Delhi Court January 2001 Judgments

Cce Delhi., Ii Vs. M/S. Pratap Steel Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by /revenue is whether modvat credit of duty paid on Ramming Mass is available under Rule 57 A of the Central Excise Rules.2. The Ld. DR., submitted that ramming mass is used as lining material for the electric furnace and is covered by the exlusion clause of Explantation to Rule 57A that the Department has filed an appeal i the Supreme Court against the Order No. A/808/94 in the case of Kesari Steel Vs. CCE involving the question of eligibility of ramming mass to Modvat Credit.3. Opposing the prayer, Shri M.P. Devnath, Id. Advocate, submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the modvat credit in respect of ramming mass folowing the decision in the case of Kalyani Steel Ltd. Vs. CCE, 1998(98); that Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE Chandigarh Vs. AB Tools Ltd 1994 (71) ELT 776 held that ramming mass is to be considered as input and is eligible of modvat credit following the decision of Calcutta High Court in the case...

Bhumra Steel Industries Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC705

1. The appellants are manufacturers of Iron and Steel Products and are availing modvat credit facility under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. During November-December, 1994 they took modvat credit on duty-paid inputs supplied by certain registered dealers, amounting to Rs.1,26,324.90, on the strength of 7 invoices issued under Rule 57G by the respective dealers. Department proposed to disallow the credit on the ground that the invoices were not acceptable as valid duty-paying documents. The appellants contested the proposed action. The dispute was adjudicated by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, who as per Order dated 22.5.98 accepted 2 out of the 7 invoices and allowed to the party the modvat credit taken on the strength of the (sic) invoices. The remaining 5 invoices, which were mentioned at Sl. Nos. 1 to 5 in the Annexure to the show-cause notice, were held to be unacceptable on the ground that certain particulars stated in the invoices could not be correlated (by the...

M/S Abrol Engg. Co. Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this Appeal, filed by M/s Abrol Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd., the issue involved is whether capital goods credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules is available in respect of Refractories used in furnace.2. Shri Ravi Chopra, Ld. Advocated, submitted t hat refractories are capital goods and have been specifically mentioned under Clause I(d) of Explanation to Rule 57Q as amended by Notification No. 11/95-CE-(NT) dt. 16-3-95; that the said amendment is clarrificatory in nature and has to be given retrospective effect; that in Jindal Steel Strips Ltd. Vs CCE Raipur, 1998(9) ELT 620 (T) refractories were held to be eligible capital goods for capital goods credit even prior to 16-3-95 as part of furnace. He, further, submitted that the department has denied capital goods credit even in respect of refractories which were received after 16-3-95 which in any case is not correct; that the imposition of penalty is not warranted as it was question of interpretation of the provisions of...

Nachiketa Tubes and Stripes (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. On careful examination of the records and on hearing both sides, I find that this is a fit case for remand to the lower authority. I, therefore, allow the present application unconditionally, and proceed to dispose of the appeal itself finally.2. The appellant had taken deemed modvat credit to the extent (permitted by Central Govt. under Notification No. 58/97-CE dated 30.8.97 as amended) of 12% of the value of the goods (input) as declared in their invoice by the manufacturers thereof (who were paying duty on the basis of annual capacity of production under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act and Rule 96zp of the Central Excise Rules). The credit so taken was disallowed by the Assistant Commissioner to the extent of Rs. 3,46,510/- and a penalty of equal amount was imposed on the party as per his order of adjudication. The aggrieved party appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) and also filed with him an application for waiver of pre-deposit of the duty and penalty amounts and for ...

M/S. Singla Sales Corporation Vs. Cc, Amritsar

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In these three appeals, the dispute that has been putforth by appellant is the illegality of the imposition of penalty of Rs. 13 lakhs. Therefore these three case are taken together. According to the learned Counsel representing the appellant, valuation of the good as given by the importer has been accepted by the Adjudicating Authority and consequently a sum of Rs. 52,67,723/- is stated to be refundable by the department. In view of the amount which has now been found refundable to the party, it is argued that appellants may not required to deposit the penalty amount as a condition precedent for maintaining these appeals.2. We have heard learned DR. According to him the department, is not questioning the correctness of the decision rendered by Adjudicating Authority on the issue of valuation. He also submitted that since the issue of valuation. He also submitted that since the issue on valuation has been decided by the Adjudicating Authority in favour of the importer, he is entitl...

