Delhi Court July 2005 Judgments

M and B Footwear (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Both, the Revenue and the assessee, are in appeal against the same Order. Accordingly they were heard together and are disposed of under this common Order.2. The appellants are a manufacturer of footwear under the brand name 'Lee Cooper'. They signed an Agreement with M/s. Vivat Holdings PLC for transfer of know-how with regard to manufacture of Lee Cooper brand Footwears. The Agreement also involved transfer of right to use the trade mark 'Lee Cooper'. Under the Agreement the appellant was liable to make a one time payment of Rs. 36 lakhs and continued payment of royalty at 5% of the value of footwear manufacture and cleared. Under the impugned Order a service tax demand for about Rs. 18 lakhs has been made. This is in regard to royalty payment for the period 1997-98 to February, 2002. The finding is that the agreement cover supply of consultancy service and the appellants are liable to service tax at the rate of 5% as applicable to engineering consultancy services.3. The contenti...

M.M.T.C. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT189TriDel

1. This appeal of M/s. M.M.T.C. is directed against duty demand of over 84 lakhs of rupees from them under the impugned Order. This demand is in regard to 23 kgs. of gold which M.M.T.C. had imported and supplied to M/s. Bhola Ram Girdhari Lal. The import was in terms of Notification No. 177/94-Cus. relating to import for export.2. The contention of the Appellants is that the gold in question had been cleared from its warehouse and supplied to M/s. Bhola Ram Girdhari Lal and once the gold had been cleared to another warehouse, the liability of the first party ceases. This contention is being raised with reference to proviso to Section 59 of the Customs Act as well as Section 71 of the same Act. It is specifically pointed out that upon clearance of the gold in question to M/s. Bhola Ram Girdhari Lal, the Customs officers had debonded the gold on various dates. Further submission is that the Customs authorities had issued another show cause notice dated 24-6-96 to the recipient of gold M...

Khatema Fabrcs Ltd. Vs. Cc, Icd

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant challenges the order of the Commissioner of Customs (appeals) made on 28.2.2001 dismissing the appeal and confirming the order of the Additional Commissioner (Imports) by which the goods imported under the bill of entry 112430 dated 11.10.2000 were confiscated under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the said Act. The Additional Commissioner also directed that the goods will be assessed to duty under sub-heading 4819.20 and CIF value be taken corresponding to US$ 1000 PMT and duty charged accordingly.2. The appellant had filed bill of entry no. 112430 dated 11.10.2000 for clearance of Waste Paper and White Sulphate carton declaring value of the goods at Rs. 2,45,153/-. Show Cause Notice dated 11.11.2000 came to be issued on the ground that on examination, the goods were found to be folding cartons/boxes (printed) of non-corrugated paper board. In response to the show cause notice,...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Registan Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT362TriDel

1. In this appeal which has been filed by the revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the denial of the benefit of exemption Notification No. 12/2001-C.E., dated 1-3-2001 to the respondents under which exemption has been provided from payment of duty to all goods i.e. readymade garments and apparels other than those bearing a registered brand name.2. I have heard both the sides and gone through the record. From the record it is evident that the respondents during the relevant period were engaged in the manufacture of apparels and cloths falling under tariff sub-headings 6201.00 and 6202.00. They got the brand name "Anokhi" registered for the export of their readymade garments. But under that very brand name they had been clearing the goods in the DTA also. The contention raised by the Counsel is that since the brand name was registered only for export purposes, the clearance of the readymade garments in domestic market under that very brand name, did not amo...

Sundek India Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT900TriDel

1. The Appellants is a manufacturer of Decorative Laminated sheets.Phenol is a raw material for such manufacture. Under Bill of Entry No.5890 dated 17.7.2001 the Appellants imported a consignment of 210 M.T.of Phenol. They produced invoice for the goods at U.S. $ 525 per M.T.The Customs authorities assessed the consignment at a higher value of U.S. $ 578 per M.T. This value was noticed by them in regard to import under Bill of Entry No. 3065 dated 6.6.01. The impugned Order mentions that import price of the Appellants is "very low" and for that reason the consignment is required to be assessed at the value of comparable goods. The present appeal challenges that order.2. The contention of the Appellants is that their purchase price is commercial and it is required to be accepted for the purpose of assessment, inasmuch as under the Customs Law, transaction value constitutes assessable value. During the hearing of the case, the Counsel emphasized that there is no material which casts any...

