Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2004)2GLR1338
M.S. Shah, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 28.10.2003/12.11.2003 (Annexure 'I') of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dismissing the petitioners' appeal and confirming the order dated 21.4.2003 (Annexure 'G') of the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla and holding that the additional duty of customs is payable by the petitioner-unit.2. Petitioner No.1 is a unit in Kandla Special Economic Zone. The petitioner-unit manufactures regenerated polymers out of scrap or waste of goods falling within various Chapters including Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff. Ordinarily, the units permitted to be set up in Kandla Special Economic Zone like the other Special Economic Zones in the country are to import raw materials without payment of customs duty, then manufacture finished products out of the raw material and export them out of the country. Un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (2003)LC56Tri(Kol.)kata
1. The issue in the instant appeal relates to the refund claim filed by the appellants, vide their letter dated 15-1-2001 for refund of Special Additional Duty paid in respect of the imports made from Nepal during the period from 13-3-2000 to 29-9-2000. The Special Additional Duty was paid by the appellants under protest and accordingly, the assessments were provisional. The said refund claim has been rejected by the authorities below on the ground that during the relevant period, Special Additional Duty was leviable on the imports and the same was exempted by issuance of the Notification No. 124/2000-Cus., dated 29-9-2000. The appellants are not disputing the factual position that Special Additional Duty on all Nepalese Imports into India, was exempted with effect from 29-9-2000 when Notification No. 124/2000 was issued. But they submit that the said Notification should be treated as clarificatory and hence having retrospective effect, inasmuch as under the Treaty of Trade and Agreem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Civil Appeal No. 800 of 2005 was filed against the order passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order of the District Magistrate refusing to grant lease to the appellant as well the Policy dated 17.10.2002 of the State of Uttaranchal whereby the State created monopoly in respect of mining of minor minerals.2. Civil Appeal NO. 678 of 2005 was filed by Maya Ram against the final judgment and order dated 3.12.2003 passed by the High Court of Uttaranchal in W.P. No. 258(M/B) of 2003 vide which the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.3. Civil Appeal No. 679 of 2005 was filed by one Yograj Singh against the judgment and order dated 3.12.2003 passed by the High Court of Uttaranchal in Writ Petition No. 70(M/B) of 2003 whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.4. The respondents in all the appeals are one and the same. The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 800 of 2005...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
HONBLE SHRI (DR.) P.C. CHAKRABORTI, TECHNICAL MEMBER: By this order we dispose of five appeal Nos. TA/1 to 5/2007/PT/CH and miscellaneous petition Nos. 1 to 5/2007 in TA/1 to 5/2007/PT/CH filed by the appellant seeking stay of operation of the impugned orders and miscellaneous petition No.33/2008 in TA/1/2007/PT/CH filed by the respondent No.3. This common order is being passed because the above five appeals are preferred by a single Appellant against the five almost identical orders passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs deciding five pre-grant oppositions to the grant of a patent to the Appellant and in all the five appeals the issues are almost identical and the appeals were heard together. 2. BACKGROUND The Appellant, a Swiss pharmaceutical company engaged in the manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical and medicinal products including anti-cancer drugs, filed an application for patent on 17.7.1998 claiming Switzerland priority date of 18.7.1997 for an invention ti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
1. Heard both sides at length on 1-2-2006, 6-2-2006 and 7-2-2006. Under the impugned order, customs duty demand of Rs. 8,48,16,660/- and excise duty demand of Rs. 14,13,208/-have been confirmed and penalties amounting to Rs. 8,84,16,660/- and Rs. 14,13,208/- have also been imposed.2. By written synopsis dated 24-3-2006, the Id. Advocate for the appellants has summarized his arguments as follows: The imported Ascorbic Acid - FCC grade IV and TMBA were relabeled by the appellants. A.1 The show cause notice (internal page 11, bottom page 318 of Vol.-II) reads as under: It is noticed that Shri Lalit Modi in his statement dated 4-1-2001, categorically stated that Ascorbic Acid IP. and TMBA were not actually manufactured in their factory. He further stated that the company sold the said goods imported by them, as such without doing any processing, in the very same drums in which the raw materials were received, after replacing the outer labels.... A.2 The appellants had affixed a label on t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* + + + + + + + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:07. 03.2019 Pronounced on:01. 05.2019 ST.APPL. 1/2017, C.M. Appl. No.3884-3885/2017 COMMISSIONER OF TRADE & TAXES, DELHI........ Petitioner SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent versus ST.APPL. 5/2017, C.M. Appl. No.36948/2017, 36950/2017 COMMISSIONER OF TRADE & TAXES, DELHI ........ Petitioner SUPER AGENCIES ST.APPL. 6/2017 COMMISSIONER OF TRADE & TAXES DELHI ........ Petitioner M/S INGRAM MICRO INDIA LTD ..... Respondent ..... Respondent versus versus VAT APPEAL162016, C.M. Appl. No.29580/2016 M/S HANS RAJ OM PAKASH COMMISISONER TRADE & TAXES & ANR. versus ..... Appellant ..... Respondent VAT APPEAL172016 LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. COMMISSIONER OF TRADE & TAXES versus ..... Appellant ..... Respondent versus VAT APPEAL182016 LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. COMMISSIONER OF TRADE & TAXES VAT APPEAL192016, C.M. Appl. No.31746/2016 GE INDIA INDUSTRIAL PVT LTD COMMISSIONER OF TRADE AND TAXES DELHI..... Respondent ..... Resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2005)97TTJ(Kol.)41
1. The Revenue is in appeal against the ld.CIT(A)'s order dated 20th November, 2002 passed in the matter of an assessment made under Section 147/143(3) dated 30-3-2001 pertaining to the assessment year 1994-95.2. Various grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue revolve around the issue relating to the validity of re-assessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Act by the A.O., which were cancelled by the ld.CIT(A) by holding that the re-opening of assessment by the A.O. was bad in law as it was based on change of opinion on the same set of facts and law which were in existence at the time of the original assessment.3. Material facts, in brief, related to the issue in hand are as under :- In this case, the assessee had filed return of income on 30.11.94 for the assessment year under consideration disclosing a total income of Rs. 1,71,21,790/-. The return was duly processed under Section 143(1)(a) on a returned, income. The case was taken up for scrutiny and assessment was u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2007)4MLJ1153
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. The writ petitioner in both the writ petitions is one and the same. In the first writ petition, Novartis - a foreign company represented by it's Indian Power of Attorney holder, is the writ petitioner. In the second writ petition, Novartis India represented by it's power agent is the writ petitioner. The respondents in both the writ petitions are one and the same. The prayer in both the writ petitions is one and the same namely, for a declaration that Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, amended by Patents (Amendment) Act 15/2005, is unconstitutional. However, in the first writ petition there was an additional prayer in addition to the relief asked for. The additional prayer was to direct the second respondent in that writ petition namely, the Controller General of Patents and Designs, to allow the patent application bearing No. 1602/NAS/98 filed by the petitioner seeking patent. However at a later stage, during the pendency of the writ petitions, M.P. N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2005CriLJ2341; ILR2005KAR1029; 2005(2)KarLJ279
S.B. Majage, J. 1. The question referred to the Bench is:'Whether in cases where appeal against conviction if filed and appeal against enhancement is also filed, the Bench considering the same is required to dispose of the same simultaneously and together; and if such procedure is not followed, what is its effect and remedy available to the aggrieved party?'2. The facts, giving rise to the said question and the reason for reference are;The Court of 25th Addl. Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, by its order dated 25.6.2001, has convicted 5 accused in S.C. No. 40/1991 and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 3 years for the offence under Section 498-A r/w 149 of IPC and sentenced the accused Nos. 2 to undergo imprisonment for life whereas, sentenced accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 to undergo R.I. for a period of 5 years for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC. Challenging their conviction, accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 have filed Cr.A. No. 829/ 2001 whereas, accused No. 2 has fil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT
S.B. Sinha Introduction The petitioners, in this batch of petitions, inter-alia, question the validity and/or legality of the provisions contained in the respective license agreements entered into by them with the Department of Telecommunications of the Union of India, in terms whereof the latter claims itself to be entitled to levy penalty at the rate of 150% of the shortfall in payment of the license fee for different years. The petitioners furthermore question the justifiability or otherwise of such a levy in each of these petitions. We, therefore, are required to take into consideration for factual aspects involved in each case separately. BPL Mobile Cellular Ltd Case (Petition No. 8/03 and Petiton No. 27/05) The parties entered into license agreements with the respondent for establishing cellular mobile services in the State of Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Maharashtra Circles. The said agreement contained stipulations with regard to levy of interest at Primary Lending Rate (PLR) as sp...
Tag this Judgment!