Delhi Court April 2005 Judgments

Ceasa India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT498TriDel

1. The issue involved in these four appeals, filed by M/s. CEASA India Ltd. and their director Shri Sandeep, is whether the excisable goods, manufactured and cleared by them, are bearing the Brand Name of another person.2. Shri Pravin Sharma, learned Advocate, mentioned that the Appellants manufacture Water Purifying Machine in foreign collaboration with M/s.Comparia Europea Del Aqua S.A. which holds 51% of equity and avail of small scale exemption Notification No. 8/99-C.E., dated 28-2-1999; that the Central Excise duty has been demanded and penalties have been imposed on the ground that they are clearing the impugned goods bearing brand names 'Aqua Pure' and 'Aqua Vita' which are brand names of M/s.Modi Hoover International Ltd. and their foreign collaborator respectively. The learned Advocate fairly mentioned that the duty of excise is payable by them in respect of goods bearing the brand name "Aqua Pure" belonging to Modi Hoover International Ltd. He, however, submitted that the q...

Cce Vs. Radix Impex Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of PET bottles and caps handles falling under Central Excise Tariff sub-heading 3923.90. They were supplying PET bottles manufactured by them packed in corrugated boxes (hereinafter referred to as cartons) either supplied free of cost by their suppliers, or according to the specification of the buyers, they supplied carton duly packed with finished goods and charged cost of such cartons separately from the buyers. They were including the cost of packing material i.e.cartons in the assessable value of their final product in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Since the cartons supplied by the respondents were not durable and returnable in nature, the department was of the view that their cost should have been included in arriving at the assessable value of excisable goods for the purpose of discharging excise duty. Show cause notice dated 19.2.2003 proposing recovery of Rs. 12,45,376 for ...

Srikant Somani and ors. Vs. Sharad Gupta and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(2)ALD(Cri)19; III(2006)BC300; [2006]131CompCas189(Delhi); 119(2005)DLT616

Manju Goel, J.1. These are seven petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.) filed by Shri Srikant Somani & Others challenging the order of the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate Dated 18.8.2003 whereby the petitioners being accused Nos.3 to 6 in different complaint cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter the `Act') were summoned. As per the complaints filed by respondent - Sharad Gupta - 24 cheques were issued by the petitioners, some from the account of the petitioners Nos.1 to 3 and some from the account of the petitioners 1, 3 & 4. All these cheques were dishonoured. A notice of demand as required by proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Act was issued on 5.5.2003. The petitioners are stated to be persons in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the two companies, namely, M/s.Vimal Trading Co. & M/s.Krishna Trading Co., The notice, thereforee, was issued to the two companies and to the petit...

Cc Vs. Achal Paper Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar.2. Shri U. Raja Ram, learned JDR, appearing for the Revenue, pleaded that the respondents have imported 4 consignments of waste paper during the period from 1.3.2000 to 22.10.2001 and availed concessional rate of duty on the imported waste paper under Notification No. 16/2000-Cus.dated 1.3.2000 and 17/2001-Cus. dated 1.3.2001 on furnishing an undertaking that the imported goods will be used for manufacture of paper. The End Use certificates submitted by the importer in respect of disputed four bills of entry indicated that the waste paper was used for manufacture of board only. This was also confirmed by the central excise record that only paper board was manufactured and cleared and thus, the imported waste paper was not used for he intended purpose and the importer was called upon to pay the differential duty. However, show cause notice was dropped by the Commissioner...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Achal Paper Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar.2. Shri U. Raja Ram, learned JDR, appearing for the Revenue, pleaded that the respondents have imported 4 consignments of waste paper during the period from 1-3-2000 to 22-10-2001 and availed concessional rate of duty on thg imported waste paper under Notification No. 16/2000-Cus., dated 1-3-2000 and 17/2001-Cus., dated 1-3-2001 on furnishing an undertaking that the imported goods will be used for manufacture of paper. The End Use certificates submitted by the importer in respect of disputed four bills of entry indicated that the waste paper was used for manufacture of board only. This was also confirmed by the Central excise record that only paper board was manufactured and cleared and thus, the imported waste paper was not used for the intended purpose and the importer was called upon to pay the differential duty. However, show cause notice was dropped by Commissioner...