Lalit Kala Accademy Vs. Svapan Const. Ae+

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(2)ARBLR447(Delhi); 121(2005)DLT495; 2005(83)DRJ292

R.C. Jain, J. 1. This is an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 made on behalf of the applicant - Lalit Kala Akademi, for setting aside the award of the sole arbitrator dated 10.5.1999. The main grounds set-up for setting aside the award are as under:'1. The alleged award is null and void as the same is not in accordance with the mandatory requirements of the Act. There was no agreement whatever executed by the Akademi with the 1st respondent. The tender document clause 45, would not, in any was bind the Akademi.2. The very Arbitration proceedings would not lie in view of the passing of the take over Act by the Central Government. As per provisions of 3(3) the agreement entered by the then management of the Akademi stood automatically terminated. The 1st respondent did not challenge the Act or the termination and having acted thus it would not be open to it to seek to enforce only one clause i.e. clause 45 of its agreement by referring to Arbitrat...

Dheeraj Singh Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 121(2005)DLT342; 2005(83)DRJ255

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. The Counsel for the parties were heard at length. The case of the prosecution is that Karan Radia (the abductee) received an SMS message on his mobile phone on 25.4.2003 from the petitioner asking him to come to Vasant Vihar on the next day. On 26.4.2003 the said Karan Radia reached Modern Bazar, Vasant Vihar along with his driver Ram Kesh and friend Jyotin Bakshi at about 12 noon. The petitioner was at that time allegedly buying cinema tickets for himself and his wife. Karan Radia along with the petitioner thereafter went to Gurgaon in the petitioner's car as the petitioner wanted to show his office to Karan Radia. At Gurgaon the petitioner is alleged to have called one Shailender who came there but left the office at about 2 p.m. Thereafter the petitioner called co-accused Vijay who arrived at the office. The petitioner and Vijay allegedly tied up the hands, legs and taped the mouth of Karan Radia in the petitioner's office at Gurgaon and wrapped him in a pl...

Gulijeet Singh Kochar and anr. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 121(2005)DLT516

S.K. Agarwal, J.1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, 'the Code') petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order dated 15.7. 2004 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi summoning them to face trial for the offence under Section 304A, IPC in the case FIR No. 46/2003, P.S. Lodhi Colony, New Delhi.2. Prosecution case briefly is as follows : On 15.4.2003, Niranjan Singh Tanti lodged a report to the Police, alleging that he and his brother Ram Dulare Kumar were working as labourers under Madan Lal, Contractor (hereinafter referred to as 'the contractor') who was constructing house No. 129, Jor Bagh, New Delhi (for short, 'the house'). The contractor had made a temporary passage for going to the basement out of old wooden planks without providing proper support. He was told that it was dangerous and some one can fall, he ignored the request and told them to work. On the fateful day, at about 4.00 p.m. his brother while carrying buildi...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Matsushita Tv and Audio India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. M/s. Panasonic AVC Networks India Co. Ltd., got into a collaboration agreement in 1993 with M/s. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd. Japan in order to obtain technical know-how and training for the purpose of manufacturing Colour T.V. and Audio products. In terms of the agreement, in addition to lumpsum payment of Rs. 2 lakh US $, the Indian company was to make payment at the rate of 3% of the value of the goods produced towards royalty. The subject matter of the present appeals is the service tax demand on this 3% running royalty for the period 1-3-99 to 31-3-2001.2. The contention of the appellant is that the transfer of technical know-how and training in terms of the contract was over and production had started in 1996, well before the imposition of service tax on 7-7-97 in regard to "consulting engineering" service. Learned Counsel for the appellants has emphasized that since the levy was not retrospective in nature, the demand is not sustainable at all. Same defence had be...

Sanket Food Products Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Appellants filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Pan Masala. On 8.3.2002, the factory premises of appellants were searched and premises of M/s. S.R. Marketing and M/s.Rathi Enterprises were also searched. From the premises of M/s. S.R.Marketing, 700 packets of Pan Masala valued at Rs. 44, 100.00 were seized on the ground that the Pan masala was cleared by the appellants without payment of duty. During verification, it was also found that printed laminated rolls weighing 7459.592 Kgs were found in excess than the quantity shown in RG-23A Part I. The excess printed laminated rolls were also seized.3. Show cause notice was issued for demanding duty in respect of the Pan masala seized from M/s. S.R. Marketing and for confiscation oil Printed laminated rolls. The Adjudicating authority dropped the demand in respect of the Pan masala seized from...