Delhi Court December 2003 Judgments

Polar Industries and ors. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC7

1. These are appeals at the instance of the assessee challenging the order passed by the Commissioner dtd. 30.4.03. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of fans, water lifting pumps etc. and they sell their finished goods through another limited company M/s. Polar International Ltd. Balance sales is effected to independent buyers like DGS&D etc. SCN dt. 4.8.99 was issued to the appellant proposing duty demand and imposition of penalty alleging that the appellant and PNL are related persons and, therefore, the appellant should have paid excise duty on the selling price of PNL. The demand under SCN was confirmed by the Commissioner and he imposed penalty of an equal amount on the appellants. Penalty was also imposed on the Directors and Officials of the appellants company.2. Apart from the contentions on merits, the appellant submits that major portion of the demand which extends for the period July' 94 to Feb' 99 is barred by limitation. In support of the contention, he re...

Tirupati Udyog Ltd., Bharat Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC609

1. In these six appeals, the common issue involved is whether extended period of limitation for demanding duty under Section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act is invocable. Shri R. Santhanam, learned Advocate, submitted that all the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of aluminium utensils; that they purchase aluminium scrap from the market which is converted into ingots after melting the same, thereafter, the aluminium sheets are made out of ingots, out of which circles are cut which are captively used in the manufacture of utensils; that the appellants, under the bona fide belief, that circles being intermediate goods, were not liable to duty, did not discharge the duty liability.The learned Advocate very fairly mentioned that the Appellate Tribunal, in the case of Ganga Aluminium Industries and Ors. v. CCE, Patna, has confirmed the duty liability on aluminium circles vide Final Order Nos.A/129-135/Kol./03 dated 19.2.03; that the learned Advocate has also brought to our attent...

Pearl Beverages Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(186)ELT92TriDel

1. The issue raised in the instant appeal relates to applicability of the clause of unjust enrichment in respect of refund of customs duty paid on certain capital goods. There is no dispute relating to the admissibility of refund on merits. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs sanctioned the amount of refund in question. But instead of paying the amount in cash to the appellants, the same was credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund, holding that the appellants failed to discharge the burden case on them to prove that the incidence of the duty under refund was not passed on to another person. The Commissioner (Appeals).before whom the order was challenged also ruled against the appellants holding that the appellants have failed to prove the test of unjust enrichment, which is applicable even in respect of capital goods in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Solar Pesticide Pvt Ltd., Vs. UOI reported in 2000 (116) ELT 401 SC.2. Heard both sides. The appellants are pleading th...

Viacom Electronics (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT345TriDel

1. This is an appeal at the instance of the importer challenging the order passed by the adjudicating authority rejecting the declared transaction value for the reason that the importer and exporter are 'related persons'. The Commissioner has taken note of Clause (vi) under Rule 2(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 which provides that when both parties are directly or indirectly controlled by a third person, they are deemed to be related.2. The Commissioner comes to conclusion that in the facts of the case, Clause (vi) would apply. M/s. TCL Electronic (H.K) Ltd., Hongkong and M/s. Baron International Ltd., Mumbai had entered into a collaboration agreement on 2-5-2000 to form a joint venture company namely TCL Baron India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as JVC). According to the Commissioner, TCL Electronic (H.K.) Ltd. with 51% equity controls JVC and JVC controls appellant/importer. Therefore, foreign supplier and Indian Importer are related persons within the ambit of Rule 2(2)(vi...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Aquamall Water Solution Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(164)ELT427TriDel

1. Revenue is in appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 30-5-2003. The adjudicating authority had confirmed the demand of Rs. 55,58,217/- against the respondent herein under Section 11A and imposed equal amount of penalty. The allegation was that the calculation of abatement i.e. 20% retailer's margin made by the appellant for the period 1-4-1999 to 30-6-1999 was incorrect which resulted in the enhancement of assessable value. The appellant sold their goods to their holding company viz. M/s. Eureka Forbes Ltd. which in turn do not sell the goods in retail but through dealer's network by door to door basis and expenses thus incurred by M/s. Eureka Forbes Ltd. are called as retail expenses. The appellant has claimed these expenses as 'Retailers Margin' to the extent of 20%. This 20% retailers margin was calculated on the MRP prices of their product. Under order dt. 26-8-1986 passed by the CCE, Hyderabad, the above method had been approved. The above order ha...

Dda Vs. Lodha and Co. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(72)DRJ419

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi in Case No. 187/1981, dated 22nd December, 1981, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the respondents of offence under Section 14 read with Section 29(2) of the Delhi Development Act. 2. Despite notice on appeal having been served on the respondents, nobody appears. Brief facts of the case as noted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate are as follows:- ''Delhi Development Authority has prosecuted M/S Lodha and Company and one of its partner Shri P.K. Jain for having been found putting building bearing No. 12, Bhagat Singh Marg, New Delhi to a non-conforming use by running an office in the building as against the permissible use of residential according to the Master Plan for Delhi and Zonal Development Plan of Zone D-5 wherein the building in question falls. This violation of the Master Plan was detected by the field staff of the DDA on 24.9.80 and thereforee, after obt...

Birdhi Chand Naunag Ram JaIn Vs. P.O., Labour Court No. Iv and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(72)DRJ297; [2004(102)FLR620]; (2004)ILLJ1023Del; 2004(2)SLJ364(Delhi)

Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. This is an application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the `ID Act') seeking payment of wages not less than the minimum wages from the date of the award, i.e., dated 6th May, 1999, passed in ID. No. 465/79.2. In para 2 of the application it has been averred that the applicant/workman is unemployed since the date of the termination of his services up to date. In reply, the petitioner has sought to contend that the respondent No. 3/applicant by selling of miscellaneous items in front of Birla Mandir, Mandir Marg, New Delhi is making a monthly income of Rs. 5,000/-. In the rejoinder, the respondent No. 3/applicant has contended that he was carry on this street activity only for one month and in any case that amount generated by this activity was not sufficient for him to sustain his family. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajinder Kumar v. Delhi Administration : (1984)IILLJ517SC to the following effect:- ...

Dda Vs. Indian Tube Co. Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(75)DRJ159

R.S. Sodhi, Adv.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi in Case No. 308/1983, dated 17th January, 1984, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the respondents of offence under Section 14 read with Section 29(2) of the Delhi Development Act. 2. Despite notice on appeal having been served on the respondents, nobody appears. Brief facts of the case as noted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate are as follows:- '' The allegations against the accused persons are that they are using the third-floor of the premises, Sucheta Bhawan, 11-A, Vishnu Digamber Marg, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi, for running an office of M/s. Indian Tube Company Ltd. in contravention of the use of the premises as specified by the Master Plan/Zonal Development Plan.'' 3. It was admitted before the trial court that the plot in which the premises in question was built was allotted through Lok Kalyan Samiti, which organisation has engaged in social and cultural ac...

Indian Steel and Wire Products Vs. the B.i.F.R. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2004)BC548; 110(2004)DLT186; 2004(73)DRJ71

Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. The Indian Steel & Wire Products Limited filed this petition with the prayer that the order dated 25.7.2003 passed by the The Board of Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (in short `BIFR') be quashed/set aside. It may be pertinent to mention that the BIFR after hearing all sides for over two years had accepted the revised proposal submitted by respondent No.13/Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited (in short `TISCO'). All the creditors also accepted the proposal. According to that proposal, apart from TISCO's outstanding dues of Rs.20 crores which TISCO has to recover from others, TISCO has undertaken to further invest an amount of about Rs.38 crores. In other words, the proposal of TISCO was to invest in all at least Rs.58 crores. This offer of TISCO was accepted by the secured creditors.2. After respondent No.13's offer was accepted this petition was filed in this court in which it was mentioned that the petitioner's offer was not considered in the proper perspect...

Surinder Virgotra Vs. Smt. Kanta Rani

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Presiding Member: 1. The above mentioned revision petition is directed against the order of District Forum-II, dated 13.10.2003 in Complaint Case No. 288/2003- entitled Smt. Kanta Rani v. Shri Surinder Virgotra. 2. The brief facts, leading to the filing of the present revision petition are that the respondent/complainant Smt. Kanta Rani had filed a complaint before the District Forum for the redressal of her grievances under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The said complaint was decided ex parte by the learned District Forum vide order dated 8.11.2002. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application before the District Forum for setting aside the ex parte order dated 8.11.2002 along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the same. The learned District Forum dismissed both the above said applications vide impugned order on the ground that the ex parte order dated 8.11.2003 was passed on merits and the F...