Delhi Court October 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.
Bharti Cellular Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT334TriDel
1. This appeal has been directed by the appellant against the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original regarding the Service Tax liability of the appellants to the tune of Rs. 53,41,647/- for the period 27-9-1995 to 18-12-1997.This liability has been fastened on them in respect of sale of SIM card by them to their customers.2. The ld. Counsel has contended that the sale of SIM cards by the appellants to their customers cannot be termed as taxable service and as such no Service Tax in respect thereof can be legally claimed by the department. He has also contended that the amount of the Service Tax has not been calculated in accordance with the provisions of Section 66 of the Act read with the Board's Circular No. 62/11/2003-ST, dated 21-8-2003. Lastly, he has argued that the demand raised is also time-barred.3. On the other hand, the Id. SDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order. We have heard both the sides and go...
Toptek Hardwares P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT123TriDel
1. In these appeals, which have been filed against the impugned orders-in-appeal, the issue relates to the availability of benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification Nos. 9/99 dated 28-2-99 and 9/2000 dated 1-4-2000, to the appellants. The benefit of these Notifications has been denied to them as they were found using the brand name 'MASCOT' of another person viz. M/s. Mascot India Tools & Forgings Ltd. 2. The ld. Counsel has contended that the brand name 'MASCOT' had been assigned to the appellants by its owner M/s. Mascot India Tools & Forgings Ltd. and as such they could not be denied the benefit of the notifications in question.3. On the other hand, the ld. SDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.4. We have heard both the sides and gone through the record. From the record, it is evident that the brand name MASCOT had been assigned to the appellants by its owner M/s. Mascot India Tools & Forgings Ltd. through a regular assignment deed dated...
Planet Sports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT206TriDel
1. The issue involved in this Appeal, filed by M/s. Planet Sports Pvt.Ltd., is whether they have misdeclared the maximum retail price (M.R.P.) of the goods imported by them at the time of import.2. Shri Krishna Kant, learned Advocate, mentioned that the Appellants, engaged in retailing and distribution of various branded goods in different categories, launched 'Marks & Spencer' brand in India in December, 2001; that they imported two containers of goods of Marks & Spencer in November 2001; that the working of MRP based duty was done by the person handling clearance in a great haste, as there was a lot of pressure to quickly clear the goods in order to open the retail outlets as per schedule; that thus no actual costing of the items could be done in proper and rationale manner to arrive at MRPs; that their showrooms, corporate office and the warehouse were searched by the Officers on 15-1-2002 and 16-1-2002 and the goods were seized; that the Commissioner of Customs, under the ...
Cargo Care Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT585TriDel
1. In this appeal M/s. Cargo Care are challenging the suspension of their Customs House Agent (CHA) Licence.2. Shri Bipin Garg, learned Advocate, submitted that the Commissioner has suspended their CHA licence on the ground that they had indulged in fraudulent and illegal practice in the clearances of export consignment and colluded with exporters in claiming drawback fraudulently relating to 15 shipping bills; that the appellants or their employee are not at all concerned with the alleged 15 shipping bills; that the allegation has been made in the impugned Order even without supplying the copies of the shipping bills; that, therefore, they are not even aware as to whom the shipping bills relate to and who has signed and presented them before the Customs. He, further, submitted that the impugned Order has been passed without any basis in violation of the principles of natural justice; that there is no case, whatsoever, for alleging that they were actively involved in any manner in the...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Gmp Finishing Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT468TriDel
2. The contention of the Revenue is that under Rule 96ZQ(3), the respondents were required to pay 50% of the duty payable for the calendar month by 15th of the month and remaining amount at the end of the month. The respondents had failed to discharge duty liability of Rs. 4,00,000/- payable for the fortnight from 16-4-2000 to 30-4-2000 by the due date and discharged the same after 3 days from duo date i.e.3-5-2000 along with interest. It is contention of the Revenue that the respondents were liable to penalty equal to the amount of duty not paid on due date. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty to Rs. 20,000/-.3. Shri V. Valte, learned SDR, appearing for the Revenue pleaded that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot reduce the penalty amount in view of the decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Pee Aar Steels (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut - 2004 (170) E.L.T. 406 (All.) = 2004 (93) ECC 633 (All.).4. On the other hand, Shri Jagmohan Bansal, learned Advocate for the respondents...
