Delhi Court February 2010 Judgments

Lt Col Pramod Kumar Versus Union of India Through Its Secretary Minist ...

Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi

1. This petition has been brought for quashing the order dated 31.05.2006 passed by the Chief of Army Staff along with the finding and sentence recorded by General Court Martial. Simultaneously the prayer for awarding all consequential benefits has also been made. It is averred by the petitioner that he was detailed for performing duties as Recruiting Medical Officer in the board of officers convened to conduct Recruitment Rally at Jind during the period 09th May 2001 to 26th May 2001. He medically examined 1565 candidates for their enrolment in the Army and declared only 221 candidates medically fit. Those candidates went to the Regiment Centre where only medical check up could be done as per he standard of rating procedure but here in this case Confirmatory Medical Board was held which declared 61 of them as unfit. Finding of Confirmatory Medical Board was questioned by specialist in respect of 17 candidates and declared them fit. The culpability of the petitioner was confined to the...

M/S. Mahavir Spg. Mills Limited Vs. Cce, Jallandhar

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per JUSTICE R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR: In terms of request for withdrawal of the appeals made under letter dated 15th February, 2010, addressed to the Asst. Registrar, CESTAT, New Delhi by the appellants the appeals are allowed to be withdrawn and stand disposed of as withdrawn....

M/S. Spbl Limited Vs. Cce, Jaipur-ii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per JUSTICE R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR: Heard. 2. This appeal arises from order dated 11.1.2005 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-II), Customs and Central Excise, Jaipur. By the impugned order the appeal filed by the appellants against order of the adjudicating authority has been dismissed. The adjudicating authority by its order dated 31st July, 2002 while sanctioning the refund to the tune of Rs. 31,83,519/- and Rs. 67,19,061/- and rejecting the claim of Rs. 8,378/- directed that the said amount should be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund in terms in terms of Section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the ground of failure on the part of the appellant to discharge their burden regarding non-passing of duty liability to the consumer. 3. The facts, in brief, relevant for the decision are that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Processed Manmade Fabrics classifiable under Chapter 54 and 55 of the Schedule to the Central excise Tariff Act, 1985. They used to receive ...

Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Jayco India (P) Ltd.,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per JUSTICE R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR: Heard learned D.R. for the appellant. None for the respondents. We have perused the records including the Cross Objection filed by the respondents. 2. The appellant challenges order dated 25.2.2004 passed by the Commissioner, Chandigarh whereby the respondents are held to be entitled to avail Cenvat credit in respect of duty paid on Boomer Tatoos/Printed Transfer which were being supplied as complementary items. 3. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of chewing gum/bubble gum and other confectionery items classifiable under Chapter Heading 17.04 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the course of scrutiny of their ER-1 Return for the period from September, 2001to August, 2002, it was revealed to the department that the respondents had been wrongly availed Cenvat credit on Boomer Tatoos (New Design)/Printed Transfers classifiable under Heading 3920.38/4901.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act to the tune of Rs. 70...

M/S. K.P. Fragrances Shri Amit Sharma, Proprietor Vs. Cce, Bhopal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

PER: D.N.PANDA The dispute in these two appeals is only in respect of penalty imposed under Section 11AC on M/s.K.P. Fragrances to the tune of Rs.3,06,233/- and penalty of Rs.25,000/- imposed on Shri Amit Sharma. 2. Ld.Counsel submits that there was no evidence to bring the appellant M/s.K.P. Fragrances to the fold of penalty. There was only short payment of duty without attributing malafide intention. Therefore penalty is not imposable. He refers to the provisions contained in Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with judgement of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of K.P. Pouches for grant of concessional penalty even if there is imposition of penalty. 3. So far as penalty on Shri Amit Sharma is concerned, submission of learned Counsel is that when on 20.3.2006, during visit by the investigating team the appellant was absent. There was non accountal of goods purchased. Reliance was placed by Revenue on the statement recorded from Shri Amit Sharma and that was ex...

