Delhi Court April 2005 Judgments

King WIn Johnson (India) and ors. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT76TriDel

2. The appellants filed these appeals against the order in appeal whereby the prayer to grant interest on the late payment of pre-deposit is declined.3. The contention of the appellants is that they had deposited Rs. 4 lakhs in each case as pre-deposit. The Tribunal vide order dated 08.02.2000 set aside the demand and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating authority to decide afresh. The contention of the appellants is that the amount of pre-deposit was refunded to the appellants on 22.12.2000. The contention of the appellants is only that they are entitled for interest applicable during the relevant period from the 3 months from date of the final order till the date of refund.Appellants relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of India Thermoplastics (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata, reported in 2004 (164) ELT 156 (Tri-LB) and Max India Ltd. Vs.Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, reported in 2001 (129) ELT 233 (Tri-Del.). In this case undisputed facts are th...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Baldev Raj Ram Murthi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT477TriDel

1. This Stay Application is listed for hearing before this Bench though appeal was listed before Single Member Bench, in view of the fact that connected appeals were listed before two member Bench, it was directed by the learned Single Member on 7-2-2005 that this case also should be placed before that Bench along with the connected matter.2. This application is filed by the Commissioner praying for the stay of the impugned order-in-appeal dated 14-6-2004 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent it imposes a penalty of Rs. 30,000/- on the respondent.3. We notice from the order-in-appeal that there is absolutely no reference to the reasoning and findings of the Assistant Commissioner given in the context of the order of penalty imposed on the respondent in the Order-in-original. In paragraph 20 of the order-in-original, it was noted that on verification of the stocks, as per RG-23D register of the dealer, it was found that there was no stock available with the registered deal...

Sanket Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(102)ECC357

1. The above captioned appeals have been directed against the common impugned order-in-original vide which the adjudicating authority i.e.Commissioner has confirmed the duty and penalties against the appellants, as detailed therein.2. The appellants No. 1 is a company, which was engaged in the manufacture of Gutka and Pan Masala during the period in dispute i.e.January, 2001 to September, 2001 and had two factories at Distt. Jalan, known as Unit Nos. 1 & 2; and one at Delhi. The company had been availing the Modvat credit on the raw materials, such as, Printed Laminated Rolls procured and used in the manufacture of the goods. On 8-3-2002, the Central Excise Officers conducted raid at the factory premises and the sales depot of the company and seized certain documents. During the raid, raw-material, printed laminated rolls, were found excess than the balance recorded in the record and the same were seized. Similarly, some pouches were also found excess and unaccounted lying in the ...

J.K. White Cement Works Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC97

1. In these two appeals, arising out of a common Order-in-Appeal No.128/(SN)CE/JPR-I/2004 dated 1.4.2004 -- one appeal filed by M/s. J.K.White Cement Works and the other appeal filed by Revenue -- the issue relates to refund of Central Excise Duty.2.1 Shri Ravindra Narain, learned senior Advocate, mentioned that M/s.J.K. White Cement Works (M/s. J.K. in short) manufacture white cement; that they had commenced commercial production of white cement in September, 1984 which was classified by them under Tariff Item 23 (2) of the Erstwhile Central Excise Tariff attracting duty on ad-valorem basis; that they also filed a price list declaring value after making certain deductions towards packing charges, which was not acceptable to the Department; that they started clearances of white cement under protest; that since there was a price change, a second price list was filed on 3.1.1985 alongwith a covering letter mentioning therein that the duty would be paid 'under protest'; that the gate pas...

Abn Amro Bank Nv. Vs. Mr. Ratan Lal Varma and Sons

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 120(2005)DLT439

deep Nandrajog, J.1. Plaintiff seeks to amend the suit as under:-(i) to add the words 'in his personal capacity and' in the description of the defendant No. 2 in the cause-title and Memo of Parties immediately before the words 'in his capacity as coparcener........(ii) to add the following para numbered as 23A after the present para 23 so as to correctly reflect the present factual position:-'23A. However, upon institution of the present suit, the plaintiff deposited the keys of the suit premises with the Registrar of this Hon'ble Court after being granted permission by this Hon'ble Court to do so, and stopped maintaining watch and ward at the premises.'(iii) to add the following sub-para at the end of the present para 24:-'Without prejudice to the foregoing, in any case, as on 31.1.2001 a sum of Rs.21,42,951.50 as principal outstanding balance amount of security deposit paid under the Lease Agreement dated 12.10.1994 was admittedly due to the plaintiff from the defendant No. 1. Likewi...

