Delhi Court January 2004 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sutlej Industries Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2004
Reported in: [2005]272ITR180(Delhi)
Admit.2. Paper book would be filed by the appellant within a period of three months as per rules.3. Against the order made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 6199/Delhi of 1997 for the assessment year 1994-95, this appeal is filed. According to the assessed, he is entitled to interest on the refund from the date of the payment of tax, while the revenue contends that the amount of refund is determined subsequently and it is from the subsequent date that he would be entitled to get interest, if there is delay in payment. In the opinion of the court, the following question of law is required to be examined considering the facts and circumstances of the case'What would be the date for reckoning the interest on refund under section 244A(1)(b) ?'So far as the other assessment year (1995-96) is concerned, learned Counsel for the revenue has rightly objected that there cannot be a consolidated appeal. As aforesaid, the present appeal is taken to be an appeal qua assessment year...
Indian Sugar and General Engg. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT61TriDel
1. The Challenge in this appeal at the instance of the assessee is against he imposition of penalty under section 11AC and demand of interest under section 11AB upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) under order dated 16.6.2003.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of goods falling under Chapter 73 and 84 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They also undertake job work and repair on free issue materials received from customers. According to the appellant the job work they are doing in connection with roller assembly shaft sent by its sister concern Saraswati Sugar Mills is in the nature of repair work.Therefore, they are not liable to pay any duty on the job work. Still they paid duty but without including the value of the roller assembly shaft received by them. Show cause notice was issued demanding an amount of Rs. 6,95,158/- on the value of the forgings supplied by Saraswati Sugar Mills. Appellant had already paid the amount before issue of show cause notic...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Bordia Salts (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT350TriDel
1. None has come present on behalf of the respondents. Notice was issued to them for today's hearing on 3-12-2003, but no response has been received from them. No request for adjournment has also been received. Therefore, I proceed to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned SDR.2. In this appeal, the Revenue has made challenge to the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the order-in-original confirming the duty demand of Rs. 62,454/- and imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the respondents for having clandestinely manufactured and cleared the goods without payment of duty. The learned SDR has contended that the alleged agreement dated 11-7-97 propounded by the respondents in their defence could not be accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals) as its existence was never disclosed to the Central Excise officers at the time of their visit to the factory of the respondents. Similarly, the invoice dated 20-10-98 produced by the respondents could...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ess Kay Polymers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT566TriDel
1. None for the respondents. Shri Anurag Mishra, Advocate has requested for adjournment. But he has no locus standi to seek adjournment. His power of attorney is not on the file. The appeal has not been filed by the appellants, through him. He has also not filed his power of attorney authorising him to appear or seek adjournment on behalf of the respondents. Therefore, the request of the Counsel cannot be entertained. No request for adjournment has been received from the respondents' firm. I, therefore, proceed to decide the appeal after hearing the learned JDR.2. In this appeal, the Revenue has challenged the impugned order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has modified the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority. The issue involved in the appeal is as to whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was legally entitled to set aside the confiscation of the unaccounted goods and redemption fine as determined by the adjudicating authority and convert the penalt...
Dr. Sarvjeet Kaur Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT171TriDel
1. In this appeal, the appellant has challenged the validity of the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected her refund claim holding it to be not maintainable.2. I have heard both the sides and gone through the record. The perusal of the record shows that the appellant who is a handicapped person, purchased Wagon-R-AX Model fitted with automatic transmission, manufactured by M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. The manufacturer charged full price including full duty, of the car from the appellant. However, thereafter, the manufacturer filed the refund claim as they were entitled to concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification 6/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000. But their claim was rejected on the ground that they had passed on the incidence of duty to the present appellant/ the purchaser of the car.3. When the present appellant filed the refund claim, the same has been disposed of on the ground that it is not maintainable as she has no locus standi to file the sam...
Aar Kay Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT412TriDel
1. The above captioned two appeals have been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original regarding confirmation of duty and imposition of redemption fine and penalties as detailed therein. The learned Counsel has contended that duty of Rs. 1,05,3217- could not be legally confirmed against the appellants on the ground of clandestine removal of the goods, for want of any tangible evidence.(No presumption regarding the clandestine removal of the goods, as per the Counsel, could be drawn by applying the average weight of each type of joists/angle channels per foot to the entire stock lying in the factory premises). Therefore, the impugned order in this regard deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned SDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order by contending that the director of the appellants company did raise objections regarding the mode adopted by the officers for calcu...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Simbhaoli Sugar Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT180TriDel
1. In this appeal, the Revenue has challenged the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the order-in-original confirming the duty demand of Rs. 474/- for the period September, 1999 to December, 1999.2. The learned SDR has contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) could not order the remission duty on the loss of the denatured ethyl alcohol as the loss was not natural and no remission was prayed for by the respondents. To substantiate this contention, she has placed reliance on the ratio of law laid down in Madan Mohan v. Superintendent of Central Excise - 1992 (58) E.L.T. 497. On the other hand, the learned Counsel has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order and contended that the loss of the denatured ethyl alcohol was natural and involved only a petty amount of Central Excise duty and that the respondents in reply to the show cause notice requested for remission of the same by dropping the duty demand, on that account. Therefore, the i...
Cce Vs. Muzaffarnagar Pipe Ind.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)(176)ELT185TriDel
1. Examined the records and heard both the sides. Deemed modvat credits totalling to Rs. 5,59,280/- were denied to the respondents by the original authority and a penalty of Rs. 30,000/- was imposed on them by that authority. That was on the ground that he input-supplier has not discharged duty liability in full in respect of the inputs on which the deemed credits were taken by the respondents and therefore, the conditions set out in Notification No 58/97-CE dated 30.8.97 had not been fulfilled. The appeal preferred by the party against the decision of the original authority was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals).Hence the present appeal of the Revenue.2. The deemed credits were taken on the strength of invoices which were issued by the inpute-manufacturers working under the Compounded Levy Scheme of Rule 96-ZP of the Central Excise Rules. 1944 read with Section 3-A of the Central excise Act. All the invoice contained declaration to the effect that duty liability had been discharge...
Spl Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT351TriDel
1. Challenge in this appeal at the instance of the assessee is against the order passed by the Commissioner dated 12-6-2003, Under the above order the Commissioner confirmed a demand of Rs. 1,56,955/- on the ground that the appellants were paying excise duty on the lower amount/value than the actual MRP due to rounding off the same to the nearest lower rupee. He imposed a penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC and directed payment of interest in terms of Section 11AB.2. The appellant had submitted a detailed reply to the show cause notice in respect of the allegation regarding paying excise duty on lower amount than actual MRP. The appellant contended that it happened because the MRP was rounded off to the nearest rupee. But while rounding of sometimes it goes on the higher side of MRP also. If total duty paid on such exercise is taken into consideration, it will be revealed that the appellant had paid more duty than what was actually required to be paid and that the appellant is ...
Pushpa Silk Mills and ors. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC87
1. The case was listed today for reporting compliance to the stay order whereby the appellants were directed to pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 35 lakhs.2. The Tribunal vide stay order dated 29.7.2002 directed the applicants to deposit a sum of Rs. 35 lakhs. Thereafter, the appellants filed a Writ Petition in the Hon'ble High Court at Jaipur who directed the applicants to deposit a sum of Rs. 35 lakhs. The appellants filed S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was dismissed.3. The appellants have not complied with the stay order. Therefore, the appeals are dismissed for non-compliance to the provisions of Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act....
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »