Delhi Court December 2003 Judgments

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...

S.K. Enterprises and Sh. Krishan Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC436

1. The issues, involved in these two appeals, are whether the goods manufactured by M/s. S.K. Enterprises, are liable to be classified under Heading 83.01 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as parts of locks as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) or under different tariff headings, being parts of general use and whether the extended period of limitation is invokable for demanding Central Excise Duty.2. Shri Y. Kumar, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants, a proprietorship SSI unit, manufacture various items like pins, nuts, bolts, screws, washers, collars, etc. of iron and steel; that the Joint Commissioner, under the Order-in-Original No. 5/2000 dated 19.12.2000 confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty on the ground that they are manufacturing parts of locks, which are classifiable under Heading 83.01 and not under chapter 73 ; that the Commissioner (Appeals) also, under the impugned order, has rejected their appeal in the ground that Note 2 to Sec...

Polyinks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT335TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Polyinks Pvt. Ltd. is whether S.S.I. exemption can be availed of by them in one of their unit situated at Faridabad when they are not availing exemption under S.S.I. Notification in respect of goods manufactured in their unit at Hyderabad. 2. We heard Shri B.L. Narsimhan, learned Advocate for the Appellants and Shri O.P. Arora, learned Senior Departmental Representative for Revenue. The learned Advocate submitted that appellants are having two factories at Faridabad and at Hyderabad wherein they manufactured printing ink, printing ink solution, thinners, paper coating varnish etc; that they satisfy the conditions of the Notification No. 1/93-C.E. in respect of both the factories; that anticipating that the total value of clearance from both of their factories would exceed Rs. 75 lakhs and to avoid considerable administrative difficulties, they decided to avail the exemption under Notification No. 1/93 by paying concessional Central Ex...

Ankit Sales Corpn. (P) Ltd., Shri Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC433

1. In these three appeals arising out of two Order-in-Original numbers 3/2003 dated 8.5.2003 and 4/03 dated 27.5.2003 both passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, the common issue involved is whether Modvate credit of the duty paid on PVC resin is available to them.2. Shri V.K. Gupta, learned Advocate for the Appellants submitted that duty has been demanded and penalties have been imposed on the ground that emulsion grade PVC resin cannot be used in the manufacture of PVC compound and the quantity of PVC resin used by the appellants is on the higher side. He mentioned that the issue is no more res integra as the Tribunal has decided this issue vide Final Order No. A/656-71/03 dated 14.11.03. We also heard Shri Kumar Santosh, learned Senior Departmental Representative, who fairly agreed that the issues have already been decided in favour of the Appellants by the Appellate Tribunal.3. The Appellate Tribunal in the case of M/s. Sanco Plastics Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2004 (91) ECC 262 (T)...

Metzeller Automotive Profiles Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC353

1. In these two appeals, arising out of common Adjudication order; the issue involved is whether Modvat credit of the duty is to be disallowed to M/s. BTR Wadco Automotive Ltd. (now M/s. Metzeller Automotive Profiles India Pvt. Ltd).2. Shri B.L. Narsimhan, learned Advocate submitted that M/s. Metzeller Automotive Profiles manufactured weather strips and Anti Vibration System, which were being manufactured in two separate divisions in the same premises; that the manufacturing activities of both the divisions were, however, separate that they entered into an agreement dated 16.2.01 with M/s. Trellborg Automotive India (P) Ltd. (Appellant No. 2) for the transfer of the Anti Vibration System Division with assets and liability to Appellant No. 2; that in terms of the said agreement they transferred the entire plant and machinery, raw material work-in-progress, consumables, finished stock, etc. to the Appellant No. 2 who was to continue work in the same premises as the Anti Vibration System...

Saipem S.P.A. Vs. Dcit (Asstt.) Special Range 1

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)276ITR55(Delhi)

1. The following point of difference has been referred to me under Section 255(4) of the I.T. Act 1961:- "Whether on facts and in law, the mobilization charges, received by the assessee outside India, attributable to the transportation of rigs outside territorial waters of India are chargeable to tax under Section 44BB read with Section 5(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" 2. The facts pertaining to the point at issue are well set out in the order passed by the ld. Judicial Member and in respect of which the ld.Accountant Member has not expressed any dissent but for purposes of making the present order a self-contained one, I summarize these as under.3. The assessee in this case is non-resident company having its Registered Office at Milano Corso Venezia. It carried on the business pertaining to the exploration of mineral oils etc. In the year 1984, the company entered into an agreement with ONGC for offering one Land Drilling Rig on charter basis for exploratory drilling the Krishna-Go...

Hindustan Power Instruments Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC435

1. This is an application by M/s. Hindustan Power Instruments (Pvt.) Ltd. for waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 74,144.94 paise.2. At the outset Shri U Raja Ram, learned Department Representative pointed out that the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the Appeal filed by the Applicants on the ground of Appeal being barred. Shri N.K.Singh, learned Consultant on the other hand submitted that after receipt of the Order-in-Original confirming the demands, the Applicants had filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 4691/03 in Delhi High Court; that the Delhi High Court vide order dated 28.7.2003 dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the statutory remedy; that the High Court also directed that if the petitioner prefers Appeal within 10 days from today, their application for condonation of delay shall be considered favourably by the Appellate Tribunal; that as the High Court's order has been received by them on 6.8.20...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Alok Overseas

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC709

1. This appeal of the department is against an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Tughlakabad (New Delhi) on 8-12-2000 in adjudication of a show cause notice dated 10-3-2000 issued to M/s. Alok Overseas, Shri P.K. Jain (partner of Alok Overseas) and M/s. Hoegh Lines. Initially the appeal was filed against M/s. Alok Overseas only.Subsequently, Shri P.K. Jain and M/s. Hoegh Lines have been impleaded as respondents 2 and 3 at the instance of the appellant vide Misc.Order No. 109/2003/NB(A), dated 30-5-2003 and Misc. Order No.148/2003/NB(A), dated 21-7-2003.2. The facts of the case are briefly as under :- M/s. Alok Overseas had imported goods in Container No. TRLU-2637741 which arrived at ICD, Tuglakabad on 23-3-99. The container belonged to the 3rd respondent, M/s. Hoegh Lines. The imported consignment was covered by a Bill of Lading dated 30-1-99 wherein the contents of the container were declared as "Brass Scrap ISRI Honey" and the weight thereof was declared as 20,223 K...

M/S. Shriram Honda Power Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)87TTJ(Delhi)785

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 3/2/ 97 of Commissioner (Appeal)-XV, New Delhi pertaining to 1990-91 assessment year."That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Commissioner (Appeal)XV, New Delhi erred in upholding the order passed under section 154 charging additional tax of Rs, 9,76,899.2. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the orders of the assessing officer Commissioner (Appeal) bad in law and void ab-initio." The relevant facts of the case are that the assessee filed its original return on 28.11.90. The date of sending first intimation without adjustment is 27.3.91. The date of filing revised return to revise the WDV on account of revised orders for earlier years under section 143(3) is 30.12.91 The date of issue of notice under section 143(2) is 5.8.92. The date of issuing revised intimation for adding Rs. 90,45,364 without charging additional tax in view of the decision of Delhi High Court in case of M/s. Modi ...

Usha Baveja Vs. M/S. Steel Authority of India Limited

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Mahesh Chandra, Member: 1. These six appeals have been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against a common order dated 22.1.1998, passed by District Forum-II (South), in Complaint Case Nos. 118/97, 119/97, 120/97, 121/97 and 122/97. All the five cases were disposed of by a common order by the District Forum. The dispute in all the cases is the same and hence all the six appeals are being decided by this common order. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of these appeals are as follows: All the complainants are holders of equity shares of the respondent-Steel Authority of India Limited. The respondent had declared dividend of 0.60 p. per equity share in the Annual General Meeting held on 26.9.1995. However, the dividend warrants were not issued to the appellants despite several reminders. The appellants demanded the dividend amount with interest and filed separate complaints before the District Forum. However, the complaint...