellant was not entitled to take Modvat credit on the inputs purchases by it inasmuch as the bulk drugs purchased from them were cleared without payment of duty under Notification No. 214/86.Another ground for denying Modvat ...
B.K. Kalra Vs. Punjab National Bank
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-12-2004
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT565; 2004(74)DRJ669; (2005)ILLJ205Del; 2005(1)SLJ136(Delhi)
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioner prays that charge-sheet dated 20.11.2000 be quashed. The charge-sheet reads as under:-'It has been alleged against you that while being posted at BO, Rani Bagh, Delhi as Spl. Asstt., you engaged yourself in doing business outside the scope of your duties and engaged in the business of heavy speculative transactions of stocks and shares through various share brokers. To quote: during the period from June 1992 to March 1998, you purchased and sold the following shares through M.Rohan Securities:-(Thereafter price of the shares transacted and the dates on which transactions were effected have been listed out at Seriall No.1 to 134)Besides these, you also indulged in speculative transactions in stocks shares in the name of the following persons :- 1. Shri Inder Gujral, C/o Shri B.K.Kalra2. Shri Manmohan, C/o Shri B.K.Kalra3. Shri Sudhir Kumar, C/o Shri B.K.Kalra4. Meera Devi, C/o Shri B.K.Kalra Your above acts constitute gross misconduct in terms of Para ...
Har Prasad Arya Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-12-2004
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT539; 2004(74)DRJ656; [2004(102)FLR333]; 2005(1)SLJ89(Delhi)
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioner prays that respondent No.2 i.e. the National Productivity Council be directed to pay to him wages in the scale of Rs.1640-2900 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 w.e.f. 1.12.1996. Basis for the said claim is that for the post held by the petitioner i.e. 'Projectionist' under Doordarshan, Akashwani, Songs and Broadcasting division of Government of India said pay scales were being followed.2. Petitioner was employed as a staff car driver under respondent No.2. On 30.12.1996 he was promoted on officiating basis to the post of Projectionist. His pay was fixed in the scale of Rs.1200-2040. On 21.1.1998 petitioners services were confirmed as a Projectionist w.e.f. 31.12.1997 in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040.3. At the time petitioner was appointed as a Projectionist under the respondent Projectionists in Doordarshan, Akashwani Drama and Song Department of Ministry of Broadcasting were getting wages in the scale of Rs.1640-2900 w.e.f. 1.1.19...
Syncom Formulations (India) Ltd. Vs. Sas Pharmaceuticals
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-12-2004
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT616; 2004(74)DRJ682; 2004(28)PTC632(Del)
Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. The Appellant is dissatisfied with an order dated 24th February, 2004 whereby an application filed by the Respondent for grant of an injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC was allowed and an application filed by the Appellant under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC was dismissed.2. The Respondent says that it is a partnership firm carrying on business since 1990 in the name of SAS Pharmaceuticals. It manufactures and markets various medicinal and ayurvedic preparations, one of them being REGULIN. It is the registered proprietor of its carton REGULIN and REGULIN FORTE under the provisions of the Copyright Act. This design was conceived in 1990 and in the carton the word REGULIN and REGULIN FORTE have been in use for a long time. The trademark REGULIN has a unique get up, design, placement of words, colour scheme etc. It has a high degree of recognition, reputation and goodwill and sales of this ayurvedic medicine runs into lakhs of rupees. It is a medicin...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »