Delhi Court February 2006 Judgments

Motilal Padampat Udyog Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against the denial of Modvat credit of about Rs. 1.4 lakhs.2. I have perused the record and heard the learned SDR. The appellant has not appeared for hearing but has filed a written submission. The same is also being taken into account.3. The relevant facts are that the appellant is a manufacturer of iron and steel, bars, rods etc. It was availing Modvat credit on "inputs".While so, in the year 1988, the appellant's final product was exempted from duty under Notification No. 202/88 dated 25-5-1988. At the time of exemption, the appellant had outstanding input credit of Rs. 1,41,067/-. This amount could not be utilised since the final product became exempt. Duty was re-imposed in 1994 on the final product. The appellant sought to carry forward the modvat credit balance as on 25-8-1988 and use the same for payment of duty on the goods cleared subsequent to re-imposition of duty. The impugned order has rejected the claim for such carry forward of Modvat credit....

Sharman Fabrics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Since the issue involved in all the three appeals are same, all the three appeals are taken up together for disposal, after granting stay, with the consent of both sides.2. All the three appeals are directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), wherein it was upheld that all the three appellants are liable to pay/reverse the excess deemed credit availed by the appellants.3. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants are engaged in manufacturing & knitted garments. The appellants availed deemed credit as per the provisions of Rule 9A of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The appellants availed credit of the inputs lying stock, in WIP & finished goods as per the rate notified in Notification No. 35/2003 C.E. (N.T.), dated 10th April, 2003. The Revenue issued a SCN for demanding the excess deemed credit availed by the appellants on the pretext that the appellants case of availing deemed credit is covered by the provisions of Notification No.47/...

Commissioner of Cus. (icd) Vs. Valley Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is by the revenue against the order-in-appeal dated 13-7-2005 wherein the order-in-original confiscating and imposing penalty is set aside.2. The issue involved in this case is that the respondent purchased on High Seas Basis a consignment of Heavy Melting Scrap originating from Iran. The respondent filed the documents for the clearance of the same along with a pre-shipment certificate from an inspecting agency who is accredited agency by the EXIM policy. The authorities inspected the consignment and found negligible quantity of used empty/rusted/broken shells. The authorities ordered for the seizure of the whole consignment and confiscated the consignment and imposed penalty on the respondent. On an appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the confiscation and penalty. Hence this appeal by revenue.3. None appeared for the respondent. Heard the learned DR and perused the records. It is not disputed that the respondent had purchased the whole consignment ...

Object D' Art India Vs. Commissioner Of Customs (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 3-1-2005 which upholds the Order-in-Original rejecting the refund claim of the appellants.2. At the outset learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that as per the direction of the adjudicating authority he had submitted C.A. certificate regarding non/passing over of the duty liability to his customers and has also produced detailed invoices and a chart showing the detail of export made by them in order to avail the benefit of Notification. He submits that all these are recorded by the adjudicating authority and has rejected the claim without granting any hearing.3. Learned D.R. submits that the adjudicating authority who has passed the order is successor in the office. He submits that he has no objection, if the matter is sent back for reconsideration.4. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. I find from the Order-in-Original that the adjudicating authority clearly mentions that h...

R.K. Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(109)ECC194

1. These 2 appeals are directed against the Order-in-Original dated 4.4.2005 wherein penalty of Rs. 1 lakh each has been imposed on the appellants.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants in Appeal No. C/591/05 Shri Jeewan Singh imported 234 cylinder of restricted item i.e. refrigerant gas concealed in containers. The said consignment was detected concealed in a container and on investigation it was found that the said goods was imported without any import licence, hence these goods were liable for seizure.Show cause notice was issued to the appellants to show cause as to why goods should not be confiscated and penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants resisted the show cause notice. The adjudicating authority after considering the submissions made by the appellants vide his Order-in-Original dated 4.4.2005 confiscated absolutely the consignment of refrigerant gas cylinder and imposed penalty of R...

