Delhi Court July 2007 Judgments

R.R. Construction Company Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)12STJ214CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. Heard both sides. Admittedly, the amount of Service Tax of Rs. 8,38,572/- was paid up by the applicant on 20.08.2005 along with the returns. It appears from the record that, the applicant had carried out only one construction venture between September, 2004 and June, 2005, as stated by the learned Counsel. The applicant gets itself registered for the said category of construction service on 03.08.2005. It is only much thereafter that the show cause notice was issued on 18.01.2006. It appears that on 12.08.2005 the Department had written a letter to the appellant and thereafter the amount was paid up. There is no clear finding with regards to suppression of facts etc. which are necessary ingredients of Section 78 for the purpose of imposing penalty. It appears that, the Commissioner (Appeals) had proceeded on the footing that the ingredients of Section 78 are satisfied, merely on the basis of an observation that the evasion of Service Tax was detected by the Department. Further more...

Vardhman Spinning Mills Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(122)ECC439

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of various varieties of textile yarn, which are liable to excise duty. It is also to be noted here that 'manufacture' has an extended meaning in the context of Central Excise duty in as much as processes carried out on already manufactured yarns also attract excise duty. This is because of the deeming provision that specified processes themselves will be treated as manufacturing processes.2. The appellant was also required under Rule 173-B to file declaration relating to goods manufactured. This declaration indicated, inter alia, the description of the goods, their excise classification and the rate of duty attracted. The appellant had been filing such declarations. For e.g. in a declaration filed on 1.3.99, the appellant, inter alia, made the following declarations: No. & date of the relevant notification(s) if any having bearing on the applicable rate of duty Viscose yarns which have been purchases as dyed yarns and only winding and/or bulking ...

Cce Vs. C.L. Engineering Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Revenue has appealed against the order dated 13th May, 2005 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) setting-aside the penalty of Rs. 3,49,292/-, which was imposed by the adjudicating authority with an option to the noticee to deposit 25% of the penalty amount under the first proviso to Section 11-AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, subject to the payment of all pending dues within one month.2. Admittedly, all the dues including penalty at 25% of the duty determined was deposited by the respondent. Still, however, the respondent had preferred an appeal in which it was contended that, they had deposited the full amount of credit involved before the issuance of the show cause notice and, therefore, no show cause notice was required to be issued to them in view of Sub-section 2(B) of Section 11-A of the act.3. It is clear from the material on record that, the Cenvat Credit was not voluntarily reversed, but it was only when the factory premises of the noticee was raided on 14.08.2006 a...

Silver Impex Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]311ITR244(Delhi)

V.B. Gupta, J.1. The assessee filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as 'Act') against the order dated 24-2-2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (herein after referred to as Tribunal'), Delhi Bench 'E' in ITA No. 1966 (Del) of 2002 pertaining to the assessment year 1995-96.2. The assessee filed his return of income on 31-10-1985 declaring 'Nil income'. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 22-10-1996. Assessee filed revised return on 11-12-1996 declaring gross total income of Rs. 60,60,858 and the income disclosed in the revised return was also 'Nil'. The revised return was processed and deduction of Rs. 49,18,171 was allowed under Section 80HHC and the income of the assessee was assessed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act at Rs. 11,42,867 and accordingly tax demand of Rs. 10,21,710 was raised.3. This addition made under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act was confirmed...

Prabhat Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Prior to the amendment in the definition of 'sub-broker', which was made on 10.9.2004, the portion of taxable service provided by 'stock broker' was exempted under the Notification No. 25/2004-ST dated 10.9.2004. However, thereafter, since sub-broker was included in the definition of 'stock broker', the exemption stood withdrawn. However, the liability, which was earlier exempted would, prima facie, be that of 'stock broker' in the capacity as a stock broker in respect of the services provided by the said stock broker. The appellant has, therefore, made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of the service tax and the penalty payable under the impugned order. There shall be waiver of pre-deposit of service tax and penalty payable under the impugned order during the pendency of the appeal. The appeal will come up for final hearing in its due course. This application is, therefore, allowed....