Dynamic Electricals Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: (2005)(118)LC218Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Dynamic Electricals the issues involved are whether the price realized by them should be treated as cum-duty price, and whether the interest on duty is payable by them.2. Shri V.K. Gupta, learned Advocate, submitted that the Department has confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty and demanded interest on the ground that they were clearing wires and cables bearing the brand name of other person; that the Department has also not treated the price realized by them from their customers as cum-duty price; that it has been held by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Srt Chakra Tyres v. CCE that the amount realized from the customers has to be treated as inclusive of the duty element; that the said Larger Bench decision is consistently being followed by the Tribunal and the appeal filed by the Revenue has also been dismissed by the Supreme Court as reported in (165) ELT A 175 (SC). He also relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in th...
Kakda Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT457TriDel
1. In this appeal which has been filed against the impugned order in appeal the issue relates to the duty demand in respect of the inputs lying in stock of the appellants as unutilised.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of CTD bars/round bars. They availed modvat credit facility under Rule 57A but this facility was withdrawn vide Notification No.18/97 w.e.f. 1-8-97 on the goods falling under Chapter heading 7214.90 of the CETA on which duty had been paid under Section 3 of the Act. The appellants being manufacturer of the goods falling under Chapter heading 7214.90 switched over to compounded levy scheme for payment of duty under Section 3A. Therefore, the balance credit in respect of the inputs on the notified date 1-8-97 having been unutilised, stood lapsed in terms of Rule 57F(17)(c). That being so, no further duty could be demanded in respect of the inputs lying in stock from the appellants.The case of the appellants stands squarely...
Cce Vs. Yak Paints (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: (2004)(117)LC826Tri(Delhi)
1. In this Appeal filed by Revenue, the issue involved is whether benefit of small scale exemption notification No. 175/86 is available to M/s. Yak Paints (P) Ltd. 2. Mrs. Charul Barnwal, learned Senior Departmental Representative, submitted that the respondents manufacture Acrylic washable distemper and cement paints which they sell under the brand name 'Camel' and Yak'; that the Assistant Commissioner under Order-in-Original No.51/2002 dated 13.3.2002 disallowed the Small Scale Exemption Notification on the ground that the brand affixed by them belonged to other units; that however, the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order has set aside the Adjudication order on the ground that the Adjudicating Authority has not disclosed the name for whom the respondents were manufacturing branded goods; that the Commissioner (Appeals) had also relied upon the Tribunal's Final Order No. 72-84/04B dated 12.1.2004 : 2004 (113) ECR 877 (T) in the case of respondents themselves wherein it ha...
Ravinder Singh Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: (2005)(2)SLJ134CAT
1. Through this O. A. the applicant assails respondents' order dated 19.1.2004 imposing upon him a penalty of dismissal from service as well as appellate order dated 20.4.2004 upholding the punishment.2. In order to better understand, the brief factual matrix is relevant.Applicant, working as a Constable in Delhi Police, has earlier been dismissed resorting to Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India.The order was challenged in O.A. No. 157/2002 inter alia holding that Rule 15(2) of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules') should have been complied with.The dismissal order was set aside, with liberty to the respondents to hold the departmental proceedings against the applicant and reinstatement was ordered with all consequential benefits. Applicant was reinstated on 27.5.2002, subject to pending CWP before the High Court of Delhi, and was proceeded against for a major penalty under Rule 16 of the Rules ibid.3. Before the applicant...
Shri Santosh Kumar Vs. Rajya Sabha Secretariat and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: 115(2004)DLT165; 2006(1)SLJ377(Delhi)
Anil Kumar, J.1. The petitioner was not appointed to the post of Senior Assistant in Rajya Sabha Secretariat after he was placed on merit list prepared pursuant to an advertisement given in May, 1988 which is impugned by him in this petition. Validity of merit list was extended from time to time up to 30th June,1991. He says that no new merit list could be made even after expiry of the validity of select list till all the persons in the merit list had been appointment to the posts of senior Assistant in the Secretariat of Rajya Sabha.2. Brief relevant facts are that the applications were invited in May 1988 for the posts of Senior Assistant in the Rajya Sabha Secretariat for preparing a panel for vacancies. At that time approximate vacancies were 10 (4 reserved for SC and 2 for ST). The petitioner applied pursuant to said advertisement and he was interviewed. Two merit lists of 31 candidates had been prepared which included the name of the petitioner also. The case of the petitioner is...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »