Delhi Court December 2004 Judgments

Bharti Infotel Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT446TriDel

2. The Applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of total amount of Service Tax of Rs. 1,27,72,825/- and penalty of Rs.2,55,50,010/-. In this case the Applicants has entered into subscription agreement with both individuals and PCO subscriber. The Department wants to charge Service tax on the amount PCO are collecting from their users.3. The contention of the Applicants is that as per Finance Act, 1994 "taxable service means any service provided to a subscriber by the telegraph authority in relation to a telephone connection. As per Section 67 the valuation of taxable services for charging service tax shall be the gross total amount received by the telegraph authority.The Applicants also relied upon the Board's circular dated 13.10.1997 wherein it was clarified that the value of taxable services in relation to telephone connection provided to subscribers is the gross total amount received by the telegraph authority. In case where the telegraph authority has extended ...

Hindustan Copper Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC686

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Hindustan Copper Ltd., is whether they were eligible to take the Modvat Credit of the duty paid on MM. Rounds.2. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture copper and products thereof and avail of Modvat Credit of the duty paid on inputs as well as Capital goods; that the copper ore obtained from mines is subjected to crushing, grinding and floatation in the concentrator plant to produce copper concentrate; that the process of grinding is done firstly in rod mills and secondly in ball mills to reduce the size of ore from 25 mm to 200 mm; that for this purpose grinding rods and grinding balls are used in the rod and ball mills as grinding media; that they procure grinding rods from M/s.Visvesvaraya Iron & Steel Ltd.; that the description of the grinding rods in the invoice was shown as M.M. Rounds; that they claim the Modvat Credit of the duty paid on grinding rods as inputs under Rule 57A of...

Competent Business Machines Vs. Commissioner of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(182)ELT426TriDel

1. The appellant filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Customs.2. The appellant made import of old and used photocopiers and filed Bill of Entry declaring the value as US$ 73,170 (C & F) (Rs. 34,02,405/-). This value was not accepted by the Revenue and SCN was issued for enhancement of the value and for confiscation of the goods on the ground that these are consumer goods which requires specific licence for import.3. The adjudicating authority determined the value at US$ 1,30,050 (C & F) (Rs. 60,47,325/-) and ordered the confiscation of the goods and allowed to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 9,07,000/-. A penalty of Rs. 4,20,000/- was also imposed under Section 112(a) of Customs Act.4. The contention of the appellant is that at the time of import, the appellant filed a Chartered Engineer certificate declaring the value of the goods as declared to in the Bill of Entry. The contention is that the goods were again exa...

Praveen Juneja Vs. State of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 118(2005)DLT28

R.C. Chopra, J.1. Mr. Sunil Kapoor, Advocate, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the State.2. There is no need to serve the complainant inasmuch as the petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed by the Trial Court under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. These orders are only with a view to secure the presence of the petitioner.3. It is stated that he matter before the Trial Court is fixed for 21st January, 2005. Let the petitioner appear before the Trial Court on/or before 21st January, 2005 and seek bail in accordance with law.4. Till then, the impugned order under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall remain stayed. No further directions are required to be issued.5. The petition stands disposed of.Copy dusty under the signatures of the Court Master....

Autolook Industries Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Shri A K Mishra, ld. Consultant pleaded that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected their refund claim as time barred. The refund application was filed on 12.4.2004 whereas the duty was paid on 12.10.2000. Therefore, the application was held to have been filed beyond the period of 6 months from the date of payment of duty. Ld.Consultant pleaded that the refund claim was filed within a period of six months. Four counting the period day of payment of duty has to be excluded. He relied on the following decisions of the Tribunal:-Siemens Telecom Ltd. v. CC, New Delhi (2000 (115) ELT 160 (Tribunal) (2) J.B.A. Printing Inks. v. CC, Bombay (1986 (25) ELT 551 (Tribunal) He also referred to Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 12 (1) of the Limitation Act, 1963 and pleaded that the refund claim has been filed in time if the date of payment of duty is excluded in computing the period of six months.2. Shri Bipin Verma, ld. JDR has no objection in remanding the case back to ...

