Delhi Court December 2005 Judgments

Cce Vs. Vema Metal and Conductor Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicant has requested for condonation of delay of 176 days in filing the appeal.3. The applicant-Commissioner has pointed out in his application that the Bhopal Commissionerate remained under the additional charge of Commissioner, Indore and Commissioner, Raipur and due to administrative difficulty, they could not scrutinize the large number of appeals which were decided during the period from August, 2004 to February, 2005 and this has caused delay in filing the appeal. The reason given by the Commissioner appears to be valid. No opposition is there for condoning delay. Therefore, delay in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons given in the COD application. The appeal will come up for hearing in its turn (Dictated and pronounced in open court)....

Talforge Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This application for restoration of appeal is filed on the ground that the appellants were directed to pre-deposit the entire amount of duty and to report compliance on 22.2.05. They had complied with that order and the deposited entire amount of duty confirmed and also penalty on 10.1.05. However, on 22.2.05 there was no sitting of the Single Member and, therefore, they could not report compliance and the next date was 26.4.05 and the appeal was dismissed. They were not intimated the date of posting of the appeal for compliance. Since they have already deposited the entire disputed amount, it was prayed that the appeal may be restored.2. Since the order of pre-deposit was complied within time, the order of dismissal of the appeal is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number. The appeal will come up for hearing in due course....

Cce Vs. Rishabh Valveleen Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Department has filed both the appeals against the order-in-appeal dated 24.12.2003 wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the appeals of the respondents in respect of the refund of the duty.2. The relevant facts for my consideration are : the respondents had cleared the goods to their customers on payment of duty, but subsequently, it was found by them that there was an excess payment of duty due to excess billing, over and above the agreed price. The appellants raised credit note to the customers after the clearance of the goods and sought the refund claim from the authorities. The authorities issued a show cause notice for rejection of the refund claim on the ground that once an invoice is prepared and the duty liability has been determined, the subsequent credit note should not be material to grant the refund claim. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim and on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals of the respondents by granting them co...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Mankodi Enterprises

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is filed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal against the impugned order dropping the penalty imposed on the respondent under Sections 75A, 76,77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.2. The respondent M/s. Mankodi Enterprises, Jabalpur are Clearing and Forwarding Agent of M/s. Exide Industries Ltd. since 1998 and they were liable to pay tax from 1-9-1999 onwards and filed ST-3 return. The respondent took registration of service tax in October, 2003 and filed service tax return. Show cause notice was issued to them demanding service tax and imposing penalty. Show cause notice was adjudicated by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise who demanded service tax and imposed various penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order upheld the levy and payment of service tax but he dropped the penalties imposed under Sections 75A, 76, 77 and 78 on the ground that under Circular F. No. 137/39/2004-CX. 4, dated 23-9-2004, a new Voluntary Disclosure schemes for volunt...

Simplex Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This application for restoration of appeal and stay application has been filed on the ground that due to illness of Managing Director Mr.Kailash Bidasaria, request for adjournment of hearing of stay application was made but it could not be placed before the Bench and the order for dismissing the stay application was not contested and the order was passed for depositing the disputed amount. They were required to comply with this order and report compliance on 31.5.05. They did not report compliance and, accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.2. Now, it is pleaded that the application of stay as well as appeal may be restored. It was made clear to the learned counsel that stay application at this stage cannot be restored. They should comply with the condition of the stay order and then come up with the application for restoration of appeal. The learned advocate requests that eight week time may be given to him for compliance with the stay order.Accordingly, the applicants are given 8 ...

Raghuvar (India) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal whereby refund application was rejected.3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants were working under the Modvat Scheme and were taking credit in respect of duty paid on inputs, which are used in the manufacture of goods which were cleared on payment of duty. By Notification No. 16/96-CE dated 23.7.96, the final product manufactured by the appellant were exempted from payment of Central Excise duty. A show-cause notice was issued to the appellant for reversal of credit availed on the inputs which are lying in stock, contained in the goods under process and in the finished product lying in stock on 23.7.96 on the date the final product becomes exempted. In the show-cause notice, it was specifically mentioned that the appellants are liable to pay amount of Rs. 9,53,165/- by way of reversal of credit on the inputs which are lying stock, contained in the goods under process and in the final product lying in stock. ...

