Delhi Court August 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.
M.J. International Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-2004
Reported in: 2006(197)ELT164(Del)
ORDERSanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. Learned Counsel for the respondent accepts notice of rule.2. The matter is taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.3. The petitioner imported cloves in March 2004 and samples were drawn by the Food inspector on 30.3.2004. However, samples were sent to the Public Analyst on 30.4.2004. The sample failed on account of the fact that the Organic extraneous matter was found to the extent of 5.03% as against permissible maximum limit of 2%. The grievance of the petitioner is that firstly the samples have been drawn only from 24 bags out of 240 bags and that the extraneous material comes as a consequence of the cloves plucked from the trees. The second contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the samples were sent only on 30.4.2004 after a lapse of one month to Central Food Laboratory (CFL) while requirement of Section 11(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, is of sending the sample to the Pub...
Usha India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-2004
Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT152TriDel
2. Appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The demand is confirmed on the ground that appellants cleared the Waste Scrap of Copper more than the waste allowed by the Competent Authority.3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of transistors and on the request filed by the appellants, waste norms was fixed by the Proper authority under the Ministry of Industries. According to the permission the wastage in respect of inputs, Copper dust and Bottom lead, is 52.5% of inputs. In respect of the Epoxy, the wastage of 59.7% of inputs is allowed.4. The contention of the appellants is that the wastage which is not disputed, also contains some soldering elements, which is of nickle and this fact is not disputed by the Adjudicating authority. Even on verification, it was found that some solder contents were coated on the Bottom length of the copper. The contention is that, before the Adjudicating Authority, the appellants specificall...
Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. Hod Laboratories Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-2004
Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT458TriDel
1. Respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of Patent & Proprietary (P&P) Medicaments namely Synotil tablet, Synotil syrup and Zycof syrup and availed SSI benefit under Notification 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-93 as amended by using their own brand name on the goods and also affixed logo of M/s. Teblik Drugs Pvt. Ltd. as promoter of the goods.They claimed that the logo of the promoter is not a brand name or trade name and hence does not come under the definition of Para 4 of Notification 1/93. The adjudicating authority held that the logo of Teblik Drugs indicated connection in the course of trade between such medicines and Teblik Drugs Private Ltd. and therefore denied the benefit under the exemption notification. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order holding that the benefit of notification was available in the light of the Tribunals order in CCE, Mumbai v. Ark Laboratories reported in 2003 (106) ECR 501 and the Apex Court decision in Astra Pharmaceu...
Barbour Vardhman Thread Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-2004
Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC293
1. The issues, involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Barbour Vardhman Thread Ltd., are whether the appellants and M/s. Barbour Campbell Group Limited, who have supplied the imported goods, are related persons and whether Rs. 30 lakh, paid by them for technical know-how, has to be included in the assessable value of the goods imported by them.2. Shri Balbir Singh, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellant Company is outcome of joint venture between M/s. Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd. and M/s. Barbour Campbell Group Ltd.; that in appellant Company, both M/s. Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd. and M/s. Barbour Campbell Group Ltd. have equal holding of 50% each; that the appellant Company has been formed for carrying out manufacture of sewing thread, twines and braids; that the appellants have imported some dyeing machines from M/s. Barbour; that the Revenue has treated the appellants and M/s.Barbour Campbell Group Ltd. as related persons in terms of Rule 2(2)(iv) of Customs Valuation (Determi...
Twenty First Century Builders Vs. Commissioner of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-2004
Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT459TriDel
1. The issue for determination in the above appeal is the eligibility of goods declared in the Bill of Entry as "casing, terminal, stickers, PCM (Protection Circuit Module)" to the benefit of nil rate of duty under Customs Tariff Heading 8529.90 by extending the benefit of Serial No. 320 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. The benefit has been denied by the authorities below on the ground that the imported goods were parts of "Mobile/Cellular Phone battery pack" while serial number 320 covers parts, components and accessories of Mobile handsets including cellular phone falling under Chapter Heading 8529.90 or any Chapter.2. We have heard both sides. We find that goods in question are parts/components of cell phone battery and not parts, components and accessories of Mobile handset. Therefore, benefit has been rightly denied to the importer. The goods have also been correctly classified under Customs Tariff sub-heading 8506.90 as parts of re-chargeable battery. The benefit under serial No...
Bund and Cones Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-28-2004
Reported in: (2005)(124)LC371Tri(Delhi)
1. The common issue involved in these 4 appeals arising out of 2 Ordert-in-Appeal is whether M/s. Buns 8s Cones Pvt. Ltd. and Sunny Deserts Pvt. Ltd. are engaged in the manufacturing of Ice-cream falling under Heading 21.05 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.2. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate, mentioned that M/s. Buns & Cones Pvt. Ltd. are engaged in the business of selling ice-cream of the brand "Baskin Robbins" purchased from M/s. Maharashtra Dairy Products manufacturing Co. Ltd., Pune; that from 1.4.1999 the second Appellants M/s. Sunny Deserts Pvt. Ltd. have taken over the operation from Buns 8s Cones; that the ice-cream manufactured by M/s. Maharashtra Dairy Products Manufacturing Co. are packed in 4 litres capacity cardboard cartons; that the Appellants sold these ice-cream to their customers in cups in the required quantity and also sold Sundae, Shakes and Blasts made out of these ice-creams and blending it in a mixture; that show cause notices were iss...
Coromandel Bathware Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2004
Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC365
1. Heard both sides. Appellant filed this appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs. The appellant made import of certain capital goods and filed a Bill of Entry. The customs authorities loaded the price declared by the appellant holding that the technical know-how and licence fee of Rs. 25 Lakhs, mentioned in the foreign collaboration agreement, shall be added to the transaction value as per Rule 9(1)(c) of Customs and Valuation Rules, 1988.2. The contention of the appellant is that as per the agreement the amount of Rs. 25 Lakhs is consideration money to carry on the business in India and sale of the products in India. The agreement was entered intowith Stylus Industries for the manufacture of Acrylic Bath Ware, and in the agreement there was no Clause that the capital goods shall be purchased from M/s. Stylus Industries. The appellant were at liberty to purchase the capital goods from any manufacturer. The agreement is regarding supply of technical docum...
Tide Water Oil Company (India) Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2004
Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT325TriDel
1. The applicants have through the present application sought the recall of the impugned final order dated 21-7-2003 [2003 (156) E.L.T.861 (Tri. - Del.)] by which their appeal filed against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the order in original, rejecting refund by way of recredit of the Modvat credit amount.2. The sole ground contended by the learned Counsel is that the case laws cited by the appellants at the time of hearing of the appeal had not been incorporated in the final order. The learned Counsel has placed reliance in support of his arguments, on the ratio of law laid down in the case of Laxmi Tobacco Co. v. CCE, Raipur [2000 (115) E.L.T.122] and West Coast Industrial Gases Ltd. v. CCE, Cochin [1998 (104) E.L.T. 478] wherein it has been observed that non-consideration of judicial precedent cited at the time of hearing of the appeal would amount to an error apparent on the face of record.3. On the other hand, the learned SDR has argued that ...
Ranbaxy Laboratories P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2004
Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT474TriDel
1. These appeals arising out of the same adjudication order were taken up together for consideration and are disposed of under this common order.2. Both the appellants are limited companies. The dispute is in relation to certain medicines manufactured by the appellant M/s.Ranbaxy Laboratories for the other appellant. The impugned order has proceeded to treat the two companies as related persons and has held that the medicines manufactured by M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories and transferred to the other appellant should be assessed at the value at which the appellant sold those medicines as a consequence of treating the two parties as related persons. Penalties have also been imposed.3. We have perused the records and heard both sides. The submission of the appellants is that the impugned order is contrary to the well settled legal principle that limited companies cannot be treated as related parties. It is also being pointed out that manufacture was in terms of specific agreement and the ter...
Hind Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2004
Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC612
1. In this appeal which has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order in original, the issue relates to excisability and duty liability of products namely Meat, Tallow/Tallow Waste, Bone and Soft, St. and Int/Head and Hooves/Brain/Neck, Hides manufactured by the appellant. The adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand in respect of these products against the appellants for the period 1-4-1999 to 2-10-2000 of Rs. 49,51,979/- with penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs by denying them the benefit of Notification No. 8/97-C.E., dated 9-3-1997 and applying the subsequent Notification No. 13/98, dated 2-6-1998.2. We have heard both the sides and gone through the record. The appellants are 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of fresh and frozen meat falling under Chapter Heading 0201. During the course of manufacture of these goods, the above detailed products also come into existence. These are infact by -products classifiable under different chapter headings of the CETA as detailed in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »