Delhi Court December 2005 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Model Exims

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) revenue has challenged the same. We have heard the learned SDR and gone through the impugned order. For better appreciation, we reproduce the relevant paragraph of the Commissioner (Appeals) order: I have carefully gone through the grounds of appeal, the impugned Order-in-Original, relevant & governing case laws and records of personal hearing held on 20-1-04, In this regard, I observe that the appellants preferred this appeal on the ground that the duty charged on the value of spare parts & reconditioning charges may be waived off and requested to set aside the said Order-in-Original, On going through the impugned Order-in-Original, I find that the subject matter is of addition of value of spare parts only. There is no discussion of duty charged on the value of reconditioning charges in the impugned order. Since the appeal is preferred against the Order-in-Original No. 1/03 dated 6-1-2003 passed by the Joi...

Domebell Investment Pvt. Ltd., Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. All these appeals are directed against the same impugned order.Accordingly, they were taken up together and are being disposed of under this common order.2. Appellant, M/s Domebell Investment Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Venugopal Engineering Pvt. Ltd. are manufacturers of colour television sets.These television sets are sold to the third appellant, M/s Videocon International Ltd. Under the impugned order there are duty demands and penalties on the two manufacturers and penalty on M/s Videocon International Ltd. 3. The case has arisen out of a dispute on the excise valuation of the TV sets manufactured and sold to M/s Videocon International Ltd. Parties are not disputing that they are related persons as contemplated in law, and therefore, the sale value of the manufacturing company to M/s Videocon International Ltd. cannot constitute the assessable value for the purpose of levying central excise duty. Duty is required to be levied on the sale price of the related person (M/s Videocon Internat...

J.J. Packagers (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 17-2-2004 wherein confiscation of the finished goods and raw material have been upheld with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine and penalty was also imposed on the appellants.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants' factory was visited by the officers of the Central Excise department on 9-9-2002 and they found the stock of finished goods as well as HDPE granules i.e. inputs in excess of the recorded balance in their statutory records. The officers seized the excess goods and a show cause notice was issued asking them to show as to why these goods should not be confiscated and penalty be not imposed on them. The appellants contested the show cause notice. The adjudicating authority in his order-in-original dated 29-8-2003 confiscated the excess goods found with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine and also imposed a penalty on the appellants. On a...

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Reed Medway Packaging Co. of India

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Revenue has filed the present appeals. No body is present on behalf of the Respondents. Accordingly we have heard Shri S.N. Prasad Senior Departmental Representative and have gone through the impugned order.2. During the period relevant for the purpose of the present appeals respondents were manufacturing various parts of Sewing machines other than Sewing head and were clearing the same on payment of duty @ 16% under heading 8457.19. Proceedings were initiated against them for classifying the said part under heading 8452.90, which attracted Nil rate of duty and as a consequent denying the benefit of Modvat credit to their customers. Such proceedings culminate into an order passed by the original adjudicating authority holding that the said parts mere properly classifiable under heading 8452.90 and the respondents have wrongly paid duty on the same, which were not admissible for further Cenvat credit to their custom...

Cce Vs. T.P.S. Ahluwalia, Partner and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These appeals are directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 16.1.2004 wherein the Appellate Authority has set aside the Order-in-Original dated 15.4.2002 which disallowed the Modvat Credit and imposed penalty both on the Appellants and the partner of the appellant company.2. The issue involved in this case is that the appellants have been denied Modvat Credit on the ground that they have availed non-eligible Modvat Credit on G.P. Sheets which were procured by them and was not used by them in their factory. The appellants are manufacturers of O.E.parts and it is the allegation of the department that these parts cannot be manufactured with the help of G.P. Sheets. Statements of partner, the appellants and also the purchaser of O.E. parts were recorded. The purchaser confirmed that they purchase the parts made out of H.R./C.R. sheets. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants for denying the Modvat Credit in 2001 for the period of Credit availed in October, 1996 to March, 1998. Th...