Qrg Enterprises and anr. Vs. Surendra Electricals and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 120(2005)DLT456; 2005(30)PTC471(Del)

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Along with the suit which inter alias seeks a decree for permanent injunction restraining defendants from using the world 'HAVELL'S' as its mark or as part of it's corporate name, plaintiffs sought interim injunction as per prayer made in is No. 7880/2004. On 25.11.2004 an ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted to the plaintiffs restraining the defendants, it's Chairman, Directors, Promoters, Officers, Servants, Agents and any one acting on their behalf from using the mark 'Havell's' or the corporate name 'Havell's Electronics Pvt. Ltd.' on any of their brochures, products and packaging. By means of is 75/2005, defendants pray that the ex-parte ad-interim injunction be vacated. Arguments were heard on both applications on 31.1.2005. Plaintiffs filed is No. 1906/2005 and prayed for leave to file some documents which as per plaintiffs were relevant for determination of the issues raised. Application was allowed vide order dated 10.3.2005. Defendants were grant...

Snowhite Apparels Ltd. Vs. K.S.A. Technopak (i) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: IV(2005)BC134; 121(2005)DLT351; 2005(83)DRJ580

1. Appellant is the defendant in a suit for recovery of Rs. 6 lacs or so filed by first respondent. It had filed an application for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC claiming that this suit was barred by time which has been dismissed by impugned order dated 13.05.2004. Appellant assails the order and asserts that suit was time barred and the plaint warranted outright rejection for this in any case.2. The suit filed by first respondent is based on the work done by this respondent under the agreement dated 26.08.1993 executed between the parties. In this it is claimed that first respondent (plaintiff) had raised a bill for Rs. 5.5 lacs vide invoice dated 28.08.1995 and had also raised one more invoice for Rs. 1.5 lacs and rupees one lacs but Appellant (defendant) had failed to pay this amount. Thereafter, two legal notices were served on the Appellant which were replied on 18.09.1997 and 12.01.1998 denying the liability giving rise to the cause of action to file the suit....

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Pushpawati Nagar

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT116TriDel

2. The Revenue filed this appeal against order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The brief facts of the case are that in the year 1988 the Income Tax department searched the premises of the respondent and certain gold coins and pendants were recovered during the search. The gold was recovered by the Income Tax department in 1993 and also informed the Customs department. The Customs department seized the gold and issued a show-cause notice on the ground that the gold in question is smuggled in nature as having the foreign origin. The adjudicating authority confiscated the gold on the ground that the respondents have failed to produce any evidence regarding possession of the foreign marked gold and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000/-. The respondents filed appeal and Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.3. The contention of the Revenue is that the respondents have illegally acquired and possessed contraband goods and had failed to p...

ilpea Paramount Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT523TriDel

1. In this Appeal filed by M/s. ILPEA Paramount Ltd., issue relates to interest on pre-deposit made by them as per order passed by the Appellate Tribunal.2. Shri K.L. Handa, learned Consultant, mentioned that the appellants as per Stay Order No. 24-26/02-C dated 14-12-2001, deposited the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs on 7-2-2002; that their Appeal was, finally, allowed by the Tribunal vide Final order dated 23-4-2002; that they submitted an application for refund of amount of Rs. 5 lakhs on 5-6-2002 and the amount so deposited was refunded to them on 4-10-2002; that as such they are eligible for the interest on the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs deposited by them from 23-7-2002 to 4-10-2002. Learned Consultant has relied on the decision in the case of CCE, Hyderabad v. ITC Ltd. [2005 (179) E.L.T. 15 (S.C.)] and Board's Circular No. 802/35/04-CX, dated 8-12-2004. He contended that it is mentioned in the Board's Circular that pre-deposit shall be returned within a period of three months of the disposal ...

Mansurpur Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appellant filed this appeal against order-in-appeal passed by the commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of the plates, plain plates, M.S. flat, proof machined forging and welding electrodes is denied for the period April 2000 to June 2000.3. During the period in dispute as per the definition of capital goods, the specified goods are liable for benefit of Modvat credit. The plates, plain plates, M.S. Flat of iron and steel are being used in the factory as runners for transport raw material (cane) in the mill house.The contention of the appellant is that these are used to support the runners for transport of the raw material. The appellant relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mukand Ltd. v. CCE whereby the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of the structures which are supportive of conveyor system was allowed.4. The contention of the Revenue is that these are general-purpose goods and classifiable under Heading 73 of central Ex...