Delhi Court April 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.
Air Conditioner Company of India Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-2004
Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT503TriDel
1. Applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax and penalty. The demand of Service tax was confirmed on the ground that the applicant has provided his services as Consultant to the contractor. The contention of the appellants is that the contractor is liable to pay the Service Tax and not the applicants. The applicants relied upon the Board Circular F. No. B. 43/5/97-TRU, dated 2-7-1997.Para 3.4 of the Board Circular provides that Services should be rendered to a client directly, and not in the capacity of a sub-consultant associate consultant to another consulting engineer, who is the prime consultant. In case services are rendered to the prime consultant, the levy of service tax does not fall on the sub-consultant, but is on the prime of main consulting engineer who raises a bill on his client (which include the charge for services rendered by the sub-consultant).2. In view of the above Board Circular, prima facie, applicants had a strong case in their ...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Satyam Enterprises
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-2004
Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT379TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by Revenue is whether M/s.Satyam Enterprises are manufacturing excisable goods bearing the brand name of another person and thereby making them ineligible for the benefit of Notification No. 8/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000.2. Shri O.P. Arora, learned SDR, submitted that M/s. Satyam Enterprises manufacture speaker columns which are being cleared by them bearing the brand name of 'Takai', Taiwa', 'Calvin', and 'Venus'; that the Dy.Commissioner under Order-in-Original No. 68/2001, dated 28-3-2001 confiscated the goods which were seized by the officers on 14-8-2000 and imposed penalty on the ground that Shri Deepak Kumar, partner, in his statement had admitted that the brand names which they were affixing on their speaker column belongs to others; that on appeal, filed by the respondents, the Commissioner (Appeals), under the Impugned Order, had set aside the Adjudication Order holding that the brand name were general in nature as the Department has ...
Bhawani Shanker Castings Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-2004
Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC451
1. The appeal of the appellants is directed against the order-in-original passed by the Commissioner. The facts in brief are as under :- The appellants, M/s, Bhawani Shankar Casting Ltd., Vill. Raowali, Jalandhar operating an induction furnace of 3 MT capacity and manufacturing non-alloy steel ingots, filed an application dated 23-9-1997 giving their option to work under Rule 96ZO(3) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 (the Rules for short). The Commissioner Central Excise vide order dated 22-9-1998, determined the annual capacity of. production of the unit as 9600 MT in terms of Notification No. 24/97-C.E. (N.T.), dated 25-7-1997 read with Section 3A of the Act. Accordingly, the appellants were required to pay duty of Rs. 5 lakhs per month, through account current as per Rule 96ZO(3) of the Rules. In the meantime, the appellants vide their letter dated 15-1-1998 made submissions to the Commissioner, that they have obtained an order worth Rs. One crore for supply of steel casting to Rail Co...
General Electronics of Haryana Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-2004
Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT264TriDel
1. This is an application by M/s. General Electronics of Haryana Ltd. for waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 3,95,341.65.2. Shri Abhishek Jain, learned Advocate, submitted that the applicants are manufacturing quilted fabrics in running length whereas the duty is payable only in respect of quilted fabrics in piece; that they are clearing the fabrics in running length which is not in piece and as such no duty is chargeable.3. Opposing the prayer Shri O.P. Arora, learned SDR, submitted that it is clearly mentioned in the impugned Order that when their premises was visited the Applicants were found to be engaged in the manufacture of quilted fabrics which were in the length of 20 to 30 Mtrs.4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. Even if they were clearing the fabrics in the length of 20 to 30 Mtrs. the same cannot be called pieces. Accordingly the Applicants have made out a strong prima facie case in their favour for waiver of pre-deposit of t...
Indian Plastics and Laminates Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-2004
Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT51TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Indian Plastics and Laminates Ltd., is whether the HDPE Quick Change Coupler, Tail piece, open end cap, bend tee and branch coupler/sprinkler line coupler manufactured by them on job work basis are classifiable under sub-heading No. 8424.91 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as parts of sprinkler irrigation system claimed by them or under Heading No. 39.17 as goods of general use as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order.2. Shri Bipin Garg, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture PVC fittings which are classified under Heading 39.17 of the Central Excise Tariff; that in addition they manufacture the impugned goods on job work basis strictly on the basis of drawings, specifications and moulds supplied by M/s. Rungata Irrigation Ltd.; that M/s. Rungata Irrigation Ltd. (Rungata in short) supply them the granules and moulds for manufacturing parts of Sprinklers Irrigation Equipm...
Annamaria Travels and Tours (P) Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-2004
Reported in: (2005)95TTJ(Delhi)71
1. This appeal by the assessee relates to the asst. yr. 1998-99, for which the previous year was 1st April, 1997 to 31st March, 1998. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of conducting tours and acting as travel agent. It also carries on ticketing for airline companies, both national and international. It follows the mercantile system of accounting. In disposing of this appeal, we have taken into consideration the compilation, notes as well as tabulation of facts filed by the assessee.2. The first ground is that the assessment made under Section 143(3) is invalid in law because the notice under Section 142(1) and Section 143(2) were not validly served. At the time of the hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee stated that this ground is not pressed.Accordingly, it is dismissed.3. The second ground consists of various sub-grounds. We shall deal with them seriatim.4. The first sub-ground is directed against the addition of Rs. 6,424 made towards interest income. The A...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›