Delhi Court September 2005 Judgments

Carlton and United Breweries Ltd. Vs. Harmohan Singh Chandhok and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 123(2005)DLT676

Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The plaintiff is a company organized and existing under the laws of the commonwealth of Australia having its office at 16 Bouverie Street, Carlton, State of Victoria, Australia, Mr. Surinder Singh is the constituted attorney and is duly authorised to sign and verify the pleadings and institute the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff company.2. The plaintiff company, which is into the business of beverage, is dedicated to delivering quality beer, wine, spirits and leisure products to millions of consumers across the world.3. It is the case of the plaintiff that it is engaged in a world-wide business together and through its subsidiaries of manufacturing and marketing of the said products. These products are stated to be subject to stringent quality testing with a focus on technical excellence and superior brand marketing. The goods of the plaintiff are sold in more than 150 countries including India. The company is the proprietor of, inter-alia, the trademark F...

Delhi Transport Corporation, (Dtc) Vs. Capital Body Builders and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(86)DRJ373

R.C. Jain, J.IA No. 935/20011. This is an application under Section 151 CPC made on behalf of the plaintiff seeking condonation of delay in filing the petition under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in relation to the Award dated 7.8.2000 notice of which was received by the petitioner on 11.8.2000. The application is supported by the affidavit of Mr. T.C. Madan, Senior Manager of Delhi Transport Corporation-petitioner and also by the affidavit of the counsel for the petitioner.2. The application is opposed and a reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent. Having gone through the averments and allegations made in the application, this Court is satisfied that there were sufficient reasons which explains the delay in filing the petition under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Consequently the application is allowed and the delay in filing the present petition is condoned.The application stand disposed of accordingly.CS ...

Tripathi Rubber Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The impugned order has disallowed a Modvat credit of about Rs. 24 lakhs to the appellant M/s. Risansi Industries Ltd., Kanpur. There are also penalties on M/s. Risansi Industries Ltd., and other appellants.3. The ground for denying the credit is that the same was found to be fraudulently availed. The finding in the impugned order is that while the appellant took Modvat credit in respect of Refined Glycerine, Stearic acid, Carbon black, Zinc Oxide, Reclaim Rubber, Synthetic Rubber, DOP, DBP stating them to be used in the manufacture of rubber parts like Stater, Seal ring, Sleeve Ring, Boot seal, Natural rolling seat, bush etc. for captive use in the manufacture of pumps, the inputs were not actually used for the aforesaid purpose of production. This finding has been reached based on the inspection of appellant's factory on 23-10-1999 and the statements recorded from several parties, including employees of the assessee and their suppliers. The credit in question was taken by the appe...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Rswm Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal the revenue has contested the correctness of the impugned Order-in-Appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has dropped the duty demand and penalty as detailed therein, against the respondent, which was initially confirmed by the adjudicating authority.2. I have heard both the sides and gone through the record. The perusal of the record shows that the respondents exported the certain goods to Nepal during the period in dispute. The adjudicating authority however, confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 1,23,541/- with penalty of Rs. 10,000/- against them on the ground that duplicate copy of the invoices in respect of the goods exported to Nepal was not submitted by the respondents. But the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed that order by holding that duplicate copy of the invoice, was required to be forwarded through the Customs Incharge of the land customs station in India, duly endorsed by the Nepal Customs Officer. The lapse, of not submitting the duplicate copy occ...

Shubh Timb Steel Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(176)ELT902TriDel

2. Appellant filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of Non-Alloy Steel Ingots and were working under the compounded levy scheme. The appellant were to pay duty as per the determination made by the Commissioner of Central Excise under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. The duty so determined was not paid by the appellant for the period 4/99 to 6.12.99. Show cause notice was issued for demanding of duty and imposition of penalty. The contention of the appellant is that the show cause notice was issued after six months under the proviso to Section 11A of Central Excise Act and demand is time barred.3. We find that this issue whether the time limit prescribed under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act is eligible under the compounded levy scheme is already settled by the larger bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mohinder Steels Ltd., v. CCE, Chand...

Punjab Ex-service Man Corpn. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the applicant in spite of notice. The applicant has already deposited Rs. 7 lakhs out of the total demand of Rs. 55,07,238/-. In this case the demand of service tax was confirmed on the ground that applicants were running security agency and they were collecting the charges for providing security services. The applicant pleaded in the grounds of appeal that part of demand is time-barred as no suppression can be alleged against the applicant. The applicant also pleaded that they are not liable to pay service tax on the salaries paid to the Driver by the appellant during the period in question. For this they produced a certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant in this regard.2. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as applicant has already deposited Rs. 7 lakhs at the time of hearing of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) is sufficient for hearing of the appeal.Pre-deposit of remaining amount of service tax and penal...

Naushad Khan Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Customs

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 123(2005)DLT602; 2005(84)DRJ280; 2006(194)ELT22(Del)

R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. This Revision Petition is directed against the Order dated 31st July, 2003, of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 7/2003, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal while upholding the conviction and sentence imposed on the Petitioner by the learned ACMM vide judgment dated 28th May, 2003 and order on sentence dated 31st May, 2003 holding the Petitioner guilty under Section 135(1)(a) and Section 132 of the Customs Act, 1962 2. It is contended by Counsel for the Petitioner that the Appellate Court has wrongly come to the conclusion that the appeal memo did not challenge the conviction under Section 132 of the Customs Act, 1962. He submits that the reading of the appeal memo clearly indicates that the Judgment dated 28th May, 2003, as a whole had been challenged and not piecemeal convictions therein. 3. After making the above submission, Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he would not like to challenge the Order of the Appellate Cou...

C.B.i. Vs. Dharampal Singh and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 123(2005)DLT592; 2005(84)DRJ284

R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. This criminal revision petition is directed against judgment dated 27.7.2000 of the Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 42 of 2000 whereby the learned Judge, while deciding the revision petition against order dated 27.1.2000 of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, whereby cognizance was taken under Section 304 IPC etc. against the petitioner, set aside the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's order on the ground that sanction to prosecute the petitioner was not in order. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that sanction under Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act was mandatory and that the same having not been taken would be a bar for taking cognizance and further this sanction cannot be obtained on account of limitation having run out in accordance with Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 8.12.1997 a stabbing incident took place under Hauz Quazi Police Station, Delhi, which gave rise to FIR No. 360/97, under ...

Good Year India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT355TriDel

2. Applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 2,08,48,009/-. The demand was confirmed on the ground that the applicants had wrongly utilized the credit taken in respect of Additional Excise Duty (AED) paid on Rubberized Tyre Cord Fabric (RTCF).3. The contention of the applicants is that there was a dispute regarding classification of RTCF and as per the decision of the Tribunal, they are liable to pay AED in respects of RTCF. The applicants also filed an appeal against the decision of the Tribunal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.4. In the month of January, 2004 the applicants had availed the AED as per the decision of the Tribunal and had taken the credit of the duty paid and utilized the same in respect of Basic Excise Duly (BED) in view of the provisions of Rule 3(6) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002. As per the explanation to this Rule, the credit of AED, leviable under Section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (GSI) Act, 1957, can be utilized towards...

Jagatjit Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. Controller General of Patents De ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 127(2006)DLT59

Vikramajit Sen, J. CMs No. 8978/2005 and 8980/20051. These applications under Order I Rule 10 and Order XXXIX Rule 4 Section 151 of the CPC filed by Austin Nichols and Company Inc. are for impleadment in the Petition and for vacation of interim Orders dated 31.5.2005 passed in these proceedings. In brief, the contention of the Applicant is that it is the holder of the trademark/label 'Blenders Pride' in over fifty countries and it has been in use internationally since 1973 and in India since 1995 in relation to the alcoholic beverages. The submission is that the impugned Order, the operation of which has been stayed, is in favor of the Applicant and hence it was a necessary party.2. Mr. V.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the prayers in the Petition are directed against the Trademarks Registry and hence the Applicant is not a necessary party. He, however, very fairly concedes that the Petitioner would have no objection if the Applicant ...