Delhi Court October 2004 Judgments

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Modern Instrument (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC80

1. Revenue has filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 259/2003, dated 20-6-2003 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the deduction of Rs. 10/- from the assessable value of Electric Energy Meters manufactured by M/s. Modern Instruments (P) Ltd. being charges for freight and insurance.2. We heard Shri R.C. Sankhla, learned SDR, and Shri Lajja Ram, learned Advocate. The Respondents are supplying Electric Energy Meters to Power Corporations of various States. As per order placed by U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., they were to pay Rs. 273.40 per meter plus Rs. 10/- per meter. The Deputy Commissioner, under Order-in-Original No.69/2001, dated 4-3-2002 has confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty on the Respondents holding that Rs. 5.90 per meter out of Rs. 10/- per meter pertains to packing, handling and forwarding charges which is inaudible in the assessable value of the meters manufactured by them. The Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned order, has held that ...

Lime Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC85

1. Heard both the sides. In the appeal, the appellants have challenged the denial of refund of Rs. 79,478.96 (Rs. 36,102.96 + Rs. 43,376). The Commissioner(Appeals) rejected the refund claim on the ground that the appellants have failed to produce any evidence documentary or otherwise to prove that reversal of credit was under protest in terms of Rule 233 B of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944, Shri P.R. Mallick, Ld. C.A.appearing for the appellants pleaded that from the letters placed at pages 42 and 44 of the paper book, it is clear that protest was lodged as the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise has written to the appellants (at that time, they were known M/s. Thirani Chemicals Ltd.); that proper procedure for lodging the protest against the said decision of the jurisdictional RO has not been followed in terms of Rule 233B (5) of Central Excise Rules, 1944, which clearly speaks that a protest is to be lodged before payment of duty. Thus from these letters, it is clear that i...

Toshika International Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT127TriDel

1. The applications for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 1,61,96,088/- and penalty of equal amount imposed on the manufacturer and penalty of Rs. 16 lakh imposed on Managing Director arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, who has confirmed the demand on the ground that the manufacturing unit had evaded duty during the period from 1-2-1998 to 31-3-2001 by way of clandestine removal of the said goods and fraudulent availmenl of small scale exemption notifications.2. We have heard both the sides. Regarding financial position of the applicants, they showed the balance-sheet for the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 issued by M/s. Aneet & Associates, Chartered Accountants. The Chartered Accountant has also deposed that he has given certificates after examination of sales records/ ledger & stock register produced by the applicants for the above mentioned period. We also note that the balance-sheets for the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 were submitted by the applicants to ...

Punjab Alkalies and Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT212TriDel

2. The appellants are challenging the denial of Modvat credit of Rs. 51,1237- on Protection Boxes, Rs. 3,975/- on Pressure Switches, Rs. 1,12,105/- on Public Address System and its parts and Rs. 17,385/- on Invoice No. 22, dated 3-1-1995 issued by M/s. Enpro Industrial Automation Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 258/- on Invoice No. 123 dated 29-12-1994 issued by M/s. Nagman Sensors Pvt. Ltd., Madras, respectively.2. Shri Joy Kumar, Id. Advocate for the appellants pleaded that Protection Boxes are required for the termination of various instruments cable between the field instruments and distribution control system for the process control in the manufacturing process of caustic soda. Pressure Switches are required for the process control, therefore, are important for manufacturing process. Public Address System and its parts are placed in the control room for effective communication of process parameters to the different sections of the plant. Regarding the disputed invoices, he now produces the ori...

Oriental Carbon and Chemicals, Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC649

1. The issue involved in these three appeals, filed by M/s. Oriental Carbon & Chemicals Ltd. and Ors., is whether the duty of excise is payable by them and penalty is imposable on the extra quantity of carbon black filled by them in the bags cleared by them.2. Shri A.R. Madhav. Rao, learned Advocate, mentioned that the Appellants manufacture carbon black; that the duty has been demanded on the ground that they removed the excess quantity of carbon black deliberately filled in each bag of carbon removed by them. The learned Advocate submitted that the nature of Carbon black in such that it sticks to almost all surfaces with which it comes into contract; that they were dispatching a slightly excess quantity of carbon black than the quantity in M.Ts for which the customer was being charged to avoid any complaints later on of short supply; that for example in an invoice for clearing 10 M.T. of carbon black, the net weight shown in private record 10.240 M.Ts; that as per Department 0.2...

Singapore Airlines Ltd. Vs. Acit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. The assessee in this appeal is a company operating passenger aircraft and handling cargo movement from India to Singapore and Beyond. It is a member of the IATA (International Air Transporter Association). The global income of the assessee-company is assessed to tax in singapore in accordance with the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Singapore. In the course of its business, the assessee made payments in India and some of them were admittedly liable to tax deduction at source. In respect of such payment, the assessee filed the TDS returns with the AO, Circle 51(1), New Delhi.2. On the basis of information that the assessee had paid commission to travel agents in excess of the limits laid down by IATA without deducting tax in accordance with Section 194H of the I.T. Act, reintroduced w.e.f 01.06.2001, the AO initiated proceedings u/s. 201 of the Act. According to him in respect of such commission, the assessee ought to have deducted tax @ 10 % + surcharge. He fu...

Dixon Utilities and Exports Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(117)LC822Tri(Delhi)

1. Vide impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Nodia has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 99,56,988/- on colour picture tubes (CPTs) sent under Rule 57F(4) for repairs to manufactures of CPTs such as Samtel Colour Ltd., LG Hotline CPT Ltd., etc. on the ground that they were not repaired but replaced with fresh CPTs by the CPT manufacturer and, therefore, M/s. Dixon Utilities & Exports Ltd. (appellant No. 1) was not entitled to the credit of the above mentioned amount, confirmed a demand of Rs. 4,17,715/- representing additional consideration received by the appellants No. 1 from LG Electronics Ltd., confirmed a duty demand of of Rs. 91,324/- on CPTs which were written off as defective and a demand of Rs. 1,64,651/- and Rs. 5,53,123/- respectively on finished goods and inputs found short and a demand of Rs. 8,384/-, and imposed penalties of Rs. 1,11,98,185/- (being the amount equal to the duty confirmed) and penalties of Rs. 33 lakhs each on LG Hotline CPT Ltd. and Samte...

Radiant Acrylic and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. M/s. Radiant Acrylic (P) Ltd. imported a consignment of 46.936 MT of Acrylic Sheets offcut multi walled panels with closure sections of acrylic from M/s. Sineximco Pvt. Ltd. Singapore vide Bill of Entry No.50 dated 10.6.96 and declared the C & F value for the goods as US$ 14456.29 equivalent to Rs. 5,06,693/-. The consignment was released provisionally on payment of Customs duty of Rs. 4,77,474/-. Provisional assessment was made by taking C&F value @ US$ 308 PMT. On enquiry by DRI, it came to light that the consignment was purchased by M/s.Sineximco Pvt. Ltd. Singapore @ US$ 750 PMT for a total value of US$ 35804.25. This was the same as shown in the export declaration filed at Antwerp, Belgium. On the basis of the above document, show cause notice alleging undervaluation and proposing recovery of differential duty and penalty on the importer as well as its partners was issued, which was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Customs who enhanced the assessable value to Rs. 12,...

Abb Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(181)ELT71TriDel

1. The issue involved in these two appeals, filed by M/s. ABB Ltd., is whether the refund of duty claimed by them is to be sanctioned to them.2. Shri R. Parthasarthy, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants have imported certain parts and components for use in the manufacture of transformers from Sweden; that though the invoice value was mentioned in Sweden Krones, they erroneously applied exchange rate of Swiss Francs which resulted in payment of duty in excess; that though the refund was sanctioned to them, the Adjudicating Authority directed the amount of refund to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund; that Commissioner (Appeals) also under the impugned order has rejected their appeals on the ground that the order of assessment made by proper officer stands as no correction as required by Section 154 of the Customs Act has been made nor any Appeal was filed. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that the appellants have shown the excess customs duty paid by them as s...

Canon Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT359TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 28/2004, dated 10-2-2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Cochin. The appellant's submission is that the case had earlier come up before the Tribunal and the Tribunal had remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) under Final Order No. 77/2000-C, dated 30-12-99 and it had specifically been directed that in remand the case "must be decided based on the evidence on record at the time of issue of Show-cause Notice and adjudication of the case and not based on any fresh material"; but the Commissioner had not gone by that direction. It is the grievance of the appellant that despite the specific direction to the contrary, the Commissioner (Appeals) has again passed the order based on such fresh material. It is being pointed out specifically that the report of the Central Revenue Laboratory had been received subsequent to the issue of Show-Cause Notice and that report has been relied upon. The learned Counsel in t...