Delhi Court April 2005 Judgments

Precise Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(102)ECC261

1. In these 11 appeals, the common issue involved is whether the product 'Dant Mukta' imported by all the appellants from Nepal is classifiable under Sub-heading 3306.90 as confirmed in the impugned Order or under sub-heading 3306.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act and whether the exemption under Notification No.6/03-CE dated 1.3.2003 and Notification No. 40/02 Cus dated 12.4.2002 is available to the product 'Dant Mukta' imported by them.2. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that principal raw-materials for the impugned product, 'Dant Mukta' are pipli, tomor seed, sunthi, clove oil, black pepper, roasted haritaki, clove leaf oil, camphor, kasni powder, menthe oil, sugandhit dravya and garric powder; that a similar product 'Dant Shakti' having the very same ingredients was initially classified s medicament on importation from Nepal; that the Department contended that the product is tooth powder meriting classification under heading 33.06; that the matter...

Optel Telecommunication Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC414

1. In these five appeals - four filed by M/s. Optel Telecommunication Ltd. and one Appeal filed by Revenue against the common Order-in-Appeal No. 475-478/2004 dated 25.6.04, the issue involved is whether the optical Fibre Cables manufactured by the assessee is classifiable under Heading No. 90.01 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by the assessee or under Heading 85.44 as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and whether the demand of differential duty raised under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act on finalisation of the assessment is recoverable in view of the revalidation of the actions taken under Section 11A of the Act in terms of Section 110 of the Finance Act.2. Another issue involved in these appeals is whether parts and accessories of optical fibre cables are classifiable under Heading 90.33 as against 85.44 of the Central Excise Tariff.3. Shri P.C. Jain, learned Advocate, mentioned that the assessee, an undertaking of State Government of Madhya ...

Lohia Brass Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(103)ECC275

1. The issue involved in these two Appeals, filed by M/s. Lohia Brass (P) Ltd. is whether the benefit of Notification No. 4/97-C.E. dated 1-3-97 (S. No. 173) is available to unwrought Copper imported by them.Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants had imported electrolytic copper cathodes unwrought under Bill of Entry dated 13-2-98 and Bill of Entry dated 6-4-98 classifying the product under Heading No. 74.03 of the Schedule to the Central Excise tariff Act for the purpose of levying Additional duty of Customs and claimed the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 4/97 which exempts "unrefined copper" and un-wrought Copper, intended for use in the manufacture of utensils or handicrafts subject to the condition No.22 specified in the Notification; that a show cause notice dated 10-8-98 was issued to them for denying the benefit of exemption notification on the ground that the copper imported by them was refined-one whereas the Notification is availabl...

O.P. Agarwal, Shri B.K. Karnawat, Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC271

1. In these 24 appeals, filed by Shri O.P. Agarwal, Chairman, Shri B.K.Karnawat, Managing Director, Shri Dinesh Thakur, General Manager and Shri B.L. Dhaluka, General Manager of M/s. Ganapathi Combines Ltd., M/s. Ganapathi Commerce Ltd. and M/s Ganapathi Exports Ltd., arising out of six Orders-in-Original, the common issue involved is whether Penalties under the provisions of Section 112 and Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 are imposable on them. M/s. Ganpati Combines Ltd. filed 6 shipping Bills for export of plastic woven sacks to Russia as against fulfilment of their export obligations under DEEC Scheme: The allegation in the show cause notice was that the goods were overvalued by six times, that is value declared by them was Rs. 30 per sacks whereas the actual value is Rs. 6 per sack. The Commissioner under Order-in-Original No. 3/2001 dated 16.1.2001 has passed the following Order: (a) Confiscated 17.23 lakhs pieces of PP and HDPE Woven sacks valued at Rs. 4.59 crores under Se...

Pushpa Devi Sharma and ors. Vs. the State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 119(2005)DLT535; II(2005)DMC554; 2005(82)DRJ102

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. These three applications are taken together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common order and/or judgment.2.The learned counsel for the parties submit that there is no possibility of any reconciliation in this matter. Accordingly, the counsel were heard on merits. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that at an earlier stage, upon the registration of the FIR under Section 498A and 34 IPC, four of the petitioners, namely, Pushpa Devi Sharma, Sita Devi, Jyoti Mishra and Deepak Sharma (the husband) were taken into custody and they were granted regular bail. Thereafter, Section 307 was added in the FIR and, thereforee, they have approached this court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the grant of anticipatory bail in respect of these four petitioners as well as the other petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, as would be indicated from a reading of the FIR itself, various attempts had...

Sh. Tarun Kumar Vaish Vs. Ms. Meenakshi Vaish

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 119(2005)DLT567; 2005(82)DRJ22

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.2. This petition under Article 227 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenges the Order dated 27th July, 2004, passed by the Additional District Judge in HMA. No. 591 of 2004, by which an application moved by which an application moved on 13th July, 2004 by both the parties, that is, the petitioner, Sh. Tarun Kumar Vaish and the respondent Ms. Meenakshi Vaish, seeking permission to present the petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955(in short the `HMA') for divorce, by mutual consent prior to the expiry of one year from the date of marriage of the parties, that is, 30th April, 2004 was rejected and accordingly the petition under Section 13B of the HMA Act was dismissed.3. The relevant portion of the proviso to Section 14 of the HMA reads as follows:-'14(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, it shall not be competent for any ...

Shri Vijay K. Saluja and anr. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee and or ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 121(2005)DLT491; 2005(82)DRJ62

B.C. Patel, C.J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing this petition as Public Interest Litigation, inter alia, praying as under:-'(a) Issue a writ of quo warranto or any other appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the appointments of the respondent No.2 and 3.(b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent NDMC to make all appointments/promotions on regular basis in consultation with UPSC, wherever required, and do away with adhoc appointments, and, appointments of retired officers on consultation basis and instead make regular promotions, expeditiously.(c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the holding of an inquiry by CBI into the affairs of the NDMC where crores of public funds have been, and are being squandered on projects by incompetent and inefficient vested interests leading to loss of revenue of crores of rupees to the NDMC to the detriment of the public.(d) Issue directions to the CBI to hold inquiry with reference to ...

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Kesho Ram and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 119(2005)DLT511

Mukundakam Sharma, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 15th October, 2001 which is passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal whereby the learned Tribunal has held that the subsequent office order issued by the appellant herein could only supplement the Assured Career Promotion Scheme (In short, ACP Scheme) but could not supplant the same.2. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid observations and the findings recorded by the Tribunal, the present petition is filed on which we have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.3. The Assured Career Scheme (for short the `ACP') was introduced by the appellant pursuant to which the respondent herein would receive certain benefits. Subsequently, however, the appellant issued an administrative circular stating inter alias that the contents thereof are by way of clarification to the provisions of the Scheme. It was also stated while issuing the said clarificatory memorandum that it is...

Samsung Electronics Co. Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. All these appeals are directed against the same order. Therefore, they were taken up together for hearing and are disposed of under this common order.2. M/s Samsung India Electronics Limited is a subsidiary of M/s Samsung Electronics Co. Limited, Korea, The Indian subsidiary and the Korean parent got into "Technology Licence" and "Trade Mark" Agreements. Based on the technology and trade marks so transferred the Indian company manufacture washing machine, colour television in India. The agreement was entered in September 1995 and commercial production started from 17.6.97. In terms of the agreements the Indian Co. made "know-how fee" "royalty" payments from July, 1998 to June 2002.3. The Central Excise authorities considered the agreements to be ones for 'engineering consultancy' and demanded service tax in regard to the payments made. the appellants contended that the transaction involved transfer of intellectual property like know-how, trade marks etc. and not rendering of engine...

Mamata Brampton Engineering Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT483TriDel

2. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal whereby the refund application was rejected on the ground that the appellant surrendered registration in November 2000, therefore, the refund is not admissible.3. The contention of the appellants is that they were paying duty on fortnightly basis. The appellant on 13-10-2000 paid duty of Rs. 1,24,218/- from the Cenvat credit along with other duty from the balance of their Modvat credit whereas this amount of Rs. 1,24,218/- was to be paid through PLA. The appellant shifted their unit from Range-VI to Range-IV of the same Commissionerate and surrendered the registration in Range VI and obtained the new registration from Range-IV. At this stage, the appellant detected the mistake committed by them in respect of the payment of duty from their credit. They paid the duty of Rs. 1,24,218/- along with interest. On 6-1-2001 thereafter filed a refund in respect of the duty paid in October 2000 from Modvat account that to the extent ...