Bhilware Spinners Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This application filed by the appellants prays for waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty amount of Rs.10,000/-and for stay of recovery thereof, pending the appeal.2. The Assistant Commissioner had disallowed modvat credit amounting to Rs.92,411/- taken on furnace oil as input during the period 30.10.98 to 23.2.99 and had imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the applicants.The appeal filed by the party against the Assistant Commissioner's order was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the appeal before the Tribunal and the present application.4. Ld. Advocate Sh. K. K. Anand for the applicants submits that the entire modvat credit was reversed by the party in their RG-23A part-II register as early as on 17.8.99, well before the passing of the order of adjudication, but such reversal of modvat credit was not noted by any of the lower authorities in their respective orders. He submits that, in the memorandum of appeal filed with the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellants had cl...

M/S. Himachal Oxygen P. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Appeal No.E/2827/93-C was dismissed way back on 1.12.1995. The said order stated that the dismissal would be subject to the order of the High Court, if any. No order of the Hight Court has been produced in this case, interfering with the dismissal of the appeal.2. Appeal happened to be dismissed on account of the non-compliance with the direction to make the pre-deposit. High Court extended the time till 30.6.97 for making the deposit. It is stated that by 30th June 97 the entire amount has not been deposited. For the rest of the amount a security bond was executed in terms of the order passed by the High Court on 26.9.98. Long before the last order of the High Court i.e. November 1996 appeal happened to be dismissed on 1.12.95. On 10.3.99; nearly two years after the date on which the security bond was executed, application has been filed before this Tribunal for restoring the appeal. That application was not signed by Shri K.K. Anand, Advocate. That unsigned application should not...

Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Amadeus India (P.) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. The appeal has been directed by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 13-7-1998 pertaining to assessment year 1996-97. The only ground of appeal raised by the revenue relates to the deduction under section 80HHE of the Act.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the main business activity of the company is to make customers (mainly travel agents) online with AMADEUS CRS System. For connectivity to AMADEUS System agents are supplied with free of cost computers Systems which are being provided by GTS. The Agents are also provided with training and system usage free of charge by Amadeus India (P.) Ltd. 3. The agents receive latest information regarding schedules and availabilities of worldwide participants in the AMADEUS System, and create reservation data and records which are proceeded and exported immediately into the system, while data created is simultaneously processed in the AMADEUS Data Processing Centre abroad in Erding, Germany & confirmed t...

Paramount Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the AO under Section 158BC r/w Section 143(3) of the IT Act. A search under Section 132 was carried out at the business premises of the appellant on 21st Nov., 1996. The appellant is one of the companies of Modi group where Hindustan Dev Corpn. is the flagship company. During the course of search, at the business premises of the assessee, books of account and documents were found and seized. The AO, therefore, issued a notice under Section 158BC, dt. 8th July, 1997, directed the assessee to file return of undisclosed income for the block period from 1st April, 1987, to 21st Nov., 1996. In compliance to this notice, assessee filed a return on 12th Sept., 1997, declaring nil undisclosed income. As against this, the AO completed undisclosed income of the block period at Rs. 1,67,24,889. Against this order of the AO, assessee has come in appeal before us taking 24 grounds of appeal. Out of these, 20 grounds deal with ...

international Security and Intelligence Agency Limited. Vs. Municipal ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)87; AIR2001Delhi283a; 90(2001)DLT243; 2000(57)DRJ582; 2001(3)RLR25

ORDERVIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.1. Suit No. 569-A of 1997 has been filed for making the Award relating to case No. ARB/JC/1 dated 14th March, 1997, passed by Justice Jagdish Chandra (Retd.) as Rule of the Court and for passing of a decree in terms thereof. The respondent the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) has filed Objections to this Award on 27th May, 1997, in terms of their application numbered as IA. 9207/97. Both these actions shall be disposed off by this judgment. The Petitioner/Claimant immediately raised the preliminary objection that this application cannot be considered on merits since it was barred by limitation. The averment is that the MCD was served with a copy of S.No.569-A/1997, (being the petition under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940) through its Commissioner (Respondent No.1) and its Commissioner (Slum & JJR) (Respondent No.2.) on 3rd April, 1997. While these averments have not been controverter by the MCD, it is their contention that the period of Limitation sh...