Dalveer Singh Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)9STR569

1. The appellant has challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the order-in-original by which demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 4,27,322/- for providing cargo handling and warehousing services was confirmed and a penalty of the like amount was imposed besides imposing other penalties and ordering interest to be recovered.2. The learned authorized representative for the appellant has contended that, cargo handling and goods transport services were distinct services. He pointed out from the record that, though a certificate dated 25-11-2005 was produced showing that the recipient of transport service had paid up the service tax from the date of applicability of service tax provisions to the recipient, the Appellate Commissioner has not considered the said contention. It was also pointed out that, for the period from April 2004 to March 2005 service tax on handling charges was payable by the applicant and that such an amount of Rs. 26,630/- has been paid up. It wa...

Continental Brakes Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicant seeks waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 500/- imposed under Section 77 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 and also the interest amount of Rs. 22,541/- payable under the impugned order.2. There is no provision of waiving of pre-deposit of interest and, therefore, the application seeking relief of interest amount is totally misconceived. The learned Counsel for the applicant argued that penalty of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) was imposed under Section 77 of the said Act, which did not apply because, the applicant had paid up the amount on 15.3.2004. It, however, appears from the record that when the show cause notice was issued on 11.11.2004, the applicant had not filed the returns which were required to be filed under Section 71A of the Act. The provisions of Section 77, as amended came into force from 10.9.2004, on which date no returns were yet filed under Section 71A.Therefore, prima facie, there is no case made out against the imposition of penalty under Section 7...

Ramco Industries Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Taxes-2

Court: Sales Tax Tribunal STT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)9VST60NULL

1. Questioning the orders of the Madhya Pradesh sales tax authorities treating the alleged stock transfers to the branches in other States as inter State sales and levying Central sales tax thereon for the assessment years 1986-87 to 1990-91, appeals were filed before this authority on August 8, 2005. Before filing these appeals, the assessment orders passed under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 were questioned by filing revision petitions. The revisional authority, namely, the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, rejected the petitions and declined to interfere with the assessments made. After that, the applicant filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution impleading various other States in which the stock transferred goods were treated as local sales and tax collected thereon. The Supreme Court disposed of the writ petition on February 4, 2004 by passing the following order:Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu and therefore, ...

Cipla Limited Vs. M.K. Pharmaceuticals

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2007(3)170; 2008(36)PTC166(Del)

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.IA No. 811/2004 in CS (OS) No. 112/20041. By this application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, plaintiff has sought interim injunction against the defendant that defendant be restrained from marketing/selling its product 'NORFLOXACIN' in oval shape, orange colour tablets in blister packaging.2. The case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff has been manufacturing 'NORFLOXACIN' Tablets under trade name 'NORFLOX-400' and the plaintiff had been marketing these tablets in blister packing. Tablets of the plaintiff were having oval shape and orange colour.3. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the defendant has copied the trade mark of the plaintiff and was marketing its tablets under the trade mark 'NORFLOX400'. It is undisputed that defendant was using generic name of medicine and was within its right to do so. The contention of the plaintiff is that copying of colour of the tablets, shape of the tablets and blister packaging was causing confusion in the minds of...

Govardhan Motels and Restaurants Vs. I. Subramanyam and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2007(3)1; 2008(36)PTC513(Del)

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. By this order, I propose to dispose of the aforesaid application filed by the defendant no. 2 under Sections 20 and 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, challenging the territorial jurisdiction of this court to entertain the present suit against the defendants.2. The plaintiff has filed the present suit alleging infringement of trade mark and copyright by the defendants in its mark 'Govardhan' which is used by the plaintiff in relation to its business of running vegetarian restaurants. It is stated that since 1999 the plaintiff has adopted and is using the trade mark 'Govardhan' by itself along with the stylised letter 'G'. It is claimed that the word/mark 'Govardhan' per se and stylised form in which the letter 'G' is adopted, separately as well as collectively are the essential and distinguishing feature of the mark 'Govardhan'. The plaintiff also claims copyright in the manner of depiction on the said mark 'Govardhan'. This mar...