Delhi Court June 2004 Judgments

Rrb Securities Ltd. Vs. Joint Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Del)883

ORDERP.N. Parashar, J.M.:This appeal, preferred by the assessed, is directed against Commissioner (Appeals)'s order dated 2-2-2000, relating to assessment year 1994-95.2. Shri Ajay Vohra and Shri Rohit Jain, advocates, appeared on behalf of the assessed, whereas Shri Rajnish Kumar, Departmental Representative, represented the department.3. Ground Nos. 1 to 4: These grounds challenge the validity of the proceedings of reassessment initiated under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act.4. Learned counsel for the assessed submitted that before issuing notice under section 148 the assessing officer did not record reasons to justify the issuance of notice under section 148. He further submitted that there is no application of mind by the assessing officer for initiation of proceedings. The learned counsel also contended that during the assessment proceedings reasons were not supplied by the assessing officer which were later on supplied during the course of appellate proceedings before the l...

Pragati Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT416TriDel

1. Since facts of both the appeals which have been filed against the common order-in-original, lie in a very narrow compass and the learned Counsel is prepared to argue the appeals on merits, the stay applications are allowed and the appeals are taken up for hearing on merits.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The Company Appellant No. 1 imported four used/second-hand colour printing machines vide Bill of Entry No. 209949, dated 17-5-1999 and out of those, the Company disposed of two machines without seeking prior permission from the competent authority in violation of the Exim Policy 1997-2002.Therefore, those two machines were ordered to be confiscated under Section 111(d) and 111(o) of the Customs Act. Since the machines were not available for confiscation, the adjudicating authority did not pass any order regarding the confiscation of the same. However, a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs has been imposed on the company appellant No. 1.3. Regarding the other two machines, there is no alle...

Frank Brothers and Company (Publishers) Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance C ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Mahesh Chandra, Member: 1. The present complaint has been filed by M/s. Frank Brothers and Company (Publishers) Ltd. against the New India Assurance Company Limited and Standard Chartered Bank alleging deficiency in service on the part of O.P. No. 1 and claiming a sum of Rs. 4,85,000/- along with interest and also compensation for mental agony and harassment amounting to Rs. 50,000/- and also Rs. 15,000/- towards cost of litigation. O.P. No. 2 has been impleaded as a proforma party since the policy was subject to financial interest of the Bank. 2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: The complainant purchased one Tata Sumo DLX with financial assistance of O.P. No. 2/Standard Chartered Bank, New Delhi in October, 1998 for Rs. 4,94,337/-. The registration number of the vehicle was UP-16-4919. O.P. No. 2 obtained comprehensive policy of the insurance in respect of the vehicle before the delivery was taken and the policy was valid for the period 28.9.1998 to 27.9.1999. The sum in...

Seaking Marine Services Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (Prev.)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT276TriDel

1. From the available records, it appears that M/s. Seaking Marine Services - a partnership firm, of which one Shri Bhavesh Gandhi was a partner - had imported numerous consignments of Seamless Stainless Steel Pipes etc. and warehoused the goods during 1992-94; that the goods were cleared from warehouse without payment of duty and sold to buyers in the local market; that a case of evasion of customs duty was booked against the appellant-firm by the department and the same was investigated; that, during the course of investigations (September - November '97), the appellants deposited certain amounts towards customs duty; that, in adjudication of the show cause notice issued to the firm and its partner, the Commissioner of Customs by order dated 10-3-98 appropriated the said deposits towards demand of duty on the goods and imposed penalties on the firm and its partner; that the Commissioner's order was challenged in appeals preferred to this Tribunal; that the Tribunal by Order Nos. A/9...

Three N. Products (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT425TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Three N. Products Pvt. Ltd., is whether the goods manufactured by them are classifiable under Heading No. 33.02 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as mixture of odoriferous substances and mixture with a basis of one or more substance of a kind used in industry or under Heading Nos.33.04 & 33.05 as preparations for the care of skin and hair as confirmed by Revenue.2. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture Ayur brand shampoo and cream in three factories at Delhi, Jabalpur and Bhiwadi; that with a view to maintain uniform quality of the final products, they manufacture raw materials for their final products in their units in Mangolpuri and Ranjit Nagar, Delhi; that they make following compounds which are packed in Jerry cane of 25/50 kgs. each:- 2.2 He mentioned that these six compounds are the main raw materials for the manufacture of their Ayur brand shampoo and cream; that ...

