Delhi Court June 2003 Judgments

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Bhushan Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT356TriDel

2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods classifiable under Chapter Heading 72 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondents opted for Compounded Levy Scheme for payment of excise duty on their final product. As per Compounded Levy Scheme, credit of duty lying unutilised was to lapse on the first day of August 1997.4. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent for reversal of credit of Rs. 12,01,603/- in respect of the inputs lying in their stock on the date when they opted for Compounded Levy Scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty. The respondents filed the appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal.5. The contention of the Revenue is that as respondents opted for Compounded Levy Scheme, therefore, the credit of the input...

Moon Beverages Ltd. and Sachindra Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC798

1. These are appeals at the instance of the assessee and its General Manager challenging the order passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut dated 29.1.2002. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Flavoured Ready Syrup (FRS) which is cleared in 18 litre canisters from the factory. They are sold to different dealers.2. The issue for consideration in this appeal is whether M/s. Platinum Agencies Pvt. Ltd. (PAPL), one of its dealers is a related person and that assessable value of the goods has to be fixed on the basis of the price at which M/s. PAPL sells the same to its customers.3. In the impugned order Commissioner took the view that M/s. PAPL is related to MBL as 17% of the publicity expenses incurred for Coca Cola Brands at the franchise level is shared by M/s. PAPL which would amount to additional consideration flowing to MBL. Aggrieved by the above, the assessee has come up in appeal.4. It is contended by the appellant that M/s. PAPL is not a related person to the ...

Daelim Industrial Co. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(89)ECC140

1. M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. awarded a contract to M/s Daelim Industrial Co. Ltd. (appellant) for construction of a diesel hydro-desulphurisation plant and utilities / off-site at Gujarat refineries. The purpose of the plant was to treat diesel so as to reduce the sulphur content in diesel from about 0.75 to 0.25 in order to meet the pollution standard stipulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The contract was on lump sum turn-key basis. The lump sum price had an India rupee payment of about Rs 184 crores US$ payment of about 2.2 crores. The contract involved "residual process design, detailed engineering, procurement, supply, construction, fabrication, erection, installation, testing commissioning and mechanical guarantee".2. A show-cause notice dated 16.04.2001 was issued by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Vadodra holding that the appellant was liable to pay service tax on residual process design and detailed engineering, "commissioning of plant" applicabl...

Coolade Beverages Ltd., Golden Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(89)ECC190

1. These are appeals challenging an order passed by Commissioner of Central Excise dated 28.9.2001. The first appellant is the manufacturer-assessee. The second appellant is the holding company of the first appellant and also the bulk buyer of the first appellant's product, namely flavoured ready syrup (FRS). The appellants (3) to (5) are officers of the first appellant company.2. The dispute arising in these appeals relates to valuation of flavoured ready syrup (FRS) of Thumps Up and Coca Cola brands of aerated waters manufactured by the first appellant. Order impugned was passed pursuant to a show cause notice 26.3.98 invoking the extended period of limitation under proviso 11A(1). The period covered by the show cause notice is from 31.12.94 to March 1997. Under the impugned order the Commissioner confirmed duty demand of Rs. 30,49,200 imposed penalty of Rs. 10,28,469 on the first appellant under Section 11-AC and a further amount Rs. 1,50,000 under Rule 173-Q(1). The first appellan...

R.D. Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC537

1. Appellants filed these appeals against the common order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Capacitors and were availing the benefit of MODVAT credit.3. The Appellants were availing the benefit of Notification No.84/94-CE dated 11.4.94 which provides exemption from whole of the duty of excise to the Small Scale manufacturer who are sending the raw-material or semi-finished goods on job work basis to a place outside the factory. Show cause notices were issued to the appellants denying the benefit of MODVAT credit on the ground that the raw material was sent directly to the job workers without receiving in the factory. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demands and imposed the penalty. Appellants filed appeals and the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appellants had not followed the procedure as there is no provisions in the Central Excise to allow direct...

Eicher Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)83TTJ(Delhi)673

1. These cross-appeals, one by the assessee and the other by the Revenue, are preferred against the order of the CIT(A) pertaining to the asst. yr. 1994-95. Since these appeals were heard together, these are being disposed of by this single consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. This is an appeal of the assessee through which the assessee has assailed the order of CIT(A) on various grounds which are as under : "1. The CIT(A), New Delhi has grossly erred on facts and in law in confirming an addition of Rs. 4,135 under Rule 6D of the IT Rules. 2. The CIT(A) has grossly erred on facts and in law in rejecting the appellant's claim for deduction of Rs. 3,65,15,643 under Section 43B on account of sales-tax deferral granted by the Maharashtra Government pursuant to the directions of Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). 3. The CIT(A) has grossly erred on facts and in law in not holding that Maharashtra Government had granted deferral of outstanding sales-tax an...

Green Channel Chit Funds and Finance Co. and Another Vs. Mrs. Papil Ja ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. Since the above mentioned petitions, filed by the petitioners under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) have common facts and also raise common question of law for consideration, the same, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, have been heard together at the admission stage and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned petitions lie in a narrow compass. The respondents, in the above mentioned petitions, had filed separate complaints against the petitioners under Section 12 of the Act alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioners. A notice of the complaints, so filed by the respondents, was given to the petitioners who have entered appearance. In the above mentioned petitions the only grievance of the petitioners, as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners before us, is that the learned ...

Murari Lal Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 31.3.2003, passed by District Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 138/2002- entitled Shri Murari Lal v. The Chairman, Delhi Vidyut Board. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the above-mentioned appeal lie in a narrow compass. The appellant Shri Murari Lal had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent/DVB. The grievance of the appellant in the complaint, filed by him, before the District Forum in nutshell was that wrong/inflated bills for the consumption of electricity had been issued by the respondent/DVB. 3. The learned District Forum vide impugned order has allowed the complaint, filed by the appellant, and has directed that revised bills be issued by the respondent/DVB a...

Goldline Automobiles and Another Vs. Deepee Computer Forms Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal filed by the appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 6.3.2003, passed by District Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, Institutional Area, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 913/1996 - entitled M/s. Deepee Computer Forms Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Goldline Automobiles and Anr. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned appeal, briefly stated, that M/s. Deepee Computer Forms Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that the respondent had given its vehicle for servicing and repair to appellant No. 2 M/s. Goldline Automobiles, Golf Links, New Delhi in the third week of November, 1995 which was returned after eight days on 23.11.1995 with an assurance that the vehicle had been properly serviced and repaired. It was stated that a cheque for Rs. 19,8...

Dr. Anil Nadir Vs. Dr. Rakesh Dullu

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against order dated 27.3.2003, passed by District Forum-II, Udyog Sadan Institutional Area, Mehrauli, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 1917/1996 - entitled Dr. Rakesh Dullu v. Dr. Anil Nadir. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent Dr. Rakesh Dullu had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that on 2.11.1995 he met with an accident and was admitted in Pamposh Medicare Centre on 13.11.1995 where the appellant Dr. Anil Nadir advised him to go in for a surgery as there was fracture in the neck of the left femur. It was stated that the appellant conducted operation on 14.11.1995 and told the respondent Dr. Rakesh Dullu that the operation was successful. It was stated that the respondent Dr. Rakesh Dullu ...