M/S. Sports and Leisure Apparel Ltd., Vs. Cce, Noida

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per JUSTICE R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR: Heard. 2. This appeal arises from order dated 27.1.2005 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Noida. By the impugned order the appeal filed by the appellants against order passed by the Adjudicating authority has been dismissed. The Adjudicating authority by his order dated 30th June, 2004 had confirmed the demand of Rs. 8,80,370/- against the appellants along with interest thereon and penalty of equal amount. 3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of knitted fabrics of cotton classifiable under Chapter Sub-heading 6001.11 and 6002.92, and articles of apparel knitted or crocheted all sorts classifiable under Chapter Sub-heading 6102.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They are also manufacturing accessories classifiable under Chapter Sub-heading No. 6202.00 of the Schedule to the said Act. 4. The appellants had purchased duty paid yarn and used the same for manufacturing knitted or crocheted fabrics classifiable under Chapte...

Cce, Kanpur Vs. M/S Paper and Allied Products and Others

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per D.N. Panda: This is a case where ld. Counsel for the respondent brings out the legal infirmity showing that no decision by the Committee is said to have been taken on a particular day when a Committee comprising of two Commissioners had no ad idem on the issue on the same day at the same point of time. If there is no agreement between the Commissioners at a particular point of time, such a decision is said to be non est. Such a view has been taken by Tribunal in the case of CCE, Kanpur Vs. LML Ltd. reported in 2009 (92) RLT 840 2. When the above preliminary objection comes forward and that is also visible from page-22 of the appeal folder containing the review order, the appeal is not maintainable. Hence dismissed....

M/S Shree Prithvi Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per D.N. Panda: This is a case of penalty of Rs.63,822/- holding by order in appeal that there was no ground taken in the appeal memorandum before first appellate authority as to the reason of shortage. Ld. Appellate authority came to the conclusion that the principle of conservation of mass can be fairly applied to the impugned goods based on which it can be scientifically inferred that the goods, not found in stock and/or which remained unexplained, had been cleared clandestinely. There is no dispute on the levy of duty by the appellant. The appellant paid the duties before adjudication. Ld. Counsel Atul Gupta submits that there was no malafide attached to the shortage but a mere negligible shortage gave rise to demand of excise duty of Rs.11,967/- and disallowance of Cenvat credit of Rs.51,855/-. He further submits that there is no evidence of clandestine removal nor any investigation suggests that the goods have been removed by any means which was known to Revenue and based on any ...

Cce, Kanpur Vs. M/S Anubhav Plast (P) Ltd. Shri Onkar Nath Gupta, Mana ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per D.N. Panda: This is a case where ld. Counsel for the respondent brings out the legal infirmity showing that no decision by the Committee is said to have been taken on a particular day when a Committee comprising of two Commissioners had no adidem on the issue on the same day. If there is no agreement between the Commissioners at a particular point of time, such a decision is said to be non est. Such a view has been taken by Tribunal in the case of CCE, Kanpur Vs. LML Ltd. reported in 2009 (92) RLT 840 2. When the above preliminary objection comes forward and that is also visible at page-24 of the appeal folder carrying the review order, the appeals are certainly not maintainable. Hence dismissed....

Mount Everest Mineral Water Ltd. Vs. Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd. a ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2010(1)205

S. Muralidhar, J.1. An interesting question involving the interpretation of Section 98 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (TM Act, 1999), which is a provision similar to the repealed Section 112 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (TM Act, 1958), arises for consideration in this petition.2. The Petitioner holds registrations for the mark 'Himalayan' in respect of mineral water falling in Class 32. Copies of three certificates under registration Nos. 630661 ['Himalayan' (device of mountain)] dated 10th June 1994, 1078116 [word mark 'Himalayan'] dated 4th February 2002 and 1078117 ['Himalayan (label)] dated 4th February 2002 issued by the Trade Marks Registry, New Delhi, have been enclosed with this petition. There is one other application (registration No. 630647 in Class 32) filed for the word mark 'Himalaya Springs (Dadi)' which is stated to be pending.3. The Petitioner filed a suit CS (OS) No. 1172 of 2008 in this Court seeking to restrain Respondent No. l Bisleri International Pv...