Delhi Court December 2004 Judgments

Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(181)ELT116TriDel

1. Though the matter is posted today for consideration of application.Upon hearing both sides and perusing the records, it is felt that the appeal itself can be disposed of. Therefore, I am taking up the appeal for decision after waiving the requirement for pre-deposit.2. This appeal is directed against demand of duty from the appellant in respect of Brown (BISS sugar) destroyed during fire in the appellant storage premises. The Commissioner has rejected the remission application of the appellant with the following observation : "As regard point 3 above it is established beyond doubt that party have been mis-representing the facts to the department, concealing the virtually chemical happenings in the BISS stock, which was known to the party and is not possible for the departmental officials to be well verse with the such chemical reactions. If the party would have taken preventive measures to safeguard their product and clearances were made in time, such loss could not have been occur...

Cce Vs. Birla Corporation Ltd., Banswara

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC748

1. In these appeals, the Revenue have questioned the validity of the impugned Order-in-appeal which is common in all these appeals, passed by the Commissioner(appeals).2. In appeal No.E/4325 and 4324/04-NBC, the counsel for the respondents are present while in other appeals none has come present and no request for adjournment has been received from the respondents and as such, we proceed to decide these appeals also along with other appeals.3. In appeals No.E/4325, 4324 and 4327/04-NBC the issue involved is common and relates to the duty liability of the respondents in respect of the wear and tear/waste and scrap of the capital goods cleared by them without payment of duty, whereas in appeal No.E/4236/04-NBC, the issue relates to the refund of duty already paid by the respondents on the waste and scrap of the capital goods. The issues being common, all these appeals are being disposed of by this common order.4. The learned SDR has contended that wear and tear/waste and scrap of the ca...

Assistant Engineer (Civil), Pcc Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC554

1. None is present on behalf of the appellant. On the last date of hearing. Shri Anil Vyas, Additional S.E. appeared on behalf of the appellant and the appeal was adjourned for today. But today neither he nor the appellant himself has put in appearance. No request for adjournment has been received. Therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal after hearing the learned SDR.2. The controversy in this appeal relates to the refund claim of duty lodged by the appellant. The ld. Commr. (Appeals) has dismissed the claim on two grounds. Firstly, it is time barred. Secondly, it is hit by principle of unjust enrichment.3. We have gone through the record and in our view, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is perfectly valid. We find that the duty was paid voluntarily by the appellant. The excess payment of duty on his part occurred on account of reduction of excise duty from 18% to 16% ad valorem from 1.3.99 which came into force on presentation of the Annual Budget. The appellant howe...

Rama Tex Process House Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Even though only stay application is posted today, upon hearing both sides it is seen that appeal itself can be disposed of. Therefore, I am taking up the appeal for decision after waiving the requirement for pre-deposit.2. The dispute ha arisen on account of error in apportioning duty amount between basic excise duty and additional excise duty. The current order the Commissioner has held the readjustment between the two accounts is not possible, even though there was error in apportionment. Learned Counsel for the appellant points out that in an identical case of error in the previous case of the appellant himself, the Commissioner has allowed readjustment under Order in appeal No.412-CE/MRT-I/2004 dated 4.6.2004. He therefore, submitted that the present order is without any justification and the appeal is required to be allowed.3. It is seen that on an identical case the Commissioner has passed the following order : "It is observed that the appellant were granted abatement of dut...

Bsl Wulfing Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC466

1. In this appeal, the appellants have made challenge to the impugned Order-in-Appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected their refund claim of customs duty on the ground that the original assessment order was not challenged by them.3. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants imported Jacquard machine and on the presentation of the bill of entry by them, for the purpose of computing customs duty on it the machine was held to be classifiable under Tariff Heading 8448.11 as auxiliary machine. The payment of duty was, however, deferred as at that time the appellants were 100% EOU but at the time of debonding they were called upon to pay duty as assessed initially, the appellants accordingly paid duty and got debonded.4. After payment of duty the appellants lodged refund claim on the ground that duty was wrongly charged from them by classifying the machine under Tariff Heading 8448.11 as the machine was part of weaving machine and attracted lower rate of duty. In t...