R.K. Ispat Udyog and Shri N.N. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC563

1. There is a duty demand of Rs. 1.67 lakh and penalty of Rs. 40,000 against the first appellant who is the manufacturer of the goods in question. The second appellant was an employee of the first appellant.2. The duty demand has been confirmed by taking resort to the extended period available under proviso to Section 11A to the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the ground that the appellant had collected additional amounts from the buyers; but such realizations were not disclosed to the Central Excise authorities.3. The appellant is not disputing the fact of collection of additional amount or not disclosing that fact to the Central Excise authorities.In these circumstances, proviso to Section 11A is clearly attracted.The appellants' defence is that extended period was not invocable in the present case, because Central Excise authorities had visited the appellant's factory in October 1996 (the duty demand is for the period 1995-96) and they had become aware of the short levy and they could ...

Gupta Pigments and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC84

1. These are five appeals, two of them (Nos. 1656 & 1657) directed against one order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the remaining three against another order passed by him. The two impugned orders pertain to two show-cause notices issued by the department on the basis of results of the same investigation.2. On 6.9.99, a team of Central Excise Officers had made a surprise visit to the factory of M/s. Gupta Pigments & Chemicals Ltd. (GPCL, for short) and checked physical stock of finished goods and inputs, whereupon an excess stock of 105.740 MTs of lead ingots (finished product) was found vis-a-vis the recorded balance in RG -I register as also shortages of 274.629 MTs of lead ingots (input) and 100 kgs. of white lead (input) were noticed vis-a-vis the respective stock balances recorded in RG 23A Part I register. The stock verification was done in the presence of Shri S.K. Chauhan (General Manager), Shri R.K.Srivastav (Production Manager) and independent witnesses and...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Vivek Re-rolling Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC688

1. The Revenue has filed the present Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.1151/2003 dated 25.11.03 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the Adjudication order relying upon the decision in the case of Beauty Dyers v. Union of India, 2002 (52) RLT 635 (Mad.).2. Shri Virag Gupta, learned Departmental Representative, submitted that the respondents M/s. Vivek Re-Rolling Mills manufactures hot rolled non-alloy steel products, which were liable to Central Excise duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 96 ZP of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that the respondents had filed their declaration under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Hot Re-Rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 for determination of their annual capacity of production; that the Commissioner determined their annual capacity of production to be 5207.550MT per annum, on which the liability to Central Excise duty comes to Rs. 15,62,268 per annum and the monthly duty liability is Rs....

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Gypsy Advertising Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT271TriDel

1. This appeal has been directed by the Revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has modified the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority who confirmed the demand of Rs. 78,285/- under Section 68 of the Service Tax Act against the respondents with penalty of Rs. 100/- per day under Section 76, by reducing the demand to Rs. 2,985/- and setting aside the penalty.2. None has come present on behalf of the respondents. The notice for today's hearing was sent to them on 6-5-2004, but no response has been received. No request for adjournment has been also received from them.Therefore, I proceed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the learned JDR.3. The facts are not much in dispute. The respondents are advertising agency registered under Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1.994. They had let out a portion of the site which they took from the Municipal Corporation for advertising purposes to other companies namely, M/s.Ogilvy & Mather...

Methodex Systems Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT299TriDel

1. The issue involved, in this appeal filed by M/s. Methodex Systems Ltd., is whether the goods manufactured by them are classifiable under Heading No. 94.03 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) or under Heading No. 83.04 as claimed by them.2.1 Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate, mentioned that the Appellants manufacture the following goods :- 2.2 The learned Advocate submitted that the goods manufactured by the Appellants are sold mainly to banks for specialized purposes and as organizational tools; that the Visible Recorder is used as a specimen signature holder; that the Fire Resistant Cabinets which weigh around 250 to 850 kgs. are specially armoured filing cabinets used to provide protection from fire; that their goods are specifically covered under Heading 83.04 which reads as under :- "Filing cabinets, card-index cabinets, Paper rests, paper trays, Pen trays, office-stamp stand and similar office or desk equipment, of b...