Delhi Court December 2003 Judgments

C.C. (import) Vs. Nav Maharashtra Chakkan Oil Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC193

1. Vitamin C when imported from Chine Japan,Russia and European Union was brought under Anti-Dumping duty vide Notification No. 104/2000 dated 21.7.2000 and Notification No. 118/2000 dated 15.9.2000. The respondent M/s Nav Maharashtra Chakkan Oil Mills imported a 5000 kgs.consignment of Vitamin C (Ascorbic Acids) and took clearance of the same through Nhava Sheva Port under Bill of Entry No. 204633 dated 12.9.2001 No anti-dumping duty was levied on the consignment, since the goods were claimed to be of United State of America origin. The importer had also produced invoice, bill of lading certificate of origin in support of the claim. The Country of origin certificate was issued by Des Plaines Chamber of Commerce & Industry, 1401, Oakton Street Des Plaines, IL 60018 (847)824-4200. The indent for the goods was placed by the importer through a trading firm M/s OPEC International,Ghatkoper(W) Mumbai M/s OPEC International had ordered the goods from M/s Aerchem Inc. 320, Northwalnut St...

K.M. Sugar Mill Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Challenge in this appeal is against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 9.4.2003 at the instance of the assessee.2. The issue arising for consideration is whether the cost of repairing and handling expenses has to be added to the assessable value of the goods cleared by the appellant namely, dissolved acetylene. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E., Bombay III vs.Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd. - 1997 (94) ELT 16 (SC) and Board's Circular No. 7/89-CX.1 dated 7.7.1989, the appellant would contend that the repairing and handling expenses incurred by it relate to the maintenanee of the gas cylinders. Therefore, they are not liable to be added to the assessable value of the dissolved acetone manufactured and cleared by it.3. Learned SDR on the other hand would contend that the value of the aeetone which covers the major portion of the so-called repairing and handling expenses is liable to be added to the asessable value since dissolved ac...

Kamdeep Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC673

1. All these appeals are against imposition of penalties by the adjudicating authority under Rule 209-A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. The impugned order of the Commissioner of Central Excise has imposed the following penalties on the appellants: Shri Keshavan Nair Authorised Signatory of the above Company (Noticee No. 6) Shri Vishal Agarwal, Prop., Vishal Transport Service, Indore (Noticee No. 10) The finding recorded against M/s. Kamdeep Marketing Pvt. Ltd., and M/s.Yash Marketing Co. is that they "connived with Noticee No. 2 [Managing Director of M/s. Mircroplast (Indore) Pvt. Ltd.] and were responsible for fraudulent availment of Modvat credit by Noticee No. 1 (M/s.Microplast (Indore) Pvt. Ltd., hereinafter referred to as "M/s.Microplast"). The finding against M/s. Bhatia Agencies and Shri Ajit Singh Bhatia is that they dealt with the excisable goods cleared without payment of duty by M/s. Microplast and had reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscatio...

Sharda Motor Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT66TriDel

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of various Automobiles Components.The dispute in the present case is about Exhaust System manufactured by the appellant and supplied to M/s. Hyundai Motor India Ltd. For the assembly of the Exhaust System, the buyer, M/s. Hyundai Motor India Ltd. supplied the appellant certain parts. The value of these free supply items was also required to be added in the cost of other materials and cost of production to arrive at the full price of the Exhaust System. Appellant was making the said addition also. It is submitted that in January, 2002 appellant felt that the value taken by them for the free supply items was erroneous. Accordingly, they wrote to the Superintendent, Central Excise, Chennai on 2nd January, 2002 intimating that they had adopted a "Standard Price initially" and by oversight, the variation of cost was overlooked. This letter also pointed out that "variation is on both sides namely resulting in a higher value and in some cases a decrease in ...

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Raj Kumar Aggarwala and Sons

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)95TTJ(Delhi)315

1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A), dt.20th April, 1999, for asst. yr. 1996-97. (i) That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in directing to allow deduction under Section 54 IT Act. The learned CIT(A) has ignored the fact that the sale of residential property had taken place on 3rd April, 1995, i.e., after the date of completion/construction of the new property which is 6th March, 1995, as per occupancy certificate issued by the local authority. (ii) That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts of the case in directing to allow expenditure of Rs. 1,20,000 as assessee has not discharged his onus by providing the identity of person to whom such brokerage has been paid.3. The main dispute is regarding claim of deduction under Section 54 of the IT Act. The assessee had sold immovable property on 3rd April, 1995, situated at 7, Shahtoot Marg and disclosed the capital gain thereon. During the course of assessment proceedings,...

Amit Industries and anr. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC74

1. These appeals are against the Order No. 24/2002 of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I who has disallowed Modvat/Cenvat credit of Rs. 47,53,082 to M/s. Amit Industries (appellants in Appeal No.E/2958/2002-NB-C) by invoking the extended period of limitation under the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act and has imposed a penalty of equal amount on them under the erstwhile Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Rule 571(4)/57AH of the said Rules and Sections 11AC and 38A of the Central Excise Act 1944 and has, further, imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on Shri Suresh Kumar Agarwal (appellant in Appeal No. E/2959/2002-NB-C) under Rule 209A of the said Rules read with Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. M/s. Amit Industries were engaged in the manufacture of electrical stampings and laminations falling under CH 83.12 of the CET Schedule and were availing Modvat/Cenvat credit facility in respect of inputs used in the ...

Shri Gautam Bhalla Vs. the Recovery Officer (i), Drt and

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: III(2004)BC207

1. This is a purported application under Section 17A of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1993') seeking exercise of the powers of this Tribunal under the above said section.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and perused the records available with this application.3. The learned Counsel for the applicant contends that the Recovery Officer, in execution proceedings i.e., in R.C. No. 1165/2002, DRT, (Chandigarh), has attached the property belonging to the applicant herein, He contends that the applicant is the owner of the property, but he is neither the principal borrower, nor a guarantor, or a certified debtor, learned Counsel for the applicant, therefore, contends that the property in question is not liable to be attached at all, for the recovery of the amount due in pursuance of the abovesaid Recovery Certificate. He contends that the applicant had leased out the property to M/s. Ayan Co...

Ngc Rubber (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union Bank of India

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: III(2004)BC189

Aggrieved by the order dated 23.9.2003, declining the request of the appellants, who were defendants in the. O.A. 129/2002 of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT'), to recall the final order dated 2.4.2003, the appellants/defendants have approached this Tribunal with this appeal. According to the appellants/defendants, they had engaged a Counsel, but the Counsel never informed them either of the dates or of the fact that the appellants/defendants had even to file a written statement to the O.A. The learned Counsel for the appellants/defendants contends that the appellants/defendants were not even aware of the passing of the final order also and the Counsel had not informed them even about it. The appellants/defendants claim that on 19.6.2003, the 2nd defendant received a telephone call from the Branch Manager of the respondent-Bank about the death of an employee, who was acquainted with the 2nd defendant, and it was at that time the Manager of the Bank...

Noida Industrial Beltings Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT277TriDel

1. Learned Counsel for the appellants points out that in their own case as well as in the case of M/s. Ashton Transmission Co., favourable orders have been passed by the jurisdictional authorities themselves.Learned SDR points out that there are contra orders also passed in the same jurisdiction.2. Since conflicting orders have been passed on the same subject, the issue is arguable. Waiver of pre-deposit is merited. The requirement for pre-deposit is waived and recovery of the amounts stayed. The appeals to come up for hearing on 10-3-2004....

Ambuja Cement Eastern Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(164)ELT447TriDel

1. The applicants filed this Miscellaneous Application No.C/468/02-C for change of cause title of the appeal from M/s. Modi Cements Ltd. to M/s. Ambuja Cement Eastern Ltd. As the management of M/s. Modi Cement Ltd. was taken over by M/s. Ambuja Cement Eastern Ltd. and in support of this, the appellants filed the certificate issued by the Registrar of Companies. In this situation, the application is allowed and the cause title is changed to M/s. Ambuja Cement Eastern Ltd. The applicants also filed another application No. C/370/02-C for producing additional documents. We find that the appellant wants to produce the certificate issued by the Head Clerk of Railway. The certificate is undated, nor it is made clear in the certificate whose asking this certificate was issued. The other document, the appellant wants to produce is the certificate issued by their own Senior Sales Officer.The averments made in the certificate are similar to the pleading made in the appeal. This is neither a docu...