Punjab Communication Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 28-1-2004 wherein the appellants' appeal against rejection of refund claim was allowed partly and rejected partly.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are the appellants cleared consignment of C DOT RSU exchange equipment to M/s. BSNL. The appellants by mistake raised the invoice on higher amount of assessable value and paid duty on such higher assessable value. On realizing their mistake, that, that they had added the value of bought out items in the assessable value the appellants issued the revised invoice showing correct amount of duty payable. The said invoice was issued to BSNL.Having paid the excess amount of duty the appellants filed a refund claim. The show cause notice was issued to the appellants seeking to reject their refund claim on the ground of unjust enrichment. The appellants contested the show cause notice and gave evidence against the unjust enrichment. The Adjudicating Authority in his Orde...

Basti Sugar Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. We have heard both the sides. The learned Counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention to the Technical and Financial Services Agreement made on 28-9-2001. Running through the several clauses, we noticed basically the applicants have been approached by M/s. Indo Gulf Industries to run the factory with their management expertise and resources as per the terms contained in the said agreement. The learned authorised representative of the department draws our attention to the clarification contained in the CBEC Circular dated 27-6-2001 according to which the term management is generally understood to mean running the affairs of an organisation in an organised and systematic manner.To be able to do this efficiently and effectively, management typically involves carrying out a host of activities, functions and tasks and at different levels. Thus management encompasses both strategic and operational level functioning and would include tasks such as planning, organising, staffing, dir...

Shanker Lal Somani Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. On 13-1-95, the Customs officers of Varanasi on the basis of specific information intercepted 450 Kgs. of foreign origin cloves at the premises of M/s. Banaras Roadways Transport, Varanasi booked by M/s. Rajasthan Corporation, Varanasi to Shri Ratan Lal and Shri Suresh Kumar of Allahabad under the description as "Kali Til". The consignment was seized for action under the provisions of Customs Act. In the follow-up action, the officers recovered small cardamom, cloves, Javitri, Badam, Dalchini and Chiraungi of foreign origin valued at Rs. 1 Lakhs on the ground that Shri Shanker Lal, Proprietor of M/s.Rajasthan Corporation could not produce any documents for the illicit importation of the said goods. The case was adjudicated by the Dy.Commissioner of Customs, who ordered for absolute confiscation of 450 Kgs. of cloves of foreign origin. He also confiscated 66 Kgs. of cloves, 163 Kgs. of small cardamom, 26 Kgs. of Javitri, 12 Kgs. of Badam, 20 Kgs. of Dalchini and 129 Kgs. of Chiraunj...

H.L. Papers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC454

1. Since proper prayer was not made in the stay application, the Misc.application has been filed, requesting for waiver of condition of pre-deposit and, therefore, we have made this common order in both these applications, in which the applicant has prayed for waiver of pre-deposit of the amount payable under the impugned order.2. By the order in original, the Deputy Commissioner has confirmed the demand of Rs. 3,76,377/- as service tax payable on the commission amounting to Rs. 75,27,543/- received by the applicants during the year 2001-2002, in lieu of services provided by the applicants and penalty of Rs. 200/- per day under Section 76 from 25.7.2001, besides other penalties as mentioned in the order. According to the revenue, the appellants had rendered services as clearing and forwarding agents. In the appeal preferred against order-in-original, the Commissioner (Appeals) relying upon the decision of this Tribunal in Prabhat Zarda Factory (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner confirmed th...

Pfizer Products Inc. Vs. Mr. Altamash Khan and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 127(2006)DLT738; 2006(32)PTC208(Del)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This order shall dispose of I.A. No. 6678/05 and I.A. 9942/05. In the former application the plaintiff has sought ad interim ex parte injunction restraining the Defendant No. 1 from using the Plaintiff's trademark 'VIAGRA' as also ad interim ex parte injunction restraining the Defendant No. 1 from selling, alienating, transferring to any third party the domain name 'viagra.in' and the URL 'www.viagra.in' as well as ad interim ex parte injunction restraining defendant No. 2 from permitting / accepting such sale, transfer or alienation by the defendant No. 1. The latter application filed by the plaintiff carries the prayer that the Defendant No. 2 be directed to transfer the domain name 'viagra.in' to the plaintiff during the pendency of this suit subject to the condition that in the event the suit is decided against the plaintiff and in favor of the Defendants, the plaintiff would forthwith take all steps to retransfer the domain name 'viagra.in' to the Defendan...