Delhi Court April 2005 Judgments

Yamaha Motors (India) Pvt. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT161TriDel

1. The Appellant M/s Yamaha Motors (India) Pvt. Limited signed a "Technical Collaboration Agreement" on 25th March 1996 with M/s Yamaha Motors Co. Limited, Japan. The collaboration was for the manufacture of YBX model motor cycles in India. The recital mentions what the Indian company wanted to acquire:- "WHEREAS, Yamaha owns technical information relating to the manufacture and assembly of certain motorcycles parts and components thereof and certain trademarks and other intellectual property rights such as patents, design patents and utility models relating to motorcycles, parts and components thereof, all of which are part of the goodwill of yamaha in the production and worldwide sale of motorcycles, parts and components thereof.The technical Information, Intellectual Property Rights, and Trade Mark sought to be transferred under the agreement find mention in paras 1.9, 1.10 and 1.11 of the agreement as under:- "1.9 "Technical Information" shall mean only the technical information c...

Flex Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC563

1. The issue involved in these 2 appeals filed by M/s Flex Industries Ltd., is whether the benefit of Notification No. 108/95-CE dated 28.8.95 is available to the goods manufactured and cleared by them.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture machines and parts thereof, Structures, Reservoirs Tanks; that they procured an order from M/s. Triveny Engg. & Inds. Ltd. for supply of some machinery items on their behalf to a canal project namely, Mini Hydel Project on the Abohar Branch, Canal in the state of Punjab which was implemented by the project authority namely Punjab Energy Development Agency; that the said project was financed by the World Bank, an International Organization; that Notification No.108/95 exempts all excisable goods from payment of Excise duty when supplied to the United Nations or international organization for their office use or supply to the project financed by the said United Nations or an International Organization and ...

Natwar Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner (Customs)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT221TriDel

1. Both the appeals are directed against the same order of adjudication. Therefore, they were heard together and are disposed of under this common order.2. Material facts leading to the passing of the order, are that the first appellant, M/s. Natwar Steel (P) Ltd imported goods declared as Heavy Melting Scrap and sought their clearance under two Bills of Entry Nos. 304736 Dated 7.4.2003 and 305333 dated 10.4.2003. Upon examination of the consignments, it was found that they comprised mostly nails.After investigations, the Customs authorities charged the appellant with mis-declaration of the goods and under declaration of value. The impugned Order confirmed those allegations and confiscated the consignment with opportunity of redemption (upon payment of fine). A penalty of rupees six lakh was imposed on the importing company and penalty of rupee one lakh imposed on Sh. Jeewan Grg, Director. The present appeals are directed against those orders.3. The contention of the appellants with r...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sahara Airlines Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)96TTJ(Delhi)969

1. ITA No. 142/Del/2001 and ITA No. 1143/Del/2001 are appeals by the Revenue against the common order dt. 5th Dec., 2000, of CIT(A)-V, New Delhi, relating to asst. yrs. 1998-99 and 1999-2000, respectively. The assessee has filed cross-objections which are merely supportive of the said order of CIT(A).2. The ground of appeal of the Revenue in both their appeals, which is a common ground, reads as follows : "On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to exclude the payments of AMTEC, MAS and Lufthansa during financial years 1997-98 and 1998-99 amounting to Rs. 2,19,55,198 from the computation of short deduction." 3. The facts and circumstances under which the aforesaid ground of appeal arises are as follows : The assessee is a company incorporated in India, which is engaged in the business of running aircrafts for carriage of passengers. Some of the aircrafts, run by it are owned by it whereas the others are taken by it on lease from var...

Chander Mohan Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 120(2005)DLT154; 2005(82)DRJ264

H.R. Malhotra, J.1. Aggrieved with the order of framing of charge dated 5th February, 2004 under the Provisions of Sections 18 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, one of the petitioner viz. Chander Mohan has assailed the same by way of filing this Criminal Revision Petition on the ground that there was no evidence against him warranting framing of charges under the said Provisions except the disclosure statement of another accused Nepal Chand which even otherwise is not admissible in evidence.2. The petitioner and his associate Nepal Chand were charged for possessing Opium weighing 7.5 kgs. which was recovered from the house of Nepal Chand on 7-7-1996 . On receipt of secret information by Inspector Shri S.P. Kaushik that Nepal Chand and the petitioner were involved in illegal trafficking , the Inspector along with his team reached house No. 308-A Pocket -Q Dilshad Garden . Since the house was found locked thereforee, the Inspector broke open the lock and...

Aviquipo of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT274TriDel

1. Vide the impugned order the Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo (Export), New Delhi has ordered confiscation of capital goods imported duty free in terms of Notification No. 133/94-Cus., dated 22-6-1994 with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 5 crores and confirmed the Customs duty demand of Rs. 13,80,72,841 /-together with interest on the ground that they did not fulfil the export obligation and therefore, violated the terms and conditions of Customs Exemption Notification No. 133/94 and ordered confiscation of capital goods procured legally under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 25,000/- and payment of duty of Rs. 32,430/- in terms of Notification No.126/94-Cus., dated 2-9-1994 and imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs on the appellant-company and Rs. 5 lakhs on Shri V.K. Rathi, Director and two others.2. The duty demand is not contested by the appellants who rightly submitted that the stage of...

Sidhmukh Flexible Packaging (P) Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Sidhmukh Flexible Packaging Pvt Ltd is whether it is open to them to pay excise duty even if the excisable goods manufactured by them are exempted from payment of whole of duty under a Notification.2.1 The Appellants, in their letter dated 24.12.2004, has requested to decide the appeal on merit. We, therefore, heard Shri O.P. Arora, learned SDR, and perused the records. The Appellants, a SSI Unit, manufacture lay flat tubing, polymer bags and polythene sheets falling under Chapter 39 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.Notification No. 5/98-CE, dated 2.6.98 (Srl. No.71) exempts lay flat tubing from payment of whole of the excise duty unconditionally. The Appellants, instead of availing the benefit of the exemption Notification, paid duty at the tariff rate in respect of lay flat tubing and availed of MODVAT Credit of the duty paid on inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of lay flat tubing. The Deputy Commissi...

Navbharat Explosive Co. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT218TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Navbharat Explosive Co. Ltd. the issue involved is whether Modvat credit of the duty paid on inputs is available when the finished products are cleared without payment of duty following Chapter X procedure.2. As the Appellants have requested to decide the appeal on merit we heard Shri H.C. Verma, learned D.R., and perused the records. The Appellants manufacture explosives and avail of Modvat credit of the duty paid on inputs; that initially they were reversing the Modvat credit as and when explosives were cleared without payment of duty under Chapter X of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Subsequently in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Premier Tyres Ltd. - 1992 (62) E.L.T. 104 (T) they stopped reversing the Modvat credit. It has been submitted by them, in their memorandum of appeal, that in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. Alpha Drugs (India) Ltd. - 2002 (140) E.L.T. 43 (P&H), the Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that the Modvat ...

Damini Printers (P) Ltd., Mb Dyers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT653TriDel

1. In these appeal filed by M/s. Damini Printers Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. MB Dyers and Shri Mehboob Ali, the issue involved is whether the benefit of deemed credit is available to the Appellant under Notification No.6/2002 CE (NT) dated 1.3.02.2. Shri V. R Sethi, learned Advocate, mentioned that M/s Damini Printers and M/s. MB Dyers are engaged in the processing of cotton fabrics and MM Fabrics; that both the appellants were discharging the duty after claiming benefit of deemed credit in terms of Notification No. 532001 CE(NT) dated 29.6.2001 which was superceded by Notification No. 6/2002 CE (NT); that the Department has disallowed the deemed credit under Notification No. 6/2002 on the ground that the grey fabrics which is brought by them into the factory for the purpose of processing is not specified under inputs in the table below the notification. The learned Advocate submitted that the deemed credit under MODVAT scheme was introduced on textile fabrics as part of Budget proposal presen...

Growell Agri Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT236TriDel

2. The applicant filed this application for restoration of the appeal.The appeal filed by the applicant was dismissed for non-prosecution on 1-7-2004. The contention of the applicant is that the name of the company in the cause list was wrongly mentioned as 'Grewal Agree Prod' whereas the name of the company is 'M/s. Growell Agri Products'. The contention is that they were present in the Tribunal and appearance could not be made due to the mistake of cause list. In view of the reasons explained in the application the Final Order dated 1-7-2004 is dismissing the appeal is recalled and appeal is restored to its original number. Adjourned to 27-7-2005 for arguments....