Karan Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC240

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeals filed before him as being beyond the period of limitation. His observations on the limitation issue are to be found in para 3 of the order. That para reads as under: 3. I have gone through the case records. I find that this office has made an enquiry with the adjudicating authority regarding service of the impugned order to the said appellants. The adjudicating authority vide letter C. No. V(H) Dem/129/98 informed this office that Order in Original No. 70/99 and 71/99 dated 27/7/1999 was dispatched through Registered letters and both the registered letter were not returned back. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of SLP (Civil) No.S.No. Order in Original/ Date of dispatch Date of filing Period of Date appeal delay after date of1. 70/99 dated 27.7.1999 4.9.2002 1135 days 27/7/19992. 71/99 dated 27.7.1999 4.9.2002 1135 days 27/7/1999 Thus, the appeal was filed by them late by more than three years; whereas, the appeal against the i...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Kemco Agencies

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)14STT159

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 12-8-2005 wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the penalty imposed on the respondents.2. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. I find that the respondents are not challenging the imposition of service tax and interest thereon and penalty imposed Under Section 75A and 77 which were upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The department's appeal in this case is directed against reduction of penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals) from Rs. 94,300/- to Rs. 25,000/- imposed Under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994.3. The provision of Section 76 under the Finance Act, 1994 during the relevant period reads as under:- Section 76 - Penalty for failure to collect or pay Service Tax. - Any person, liable to pay service tax in accordance with the provisions of Section 68 or the rules made there-under, who fails to pay tax shall pay in addition to paying such tax; and interest on that tax in accordance ...

Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs. Reckitt Benckiser (i) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT81; 2006(32)PTC307(Del)

A.K. Sikri, J.1. is No. 821/2006 is an application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking ad interim injunction. On 25th January, 2006 ex-parte ad interim injunction was granted to the plaintiff. On service of this injunction order upon the defendant, the defendant immediately filed is No. 1106/2006 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC for vacation of the injunction order dated 25th January, 2006. It is, in these circumstances, both the applications were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The question in these proceedings essentially is as to whether the advertisement of the defendant of its product under the trade name `Mortein' which is an insecticide is disparaging and denigrates the product of the plaintiff and on this ground whether the plaintiff can restraint the defendant from exhibiting such an advertisement on electronic media. 3. The plaintiff company is engaged in the manufacturing and/or marketi...

Roma Dutta and anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(88)DRJ285

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 1st November, 2004 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. By means of the writ petition the petitioners (the appellants herein) prayed for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the regularisation order No. 151/RZN dated 18.3.1999 and the regularisation plan released on 20.9.1999 by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in respect of A-1 Kailash Colony, New Delhi. The petitioners also prayed for a Writ of Mandamus to direct respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to implement and enforce the demolition order dated 10.9.2001 and the mandate of the judgment dated 27.11.2002 passed in Suit No. 1287/2001.5. The petitioner No. 1 is a resident of residential house No. A-2, Kailash Colony, New Delhi. T...

Vinod Malik and anr. Vs. O.P. Malik and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(88)DRJ278

Markandeya Katju, C.J. 1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 26th October 2004 by which the writ petition was allowed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 22.10.2003 passed by the Lt.Governor of Delhi by which he reversed the order dated 2.7.2003 passed by the Appellate Tribunal,MCD by which the Tribunal upheld the order dated 11.1.1994 passed by the Additional Commissioner, MCD revoking the sanction obtained for further construction in property C-100, Anand Niketan, New Delhi.4. The facts of the case are that the writ petitioner, Shri O.P. Malik and his brother late Shri K.L. Malik, the father of respondents 2 & 3 in the writ petition, were jointly allotted property bearing No. C-100, Anand Niketan, New Delhi by a Perpetual Sublease deed dated 11.9.1968 through Anand Niketan Coop. Housing Society Ltd. The said plot measures 423.20 square y...