Delhi Court January 2006 Judgments

Hi-tech Pipes Ltd. Vs. Asian Mills Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(32)PTC192(Del)

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.IA 6198/2002 (U/O 39 Rs 1 & 2 CPC) & is 8461/2002 (U/O 39 R 4 CPC)1. The plaintiff has filed a suit for perpetual injunction restraining piracy of trade mark, copyright, passing off and rendition of accounts in respect of the mark 'Gujrat' in relation to his products steel pipes, etc. The defendant is selling 'MS ERW' pipes under the trade name 'Gujarat'.2. The plaintiff company claims to have been established in the year 1985 and started manufacturing steel pipes since 1988. The trade mark 'Gujrat' is stated to have been adopted in the year 1985 by the predecessor of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has been using it since 1988. The said trade mark is stated to have acquired secondary meaning and distinctiveness on account of its open, regular, continuous, extensive and exclusive use coupled with large scale publicity and advertisement. The plaintiff is stated to have filed an application for registration of the trade mark in respect of all kinds of steel tubes, p...

Cce Vs. Steel Strips Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC489

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-appeal dated 19.2.2004 wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty imposed on the respondents.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the respondents availed of Modvat credit on HCL Acid, Soluble Oil, Caustic Soda, Rust Preventive Oil, etc. which are used in the manufacturing of C.R. Steel strips by them. The respondents are also doing job work of C.R. Steel Strips. The respondents used duty paid inputs as mentioned above in the job work done by them. The allegation against the respondents is that they could not have availed credit on duty paid inputs which were used for the job work purposes since the goods cleared for job work purpose are cleared without payment of duty. Show cause notice was issued to the respondents on 9.4.99 demanding the duty and for imposition of penalty. On adjudication the adjudication authority confirmed the demand and also imposed penalty on the respondents under Rule 57-I(4). ...

Pooja Forge Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)8STR318

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of nuts, bolts and screws. The present appeals are directed against orders denying Modvat credit of about Rs. 14.5 lakhs for capital goods and imposition of penalties.Credit has been denied for the reason that the appellant had moved some capital goods from one unit, where credit was taken, to another unit or that some of the machines were directly received in the second unit.2. The contention of the appellant is that both the units belong to the appellant and that manufacturing activities connected to the production of nuts, bolts and screws were taking place in both the units. It is also the explanation that machinery was moved for repair, test etc.Whatever be the reasons for moving them, the Id. Counsel has emphasized that, this is not a case of alienation of machinery on which capital goods had been taken, to warrant return of credit.3. As against the contentions of the appellant, Id. SDR would submit that since the movement of the capital goods ...

Kash Venture Travels P. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Service Tax

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal, the order made by the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner by which penalty of Rs. 60,400/- was imposed on the appellant under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, has been challenged.2. We have gone through the record with the assistance of the learned Authorised Representative for the Department and have considered the contentions which were raised by the appellant before the authorities below, even though the appellant has remained absent and has not been represented at this hearing. The only contention, which the appellant has taken up in the memo of appeal is that, the Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in law and facts by confirming the penalty. Before the authorities below, the appellant had taken up a contention that there was utter confusion whether service tax was applicable on the service rendered in India and, therefore, a reasonable ground was made out under Section 80 of the Act for not imposing any pe...

Cce Vs. Shree Ambica Steel Rolling Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 27.2.2004 wherein the appellate authority has allowed the appeal of the respondents.2. None appeared for the respondents despite notice. Heard learned D.R.and considered the submissions made by him. I find that the issue involved in this ease is regarding imposition of penalty on the respondents under Rule 96ZP(3) of the HRRMACD Rules. I find that the period involved in this case is from April, 1998 to June, 1998 and the respondents have defaulted in payment of duty but subsequently paid the duty. The question involved in this case is regarding imposition of penalty. I find the appellate authority has allowed the appeal of the respondents relying upon Notification No. 42/98(NT) dated 10.12.98. The said notification No. 42/98 is in respect of the compounded levy scheme of duty based on the production capacity of Hot Stenter in the processing units i.e. textile processing and is not in respect of Hot Re-rolling Mills. To my mi...

L.V. Associates Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal filed by L.V. Associates challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 30.8.2005. In this impugned order, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) decided that Fat Liquors would not be eligible for the concessional rate of duty of 10% extended by Notification No. 12/94-CE dated 1.3.1994, as amended. Notification No.12/94-CE extends the benefit for the goods termed as "Lubricating Preparations". The learned Commissioner (Appeals) while denying the said benefit, focused on the construction of the Tariff. Sub-Heading relating to 3403.00 and distinguished two categories of items, viz. (a) lubricating preparations and (b) preparations of a kind used for the oil or grease treatment of textile materials, leather, fur skin and other materials. As regards fat liquors, he observed that the same would seem to fall in the Second category as preparations of a kind used in the oil or grease treatment of Textile, Material leather etc.as fat liquoring is a process whereby o...

Prakash Udyog Samiti Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Common issue involved in these appeals, therefore, are being taken up together.2. The brief facts of the case that three show cause notices were issued to the appellant for denial of benefit of small scale exemption Notification No. 88/88-C.E. on the ground that they are not the owner of the brand name. M/s. Prakash Gramodyog Ltd. is clearing the goods i.e. detergent powder under the brand name shaving plus which is belonged to M/s. Corona Plus Industries Ltd. M/s. Prakash Gramodyog Ltd. contested the show cause notices on the ground that they are owner of the brand name as they are manufacturing different goods than the goods manufactured by M/s. Corona Plus Industries Ltd. The adjudicating authority held that M/s. Prakash Gramodyog is the owner of the brand name and dropped the demand. However, an appeal filed by Revenue the Tribunal (CEGAT), now CESTAT held that the brand name does not belong to M/s. Prakash Gramodyog and confirmed the demand which relates to normal period of li...

The Himalaya Drug Company and Dr. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC35

2. The appellant filed these appeals against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In this case the duty is being confirmed in respect of granules and extracts cleared from the factory at Delhi.The basic raw material i.e. leaves, barks, roots, flowers etc. were powdered, sifted, grinded, blended and dried as per the formula and in case of extract these are boiled and these granules and extracts are being cleared to the appellant's unit at Bangalore unit and these are used as Ayurvedic medicine which was cleared on payment of duty.3. We find that this demand of excisability came before the Tribunal in appellant's own case in respect of the Delhi Unit and the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 915-916/05 dated 3.6.2005 held that the impugned goods are not excisable. Respectfully, following the earlier decision of the Tribunal, the demand is set aside/and the appeals are allowed....

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. R.K. Marble Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The respondents, M/s. R.K. Marbles Ltd. were availing services provided by the Goods Transport Operators during the period from 16-7-97 to 16-10-98. They did pay service tax on the amount of freight paid by them to the Goods Transport Operators. Therefore, they were asked by the Superintendent to furnish details of total amount paid to the Goods Transport Operators in lieu of services provided, under his letter dated 12-4-2002. Subsequently, they were issued show cause notice dated 11-7-2002 demanding service tax of Rs. 7,89,958/- under Section 73(a) of the Finance Act, 1994 and also proposing to impose penalty and recovery of interest. The original authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 3,48,184/- under Section 73(1)(a) of the Finance Act, 1994 and did not impose any penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order held that no tax can be recovered from the appellants (present respondent).3. In their appeal, the Revenue has pleaded that the Tribunal in case of L.H. Suga...

Maiden Paper Tubes (P) Ltd., Shri Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. All these 3 appeals are directed against two Orders-in-Appeal both dated 19.1.2004 passed by the same Commissioner (Appeals) wherein the appeals of the appellants were rejected.2. Heard both sides. The main point agitated by the learned Advocate is that the adjudicating authority has not granted an effective personal hearing to them and order-in-original is vitiated and is in violation of principle of natural justice. I find that Order-in-Original was passed, stating that the appellants were given personal hearing on 19.2.2003. The Advocate for the appellants submits that they have sought adjournment of the date 19.2.2003 to any other date after 26.2.2003. If it being so, the order-in-original dated 29.5.2003 is violative of principle of natural justice inasmuch as the said order-in-original was passed on 29.5.20003 while the appellants sought adjournment of the personal hearing only for a week i.e. 26.2.2003. I find that the adjudicating authority in his order-in-original has proc...