Delhi Court February 2006 Judgments

Shree Shyam Pipes Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT387TriDel

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of Copper pipes and tubes. The duty demand in the present case is under three heads. The first (about Rs. 24 lakhs) is in regard to copper scrap dispatched by the appellant without payment of duty to its job worker. The said scrap arose during the process of manufacturing of copper pipes and tubes. It was sent to the job work for melting and extruding into tubes. The job worker returned the goods to the appellant and it used the same as inputs for further manufacture. In the impugned order it is held that appellant was required to pay duty on the scrap sent to the job worker.2. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the procedure adopted by the appellant of duty free despatches under Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules was correct and this position remains settled by the decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Wyeth Laboratories Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, . The learned Counsel has also pointed ...

Prince Khadi Woollen Handloom Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The short levy demand in these appeals are for the period 1-7-1983 to 12-12-1983 and 7-2-1983 to 30-6-1983. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that demand is beyond the period of limitation, inasmuch as show cause notice was issued also on 28-5-1997.As against this, the learned DR contends that the show cause notice is a continuation of the proceeding earlier initiated in the light of the judgment dated 5-11-96 passed by the Apex Court [1996 (88) E.L.T. 314].2. We have perused the record and considered the submissions made by both sides. We may read the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court :-Prince Khadi Woollen Handloom --- AppellantsProduction Coop. IndustrialCollector of Central Excise and --- RespondentsAnr. (C.A. Nos. 2868-70/86,4259-61/86,4507-09/86) ORDER In all these matters the original contention of the Revenue was that the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of the Exemption Notification No. 30/81-C.E., dated 1st March, 1981, issued under...

Lord Chloro Alkali Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty. The demand is confirmed in respect of two diesel generating sets (D.G. Set) fabricated in the factory. The contention of the applicant is that each D.G. Sets is approximate of 65 Tones and capable of generating 6 MW of power. The convention is that duty paid parts are procured from the market and these were assembled at site.The contention is that complete DG set is not movable as such and relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Triveni Engineering & Indus. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise . Therefore, the contention is that demand 3. The contention of the Revenue is that DG Sets are marketable, therefore, demand was rightly made.4. We find that in this case two DG sets fabricated at site. The weight of the each set is approximately 65 Tonnes. There is no evidence on record to show that such DG sets can be removed as such. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T...

Shilpa Creation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Customs (Airport)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Hon'ble Members of the Kolkata Bench of this Tribunal have made the following order: Heard both sides. We find that the issue involved in this case pertains to anti-dumping duty. As per Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, an appeal against the order of determination or review thereof regarding the existence, degree and effect of any subsidy or dumping in relation to import any article shall lie to the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The above Section also provides that every appeal under Sub-section (1) shall be heard by a Special Bench constituted by the President of the Appellate Tribunal for hearing such appeals and such Bench shall consist of the President and not less than two Members and shall include one Judicial Member and one Technical Member. In view of the provisions referred to above, the appeals lie on the Special Bench and not to this Bench. 2. In view of the position as above, we direct the Registry to send the appeal papers to the Special...

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Polyplex Infotech Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is department's appeal for assessment year 2001-02 against the order dated 28.9.2004 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XVII, New Delhi. The following sole ground has been raised: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the A.O. to allow depreciation after capitalizing the expenses of Rs. 12,90,524/- to the plant & machinery in spite of the fact that none of these expenses have been incurred directly to bring into existence any fixed depreciable assets.2. Pre-operative expenses of Rs. 12,90,524/- were capitalized by the asseesee. These ere, however, not considered by the Assessing Officer for allowing depreciation. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) having directed to allow the depreciation claimed after capitalization of the said expenses, the department is aggrieved.3. The factum of the expenses having been incurred, is not disputed.The objection of the Assessing Officer was that since the expenses ...

Aktiebolaget Volvo and ors. Vs. Mr. V.N. Prasad and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]133CompCas655(Delhi); 127(2006)DLT654; 2006(32)PTC327(Del)

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.CS (OS) No. 254/20041. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining infringement of trademark, passing off, damages, delivery up, etc in respect of the trademark VOLVO or any other deceptively similar trade mark and for damages.2. The plaintiffs are engaged in the business of assembly of cars and truck since 1927-28. The plaintiffs adopted the word VOLVO, which is stated to be rare Latin word both as a trademark and a trade/corporate name. This name is stated to be an invented mark as it has no obvious meaning nor is it found in any authoritative dictionary of the English language. The mark has been registered in various countries of the world. The plaintiff states that this mark VOLVO acts as a source identifier as it stands for the high standards and superior quality of goods manufactured by the plaintiffs and sold all over the world. The significance of the brand is sought to be substantiated by stating that two reputed authorities ...

Hydro-tech Engg Company and anr. Vs. N.C.T. of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT343; 2006(88)DRJ198; [2006(109)FLR796]; (2006)IIILLJ23Del; (2006)143PLR41

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 26.4.2005 by which the writ petition was dismissed.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same, except where necessary.4. It appears that a reference was made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Labour Court V, Delhi. The terms of the reference are as follows:-Whether S/Sh. Jagroop, Satya Narain, Josh Mathyu, Bhagwan Dass, Ravinder Singh, Som Nath, Jamil Khan, Surender Singh, Lallan Gupta,Sunil Choudhary, Shravan Kumar Vishavkarma and Amar Singh have been paid their dues in full & final or their services have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management, and if so, to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect 5. It appears that only four workmen con...

Delhi Police Public School Vs. Director of Education and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT272

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 23.1.2003 by which he has dismissed the writ petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same except where necessary.4. The writ petitioner was a TGT teacher in the Delhi Police Public School (the appellant). On 6.6.2001 he gave an application to the Principal of the School which reads as follows:-To Date 06.06.2001The PrincipalDelhi Police Public ScholB-4, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi- 110029. Madam,Under the Prevailing atmosphere of the school. I am giving one month notice so that I may seek better employment. I will resign as I get a job in another Institution. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd/-(Mrs. S.M. Uppadhayaya)P.E.T.(TGT)5. True copy of the same is Annexure P-3 to the writ petition.6. Thereafter on 6.7.2001...

Advance Pipe Ltd. and Shri R.K. Vij Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(106)ECC446

1. The appellant filed these appeals against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In this case the demand of Rs. 9,53,126/- was confirmed and equal amount of penalty was imposed on the firm and Rs. 50,000/- on the Director of firm. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of pipes i.e. galvanized and black. On 1.11.2000 the officers of Revenue department visited the factory of the appellant, on verification, it was found that there was shortage of inputs such as zinc and also shortage of their finished product i.e. pipes. The Revenue also seized two photocopy of invoice showing clearance of higher quantity of pipes whereas 3rd carbon copy of the two invoices shows only clearance of one pipe. The Revenue is also of the view that the appellant clearing the pipes declaring them as rusted and short length pipe at a lower price whereas prima quality of pipe was cleared.2. The contention of the appellant in respect of zinc is th...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Goel Polymers

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

(ii) The case laws cited in authorisation letter were not got confirmed from respective Commissionerate. (iii) Due to Government holidays such as Diwali, Id and 5th and 6th November 2005 being Saturday and Sunday.2. Clearly, the grounds taken are too vague and general and cannot be accepted. That apart, there is no merit in the appeal also. The appeal is directed against the following order of the Commissioner (Appeals): 6.1 I find that the appellant had filed a refund claim claiming refund of service tax amounting to Rs. 1,13,672.00. The claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority but the appellant succeeded in appeal and the refund was allowed on merits vide my Order in Appeal No. 324/RPR-I/2004, dated 24.12.2004. In compliance of the Order in Appeal, the adjudicating authority has sanctioned the said refund under impugned order but adjusted the said refund against a demand confirmed vide his Order in Original No. 176/ST/Adj/2005, dated 6.5.2005. 6.2 In this regard, it is obser...