Virdy Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT509TriDel

1. The appeal has been filed late. The reason for condonation of delay as given in the application (para 4) reads as under :- "4. Since, the decision of the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble CESTAT, published in the Revenue Law Times, Volume 63, Part 5 dt. 2-8-2004 has come to the knowledge of the Appellants only in the first week of August 2004, therefore, the present appeal has become delayed in filing".2. None has appeared for hearing today on behalf of the appellant.Instead, a letter dated 4-10-2004 has been filed seeking decision of the case on merit. Therefore, the case is disposed of after perusing the records and hearing the learned JDR.3. The submission of the learned JDR is that there is a delay of about two months in filing the appeal and the reason given for the delay cannot be a ground for allowing condonation. From para 4 of the application it is clear that delay is not on account of any acceptable grounds. The present appeal has been filed only to take advantage of the subseq...

Cce Vs. P.A. Time Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC470

2. In these appeals, the Revenue has questioned the correctness of the impugned order is common in both the appeals. The issue relates to the applicability of principle of unjust enrichment to the refund claim preferred by the respondents. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim by invoking this principle after observing that the incidence of duty was passed on to the ultimate consumers but the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed that order by following the ratio of law laid down in Swarup Fibre Industries Ltd. v. CCE and Modi Xerox ltd. v. CCE 1999 (35) RLT 77 wherein it has been observed that if there is no increase in the price structure by the assessee even after payment of duty, it could lead to infer that the incidence of duty was not passed on to the ultimate consumers. But the ratio of law down in these cases stands already over-ruled by the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Mumbai-II v. Allied Photographics India . Therefore, on the face it, the order of the...

Shri Shambhu Nath and Shri Lal Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC393

1. These two appeals are directed against a common order under which silver weighing about 180 kgs. were confiscated and a penalty of Rs. 25,000 imposed on each of the appellants. The facts of the case are that on 24.12.99 the silver in question was seized from a gipsy in which the two appellants were travelling. Shri Shambhu Nath claimed about 96 kgs. of silver and the other claimed the remaining. They are both jewellers.2. In the adjudication order it has been held that the silver in question had been admitted to be smuggled from Nepal. This finding is made by taking resort to the provisions of section 123 of the Customs Act.3. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the impugned order is contrary to facts on record as well as the instruction contained in Circular No. 394/233/88-Cus (AS) dated 11.6.90 of the Central Board of Excise & Customs. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that the silver was in small pieces (101 pieces weighing about 187 kgs...

Good Health Accessories (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Author ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2005Delhi230; 2005(79)DRJ134

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1.Petitioner a private limited company challenges demand raised by DDA vide letter dated 30.9.1998. By and under said letter, interest in the sum of Rs.23,25,495/- has been demanded. Said sum has been arrived at levying interest @ 18% p.a. on premium of Rs.54,40,922/- for the period 1.8.1994 to 12.12.1996.2.Case of the petitioner is that one Shri Tilak Raj was the member of 'The Surgical Co-op. Society Ltd.'. As member of the society, he was entitled to an industrial plot in his name. He died on 23.11.1982 and his nominee Smt.Karman Wali (his wife) was substituted as a member in his place by the society. Possession of the plots could not be given to the members of The Surgical Co-op Society Ltd. as there was dispute pertaining to the cost. Matter attained finality on 16.8.1993 when Supreme Court passed an order in CA.No.668/88 settling the issue of price. Post settlement of the issue of cost, on 1.7.1994, DDA issued a demand in the sum of Rs.54,40,922.60 for the pl...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Rajo and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2005)ACC141; 116(2005)DLT226; 2005(80)DRJ384

R.S. Sodhi, J.C.M. Appl. 15143/2004 : Allowed subject to just exceptions. Application is disposed of.C.M. Appl. 15142/2004: For the reasons stated in the application, this application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.MAC. APP 524/2004 and C.M. Appl. 15141/2004 1. This appeal seeks to challenge the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi, dated 31.7.2004 in Suit No. 672 of 1996 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,99,096/- together with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum to the claimant on account of death of Daryao Singh in an accident on 11.4.1996. 2. Brief facts of the case, as noted by the Tribunal, are as under : ''It is alleged that the deceased suffered fatal injuries in an accident on 11.4.96 at about 1.00 p.m. in front of Eastern Court Janpath New Delhi, due to rash and negligent driving of R-1 while driving motor cycle no.92-A-43429 x of PMO CIDSS, EDP, Enclave, New Delhi, when the deceased was crossing the road ...