Delhi Court February 2005 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. S.G. Lab

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT49TriDel

1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the respondents.The case was adjourned for today at the request of the respondents.Therefore, the appeals are being taken up in absence of the respondents. Revenue filed this appeal against the common order in appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise.2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Generic Medicines and P.P. Medicines. A show cause notice was issued to the respondents on the ground that even after crossing the limit under Small Scale Exemption Notification No.8/98-C.E., dated 2-6-98, the respondents continued to clear the goods without payment of duty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 1772632/- and penalty of the equal amount on M/s. S.G.Lab. The penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs was imposed on the partner of M/s. S.G.Lab.3. The present respondents filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) and vide impugned order the appeals were allowed on the ground th...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Spice Communication Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC444

1. Heard both sides. The revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant made import of certain goods and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 17/2001-Cus.The assessing authority disallowed the benefit of the notification and passed the assessment order. The present respondent had not filed any appeal against the assessment order and filed a refund claim in which the assessment order was challenged on the ground that they are entitled for the benefit of notification. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order allowed the appeal filed by the present respondent on the ground that the assessee can challenge the assessment order by filing a refund claim.3. The contention of the Revenue is that when the assessment order was not challenged, the assessee cannot challenge the assessment order by filing a refund claim and Revenue relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cas...

Laxmi Color Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC122

1. None for the appellants. No request for adjournment has been received. Therefore, I proceed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the learned JDR.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants are engaged in the business of developing and printing of photographs. They got themselves registered under the category of photography services and they were allotted number by the competent authority on 7.8.2001, but they failed to file any ST-3 Return, nor paid any service tax for providing service to the customers from 16.7.2001 to 31.3.2003. They collected Rs. 23,10,795 as service charges from the customers, but did not deposit the service tax leviable thereon. The adjudicating authority confirmed the service tax demand of Rs. 8,38,246 with interest under Section 75 of the Act and also imposed penalties under Sections 76 and 77 of the Act. The learned Commissioner has upheld the demand with interest, but set aside the penalties under Sections 76 & 77 of the Act. The Reve...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Modern Overseas

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT65TriDel

1. Revenue has filed this Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 279/2004, dated 13-10-2004 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the charges of misdeclaration and enhancement of value of the goods imported by M/s. Modern Overseas.2. Mrs. Krishna A. Mishra, learned Senior Departmental Representative, mentioned that the respondents filed Bills of Entry dated 21-7-2004 for clearance of "door locks" and "lock cylinders" and "lock accessories"; that the Additional Commissioner, under Order-in-Original No. 47/2004, dated 17-8-2004 confiscated the imported goods with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 3.50 lakhs, enhanced the value and imposed penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- on the ground that the goods declared by the respondents are nothing but cylindrical lock and NIDB data shows that cylindrical locks have been cleared at higher value; that, however, the Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned order, has set aside the Adjudication Order, holding that the imported g...

Swaraj Mazda Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides. The appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In this case the benefit of Modvat credit was denied to the appellant on the ground that inputs were directly sent to the job worker without receipt in their factory. The contention of the appellant is that they filed necessary intimation under Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules for sending the inputs for further processing to their job worker. The goods were received under the cover of invoice where the name of the appellant as well as the job worker is mentioned and the goods were directly received by the job worker and after due process, processed inputs were received in the factory of the appellant which was used in the manufacture of the final product which were cleared on payment of duty, therefore, the denial of credit is not sustainable. The appellant relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kinetic Honda Motor Ltd. v. CCE, Indore and theMarut...

Mira Gupta Vs. Dinesh Chand and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT481; 2005(80)DRJ328; (2005)141PLR33

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Applicants Satish Chand Gupta, Kishan Chand Gupta and Avinash Gupta, all sons of late Sh. Prem Chand have filed the present application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. praying for being imp leaded as defendants in the suit above captioned.2. Suit is for partition, rendition of accounts and perpetual injunction.3. Plaintiff as well as defendants No.1 to 3 in the suit as also the applicants claim to be related to late Lala Prem Chand. It is the admitted case of the parties that late Lala Prem Chand had two wives namely, Raj Dulari Devi and Satya Devi. Applicants are the sons born out of the wedlock of Lala Prem Chand with his second wife Satya Devi. Plaintiff, Mira Gupta is the second wife of Subhash Chand, son of late Lala Prem Chand born from his first wife Raj Dulari Devi. Defendant No.1 is the other son orn from Raj Dulari Devi to Lala Prem Chand. Defendant No.2 is the wife of defendant No.1. Defendant No.3 is the adopted daughter of late Subhash Chand.4. Pedigre...

Nahata Limited Vs. Raamraj Kala Mandir and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT430; 2005(80)DRJ642

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The present order disposes of the two captioned interim applications. is No.5899/2001 is the plaintiff's application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 seeking to restrain defendants No.1 and 2 from telecasting the film ''Ganga Jamuna Saraswati'' on the channel ''Star Plus'' by M/s. Star India Limited. is No.1192/2002 is the application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 filed by defendants No.1 praying for vacation of the ex-parte ad interim order dated 6.7.2001. Order dated 6.7.2001 reads as under:-''Notice, returnable on 24.7.2001.It is contended before me by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the defendants 1 and 2 had no right to sell and transfer the negatives or any right for exhibiting the film Ganga Jamna Saraswati to any person during the period of subsistence of the agreement specifically after 23.12.1998 and the complete right in the said film for exhibiting and telecasting vests in the plaintiff. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the pl...

Malhotra Tyre Service Company Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2005Delhi378; 117(2005)DLT625; 2005(80)DRJ337

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Petitioner by this writ petition seeks quashing of the impugned order No.1and/BIE/E/II-20/813 dated 29.11.1999 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Commissioner (Industry) determining the lease of Plot no.20, Phase II, Badli Industrial Estate, Delhi. Lease was determined on the ground that petitioner was not carrying out any manufacturing activity at the plot. This conclusion was on the basis of a report dated 10th August, 1999 of Estate Manager, Badli. The case of the petitioner, on the other hand, is that on account of industrial recession and financial difficulties, petitioner had not been able to carry out the industrial activity to its full extent and only light machining work was carried out. Petitioner disputed the factum of any alleged inspection, which admitted was not carried out in the presence of the petitioner or his representative. 3. The termination order had been challenged i...

Apeejay School Vs. Gopi Chand and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT521; 2005(80)DRJ353

Mukul Mudgal J.CM No. 3413/2000Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. WP(C) NO. 2133/20001. Rule. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing.2. The petitioner is a school covered by the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Education Act). The respondent No. 1 sought a reference to the Labour Court on the basis of a complaint arising from the termination of his services. On 23.6.1992 a reference in the following terms was made by the Secretary (Labour).'Whether the services of Sh. Gopi Chanda have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?'3. It is not in dispute that this writ petition raises the question as to whether the making of a reference for adjudication is barred by the provisions of the Education Act. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner Shri H.L. Tikku ha...

Moti Lal JaIn Vs. Mukhtiar Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT588; 2005(80)DRJ290; (2005)141PLR34

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The appellant was the owner of land measuring 20 bighas 7 bids was situated in the revenue estate of Village Baharpur, Near Kalkaji, New Delhi. The land was originally owned by the father of appellant and recorded in the Jamabandi in the year 1949-50. The mutation was sanctioned in favor of the appellant on 20.09.1973.2. Out of the aforesaid land, 18 bighas 4 bids was of land was acquired in pursuance to the proceedings under The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( hereinafter to be referred to as, `the said Act' ) and the Award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector on 25.06.1979.3. A dispute arose about the disbursement of compensation in view of the claim raised by the respondent who alleged that he was in possession of the land in question and was quarrying stones from the land. A part of the stones extracted from the quarry were stated to be lying at site. This was naturally disputed by the appellant.4. It may be noticed that the original claim of the respond...