Delhi Court June 2001 Judgments

Cce, Chandigarh-ii Vs. M/S. Rail Tech, Kapurthala

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein failed a claim for refund of duty of Rs.9,46,419/- on 2.4.98 on the ground that they had supplied ERP windows to M/s.RCF, Kapurthala classifying the goods under CET sub-heading 3925.20 and paying duty at the rate of 25% adv., while the goods were classifiable under sub-heading 86.07 attracting duty at the rate of 18% adv. The refund claim which was filed on account of this difference of 7% was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the goods in question are of similar nature and meant for use in Railways as are aluminium doors and windows and that the classification issue of aluminum doors and windows is pending before the Tribunal and the Punjab & Haryana High court. He, however, gave the assessees the option to filed fresh refund claim as soon as the matter is finalised in Cegat/High Court. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals of the assessees following the Tribunal's decision that alumin...

M/S Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. There is not proof of compliance with the direction contained in miscellaneous order No. 25/2001-A dt 11.5.01, of pre deposit of Rs. 2 laks towards duty demand. Hence we dismiss the appeal for non compliance with the statutory requirements of Section 35F of Central Excise Act. 1944....

Sir Sobha Singh Public Charitable Vs. Assistant Director of Income-tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These two appeals filed by the assessee as well by the revenue are consolidated and disposed of by a single order as common issue is involved in both the appeals.2. Taking up the assessee's appeal filed in ITA No. 2524/Delhi/96 first, Shri Ajay Vohra, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a Charitable Trust. The aforesaid Trust was started in 1961 by Late Sir Sobha Singh. It has been accepted as a Charitable Trust right till assessment year 1991-1992. The objects of the Trust have been listed in clause 30 of the Trust Deed (page 60 of the paper book). There are as many as 19 objects listed on pages 6 and 7 of the aforesaid Trust Deed.As per the provisions of section 11(2) of the Act, the assessee is allowed to accumulate 75% of the income, subject to certain conditions.It has to give a notice in writing to the officer in the prescribed manner specifying the purpose for which the income is being accumulated or set apart and the period for which the income is to be accumulated or...

Sir Sobha Singh Public Charitable Trust Vs. Assistant Director of Inco ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)72TTJ(Del)1007

ORDERMiss Moksh Mahajan, A.M.These two appeals filed by the assessed as well by the revenue are consolidated and disposed of by a single order as common issue is involved in both the appeals.2. Taking up the assesses appeal filed in ITA No. 2524/Del/1996 first, Shn Ajay Vohra, the learned authorised representative submitted that the assessed is a charitable trust. The aforesaid trust was started in 1961 by Late Sir Sobha Singh. It has been accepted as a charitable trust right till assessment year 1991-92. The objects of the trust have been listed in clause 30 of the trust deed (p 60 of the paper book). There are as many as 19 objects listed on pp 6 and 7 of the aforesaid trust deed. As per the provisions of section 11(2) of the Act, The assessed is allowed to accumulate 75 per cent of the income, subject to certain conditions. It has to give a notice in writing to the officer in the prescribed manner specifying the purpose for which the income is being accumulated or set apart and the ...

M/S. Goramal Hariram Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. By Stay application, applicants has sought for stay of the impugned order-in-appeal dated 6.2.2001 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi. Photo copy of the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is available at pages 13 & 14. I have gone through the impugned order and I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has clearly held that the appellant has violated clause III of the condition as available at page 40, wherein the appellants were permitted to avail the benefit laid down in condition No. 3 of the Notfn. No. 46/89-CE(NT) dated 11.10.89.2. Ld. SDR, Shri A.K. Jain has opposed for grant of stay in the matter for the reason that the applicant/appellants have contravened the condition No. 3 of the aforestated notification and as such, they did not have a prima facie case for grant of stay. In these facts and circumstances, I do not find that this a fit case for waiver of pre-deposit of the amount of duty and penalty. In view of the above, the stay application is rej...

M/S. Shankeswar Fabrics (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants have filed the Stay Petition arising out of the impugned order dated 26.12.2000 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Jaipur. The issue relates to fixing Annual Production Capacity of the Textile Mill. Notice for hearing of the Stay Application was sent by the Registry on 11.5.2001 for today's date. The appellants have made a request for deciding his application on merits even in case of absence of authorised representative. It is stated that the stay application may be decided on the basis of earlier decision of Tribunal in the case of M/s Ridhi Sidhi Mills (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE Jaipur II.2. The duty demanded is Rs. 1,74,000/- and the equal amount of penalty i.e., Rs. 1,74,000/-. The stay is granted subject to deposit of 50% of the duty amount within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the appeals shall stand dismissed without further notice.3. The case is listed for regular hearing on 19.9.2001...

Sh. Yashpal Singh Raghav Vs. Cc, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Under Stay Order No. S/62/2001/NB (DB) dated 31.1.2001, Shri Yashpal Singh Raghav, Proprietor of M/s. Hi-Pack Cargo Movers was directed to pre-deposit of Rs. 3 Lakhs towards penalty within a period of 8 weeks from 31.1.2001. In the impugned order the amount of penalty imposed was Rs. 10 Lakhs. The Bench has taken into account the totality of the circumstances, including financial hardship, directed to pre-deposit of Rs. 3 Lakhs towards penalty. It is made clear in the order that the failure to comply with the terms of the Stay Order will result in vacation of stay and dismissal of appeal without further notice. The matter was fixed for reporting compliance on 11.4.2001. The appellants deposited Rs. 1 Lakh and prayed for time for depositing the balance amount when the matte came up on 11.4.2001. In the interest of justice, time for depositing the balance amount was extended by 6 weeks from 11.4.2001 and the matter was fixed for reporting compliance on 27.6.2001. When the matter was ...

Cce, Delhi-ii Vs. Smithkline Beecham Consumer

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC669

1. For reasons recorded below we first dispose of the stay application filed by the Revenue by rejecting the same, since the issue in the appeal has since been decided in favour of the assessee/respondent by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Goa Bottling Co. Ltd. vs. CCE, Goa 2001 (42) RLT 586 and proceeded to decide the appeal itself with the consent of both sides.2. Assessees herein are engaged in the activity of repacking of malted food such as Horlicks, Book etc. classifiable under chapter heading 1901 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Duty is paid on the basis of Maximum Retail Price (MRP) as these products are covered under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. Respondents sell the repacked Horlicks in different regions. The goods are stock transferred from the repacking stations to various Depots on payment of duty and sold from the Depots. However, on each packet only one MRP is mentioned. MRP of Horlicks packs sold in different regions are ...

M/S. Rishab Chem. (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The matte was called. No one appeared for the appellants M/s. Rishab Chem. (P) Ltd. The notice for todays hearing had been issued on 8.6.2001 and a copy has also been endorsed to the Counsel on record.There is no response. Under Stay Order dated 26.3.2001 the appellants were directed to pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 2877645/- within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of that order. The pre-deposit of the penalty amount of Rs. 2877645/- was waived in Appeal No. E/857/2000-D. In another appeal bearing No. E/858/2000-D the appellants were directed to pre-deposit the penalty amount of Rs. 2.5 Lakhs out of the penalty imposed of Rs. 5 Lakhs. The matter came up for reporting compliance on 4.6.2001 when a application was moved for modification of the Stay Order. No compliance is on records. We have gone though the miscellaneous application. We find that the appellants in the Misc. Application has submitted that the Stay Order be modified for the reasons given in that applica...

M/S. Anant Syntex Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur-ii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These are 2 appeals filed by M/s. Anant Syntex Ltd. against common order in appeal passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur. Shri K.K. Anand, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the issue in both these appeals relates to the inclusion of galleries while determining the capacity of the stenters and that the matter is already covered in favour of the appellants by the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in the case of Sangam Processors Bhilwara Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur [2001 (127) ELT 671. Shri Rajeev Tandon, SDR submits that one additional point regarding interest at the rate of 36% is also involved in this proceedings. The ld. Advocate submits that in view of the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision the fixation of interest will not arise. We have carefully considered the matter. As the matter has already been covered by the Tribunal's aforesaid decision we consider that the capacity has to be determined by the jurisdictional au...