Kms Cargo Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC230

1. M/s. K.M.S. Cargo (P) Ltd. have the present appeal against the suspension of their Custom House Agent (CHA) Licence.2. Shri Lajja Ram, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants, customs House Agent, filed import documents for the clearance of heavy melting steel scrap imported by M/s. Bhushan Steel and Strip Ltd. on the strength of the documents made available to them by the importers; that the melting steel scrap was checked before allowing the clearance by the Customs Officers at the Inland contrainer Depot; that the goods were, thereafter, cleared out of the customs charge by the proper customs Officers; that without issuing any show cause Notice or affording any personal hearing, the Commissioner, under the impugned Order dated 5.10.2004, has suspended their license on the ground that an enquiry is contemplated against them for alleged involvement in the clearance of bill of entry of M/s. Bhushan Steel and Strip Ltd. for heavy melting steel after 100% examination; subsequ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Europa Electronics

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT416TriDel

1. Heard learned SDR as none appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of notice.2. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) held that there is no evidence on record to show that respondents manufactured goods from the imported parts and components.3. The contention of the Revenue is that respondents manufactured Black and White T.V., Audio Systems & Emergency light out of the parts imported by the respondents. The contention of the Revenue is that the respondents failed to show any evidence to show that imported parts and components were cleared as such. Therefore, it is proved that these are used in the manufacture of T.V. and Music System, which was cleared without payment of duty.4. We find that Revenue is asking for duty in respect of the T.V. and Music System cleared without payment of duty. There is no evidence on record to show that respondents manufactured these items ...

Rajasthan Drugs and Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC303

1. In these two appeals, the appellants are challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellants had reduced the prices of the P&P medicines supplied to the Government of Rajasthan retrospectively. Consequent to this action, they filed refund claim for the duty paid in excess at the time of clearance on higher price. Their refund claim was rejected by lower authorities as they failed to establish that duty was passed to the buyer. Shri G.B. Muchhala, learned Consultant relied on the decision of the Tribunal in case of ONGC v. CCE, [2003 (158) E.L.T. 829] in their support and pleaded that their appeal may be allowed.2. Shri P.M. Rao, ld. JDR appearing for the Revenue stated that the appellants changed their prices retrospectively without any clause in the Price Contract for such change in the prices. They had changed the prices retrospectively, then they should have first challenged the assessment order. This was not done by them. He relied on the Supreme Court's dec...

Shree Krishna Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC247

1. In these two appeals arising out of two different Orders, the common issue involved is whether the provisions of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act are attracted against the Appellants namely M/s. Bajrang Wires Products (India) Pvt Ltd. and M/s. Shree Krishna Industries.2. Both the Appellants manufacture wires, which are being drawn out of wire rods falling under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. Both the Appellants avail of the Cenvat credit of the duty paid on wire rods. They cleared wire on payment of Central Excise duty. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E v. Technoweld Industries, 2003 (155) E.L.T. 209 (S.C.) the process of drawing of wires from wire rods does not amount to manufacture. Accordingly, show cause notices were issued to both the Appellants for disallowing the Cenvat credit availed of by them and for recovering the Central Excise duty collected by them from their customers under the provisions of Section 1...

Pure Rice (i) Ltd. Vs. C.C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC17

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Pure Rice (I) Ltd. is whether they are eligible to relinquish the title on the capital goods imported by them from abroad.2. Shri K Kumar, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants, a 100% Export Oriented Undertaking, entered into a contract with M/s.Gauthier S.A. of France for the supply of Rice Processing machinery; that however, the foreign supplier supplied only a colorimetric sorting machine, one electrical Control Panel and a set of spare parts which were cleared under Bill of entry dated 8.8.1997; that the foreign supplier could not supply the rest of the machinery as they went into liquidation; that Colorimetric sorting machine could not be used without rest of the components and other parts; that the machine remained lying ideal and unused ever since its import with the result that 100% E.O.U. could not be set up and commissioned; that the foreign supplier was persuaded to accept back the machinery shipped by them; tha...