Systopic Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Palsons Drugs and Chemical Industries

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 126(2006)DLT631

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.IA No. 9863/2005 in CS(OS) No. 121/20041. This is an application under Order 23, Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. By way of this application which has been moved jointly by the plaintiff and the defendant, it is prayed that the agreement and undertaking arrived at between the parties be recorded and that decree be passed in terms of the compromise. It is further prayed that the permanent injunction, as prayed for, in paragraphs 20(a) and 20(b) of the plaint be decreed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant. It is also prayed that the plaintiff gives up the reliefs in paragraphs 20(c)(d)(e) and (f).2. The plaintiff is the proprietor of the trademark GENTOPIC. The defendant was selling products under the trademark GENTOP. However, now the plaintiff and the defendant have settled the matter as indicated in the application in paragraphs 1 to 6. The application be exhibited as Exhibit `C- 1'. Essentially, the defendant has...

Titan Industries Vs. NitIn P. JaIn and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 126(2006)DLT132; 2006(32)PTC95(Del)

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The defendants have moved this application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 106(1) of the Trade Marks and Merchandise Act, 1958 (for short `the Act') for rejection of the plaint. Before coming to the grounds on which the defendants want rejection of the plaint, I may state the case of the plaintiff in the suit.2. The plaintiff, Titan Industries Ltd., is a joint venture of Tata Group and the Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation (TIDCO). It was incorporated in the year 1987 and its activities include manufacture and marketing of watches, clocks and jewellery. It enjoys a 25% share of the total domestic market. The cause of filing the present suit is the manufacturing and marketing of watches by the defendants under the trade name SONA. It is alleged that the defendants have not only adopted a deceptively similar trade mark, but have also adopted a similar lay out and get up for the packaging and have copied the dials o...

Mahalingashetty and Co. Ltd. Vs. Npcc Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 126(2006)DLT142

Anil Kumar, J.1. This order will dispose of petitioner application under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for extension of time for making the award where the last arbitration proceedings had taken place from 27.12.1989 to 29.12.1989.2. Few brief facts to comprehend the controversy are that the contract of respondent No. 1 to carry out the work, namely, Irrigation and drainage project in Iraq was accepted by Ministry of Industry and Mineral of Republic of Iraq. The respondent No. 1/contractor was authorized to appoint two sub contractors, petitioner and M/s. Royal Construction Company who were appointed as sub contractors.3. That the agreement between the respondent No. 1 and the petitioner as a sub contractor had an arbitration clause. As disputes arose in respect of work negotiated between the petitioner and respondent No. 1, an arbitrator was appointed by respondent No. 1.4. Former Chief Justice of India, Mr. Justice P.N. Bhagwati (Retd.) was appointed as a sole arbitrator in...

Ajeet Kumar Vs. Management of Rail India Technical and Economic Servic ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006(108)FLR447]; (2006)ILLJ1035Del

Gita Mittal, J.1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner is impugning an Award dated April 25, 2001 whereby the Labour Court has answered the reference against the petitioner/workman. It appears that the petitioner was appointed as a field helper/gangman the management of the Rail India Technical & Economic Services Limited (now known as RITES). The petitioner has stated in his claim statement that he was appointed w.e.f. November 4, 1988 on casual basis while according to the respondents, the petitioner was effected on contractual and temporary basis w.e.f. November 4, 1988 to June 30, 1990 in its project known as the O & M Project and an appointment letter dated December 21,1989 was issued to the petitioner wherein these terms of appointment were mentioned. There is no dispute that the petitioner accepted the terms and conditions on which he was appointed and functioned as a field helper/gangman in terms thereof. The period of contract was extended from time-to-time which final...