Pearl Drinks Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT117TriDel

1. The present appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original No.35/2004, dated 30-9-2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I. This order was passed by the Commissioner in the de novo proceedings as ordered by the Tribunal under Final Order No. 374/2002-A and Misc. Order No. 63/02-A, dated 8-8-2002.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of aerated waters.They were removing the goods from their factory to an adjacent godown and distributing the goods from there. There was no sale at the factory gate. The entire stock of soft drinks was transferred from their factory to their adjoining duty paid godown with the help of a conveyor belt, on payment of duty. Thereafter, the sales to the dealers/customers were effected from their godown at a higher price.The appellants filed price list under Rule 173C of Central Excise Rules, 1944 w.e.f 3-3-1994 and claimed various deductions from the wholesale price for arriving at assessable value. On investigation by DGAE, i...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Jindal Polyester Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT337TriDel

2. Revenue filed this application for rectification of mistake in the Final Order of the Tribunal dated 26-7-2004 whereby the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Gabriel India Ltd. v. C.C.E., Chandigarh, reported in 2000 (122) E.L.T. 48. In the present application, the Revenue is raising a legal issue that there is no scope for group of customer to determine normal price. This is a legal issue and cannot be made the ground to say that there is a mistake apparent in the order, which requires rectification. The application is dismissed....

Cce Vs. Ravi and Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Revenue filed this application for rectification of mistake in the Final Order dated 13.8.2004. The contention of the Revenue is that there is a mistake in mentioning the Volume Number of E.L.T. We find that there is a typographic mistake while mentioning citation of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of "Escorts JCB Ltd. v. C.C, reported in 2000 (116) ELT 650", it should be read as "Escorts JCB Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi, reported in 2000 (118) E.L.T. 650 (Tribunal)". Further, where it is mentioned in the Final order that "in view of the above position of the Hon'ble Supreme Court we find no merit in the appeal and are dismissed" it should be read as "in view of the above decision of the Tribunal, we find no merit in the appeal and is dismissed."Escorts JCB Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi, reported in 2000 (118) E.L.T. 650 (Tribunal) passed by the Tribunal has overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, in view of this decision...

Venkateshwar Strips Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT74TriDel

1. These two appeals are filed by M/s. Venkateshwar Strips Pvt. Ltd. against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur dated 12/31-12-2003 and Order-in Appeal No. 465/RPR-1/2003, dated 9-10-2003 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-1) Customs & Central Excise, Raipur.2. In appeal No. E/1407/2004-NBC which is against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur, the facts in brief, are that the appellants are manufacturer of H.R. strips of non-alloys steel and M.S. steel tubes. The H.R. strips manufactured by the appellants are notified under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act w.e.f. 1-9-97. The appellants in their strip mill section manufactured H.R. strips which were cleared by them under notification No. 67/95-C.E. dated 16-3-1995 to their tubes mill section where these strips were used for the manufacture of tubes. Central Excise officers visited the factory of the appellants on 6-2-1998 and found that the appellants were not entitled for exemption und...

Ravi Hasija Vs. M.C.D.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 120(2005)DLT661

Manju Goel, J.1. The petitioner has been summoned to stand trial in a case filed by the respondent-Municipal Corporation of Delhi (in short `MCD')- for offences punishable under Sections 347/461 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (in short `the Act') on the allegations that the petitioner has been using a part of his residential premises at No. E-1, Ajay Enclave, New Delhi for training/teaching in typing, shorthand and computer education which is not permissible in residential premises and constitutes violation of Section 347 of the Act and punishable under Section 461 of the Act. The petitioner contends that the petitioner has been using a small part of the residential premises for a long time without any protest from the respondent and that the activity is done only to the extent permitted by the respondent and hence constitutes no offence. The petitioner seeks quashing of the complaint case which is opposed by the respondent.2. The petitioner has set up the order of the Executive En...