Delhi Court June 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.
Sanjeev Agrawal Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-10-2004
Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT404TriDel
2. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 3.28 crores and penalty of the equal amount and also penalty imposed on Sh. Sanjeev Agrawal. In this case the value of the goods imported by the appellant was enhanced on the basis of export declaration obtained by the Customs authorities. The contention of the applicant is that there is no evidence that the export declaration was obtained from the Customs authorities of the concerned countries and in the export declaration; the name of the importer was shown as Paragon Synthetic Pvt. Ltd. The contention is that such export declaration cannot be the basis for enhancement of the assessable value of the imported goods in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CC, Bombay v. East Punjab Traders reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 11. We find that in this case the assessable value of imported goods were enhanced on the basis of copies of export declarations and the Revenue failed to show us ...
Justice Girish Kumar Mathur Vs. Ito
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-10-2004
Reported in: (2004)91ITD423(Delhi)
1. The assessee is a retired Judge of the Allahabad High Court. The only question which falls for determination in the present appeal filed by the assessee is whether dearness relief of Rs. 53,640/- received by the assessee in addition to the pension forms part of salary for assessment year 1998-99 and hence liable to Income-tax.2. Government employees are entitled to receive dearness allowance to compensate them for rise in cost of living. Similarly, in the case of retired employees of the Government, the existing practice is that dearness relief is being sanctioned to pensioners/family pensioners from time to time as and when there is eight point rise in the average consumer price index. Specific rates were prescribed by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension for the guidance of pension disbursing authorities from time to time. Retired Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts/family pensioners of such Judges are also entitled to such dearness relief on pension/famil...
Akshay Spinning Mills Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-09-2004
Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC193
1. In this appeal, the appellants have questioned the correctness of the impugned Order-in-Appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order of the adjudicating authority ordering the confiscation of the seized goods, imposing redemption fine of Rs. 1 lakh and personal penalty of Rs. 50,000 on the appellants.2. The learned counsel has contended that since no duty demand has been confirmed and no excess or shortage of the finished goods was found in the factory premises of the appellants, on verification of the stock carried out after the seizure of the goods, the impugned order regarding the confiscation of the goods and imposition of the penalty, cannot be legally sustained. The penalty, according to the learned counsel, could be imposed only if there had been evasion of the duty on the seized goods by the appellants.3. On the other hand, the learned JDR, has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.4. I have heard both sides and gone through the record. The...
Bhilai Auxiliary Indus. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-09-2004
Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC629
1. In this appeal, which has been filed against the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the issue relates to the availability of the deemed modvat credit to the appellants in terms of the Notification No. 58/97 dated 30.8.1997.2. The authorities below have denied the credit on the inputs to the appellants under this Notification as the Manufacturer of the inputs had failed to declare the invoice price of the inputs correctly in the documents (invoices) issued at the time of clearance of the goods by him from his factory.3. The learned Counsel has contended that since no show cause notice had been issued to the manufacturer/supplier of the inputs for having failed to give the details, as required under the above said notification in the invoices issued by him to the appellants at the time of clearance of the goods, the deemed credit could not be denied to the appellants. The learned Counsel has sought support to his argument from the law laid down in the case of Delhi Steel Indus, v.CCE, Chandig...
Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-09-2004
Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT22TriDel
1. The appellant/applicant pleads financial hardship. It is submitted that the factory is closed since 2001. Under these circumstances, condition for pre-deposit is waived. There will be a stay of recovery.Post the appeal for hearing on 20-9-04....
Rolls Royce Industrial Power (i) Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-09-2004
Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC441
1. The appellant entered into an operation and maintenance agreement dated 14.3.95 with M/s. Spectrum Power Generation Limited, Secunderabad for Operation and Maintenance of the 208 MW Combined Cycle Power Station owned by M/s. Spectrum Power Generation Limited at Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh. A show cause notice was issued by Central Excise authorities on 22.2.2001 alleging that the appellant was liable to pay service tax as applicable to "consulting engineer" for the period July 1997 to May 2000. This allegation was confirmed in the adjudication and that order was upheld in appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) Visakhapatnam. A duty demand of about Rs. 2.7 crore and penalty are involved. The present appeal challenges those Orders.2. The appellant's contention was that their agreement dated 14.3.95 was for Operation and Maintenance of a Power Plant and not for rendering any advise or consultancy service. According to them, in terms of the agreement, they are performing the job of operating an...
Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Ishaan Research Laboratories P.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-09-2004
Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC100
1. In these two appeals, arising out of two Orders-in-Appeal and filed by Revenue, the common issues involved are whether the products manufactured by M/s. Ishaan Research Laboratories (P) Ltd. are classifiable under Heading No. 30.03 as P or P Ayurvedic Medicaments as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) or under Chapter 33 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Act as claimed by Revenue and whether the assessable value of the goods supplied to Hotels will be determined under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. We heard Shri V. Valte, learned SDR, for the Revenue and Shri V.P Goyal, learned Advocate, for the Respondents. Both learned SDR and learned Advocate agree that the classification issue has been decided by the Appellate Tribunal in the Respondents own case vide Final Order Nos. 381-396/2000-C, dated 28-8-2000 [2001 (137) E.L.T. 293 (T)] which has only been followed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Revenue has preferred the appeal ...
Kamakshi Papers (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-09-2004
Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC270
1. Kamakshi Papers (P) Ltd., have filed this Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 263/2003 dated 23.10.03 by which the Commissioner, (Appeals) has denied the benefit of Notification No. 67/95-CE and Notification No. 89/95 dated 18.5.95.2. Shri Bipin Garg, learned Advocate submitted that the Appellants manufacture newsprint paper, writing and printing paper and Kraft paper; that newsprint carries nil rate of duty in the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act itself; that during the process of manufacture of these papers, some quantity of broken and cut pieces of papers called waste and scrap is generated which falls under sub-heading 4702.90 of the Tariff; that such waste and scrap is captively consumed by the Appellants in the manufacture of their final products. Learned Advocate, further, submitted that the Appellants are not pressing their Appeal against the denial of benefit of Notification No. 67/95-CE dated 16.2.95; that the Commissioner (Appeals) has denied the benefit of Notif...
Mohan Sales (India) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-09-2004
Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT552TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the confiscation of a consignment of Batteries imported by the appellant. The appellant filed Bill of entry No. 155017, dated 6-11-2000 at Bombay Customs. The goods were declared in the Bill of entry as under :- "AA Size Battery (Hi-Watt-Republic China) Not rechargeable C and F US $ 0.029 per pc. AAA Size Battery (Hi-Watt-Republic China) Not rechargeable C and F US $ 0.031 per pc." (emphasis supplied) However, when the consignment was examined it was observed and the goods were as under :- 2. Thus, examination revealed that the appellant's declaration of the goods as "not rechargeable" was false and the goods were actually rechargeable. The appellant had produced invoice dated 20th October 2000 from Busino Industrial Ltd., Hong Kong along with Bill of entry.This invoice also did not indicate whether the batteries were chargeable or not. It only described the goods as "Hi-watt Brand Ni-CD Battery, AA Size battery, AAA Size Battery". The per piece pric...
Johnson Controls Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc Air Cargo
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-09-2004
Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC21
1. In this appeal at the instance of the importer-assessee grievance is that neither the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Special Valuation Branch (SVB), Delhi nor the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has considered the appellants' case on merits. It is also contended that in the light of the directive given in Board's Circular No. 1/98 dated 1.1.98 followed by Circular No. 11/2001 dated 23.3.2001 the Commissioner (Appeals) should have followed the view taken by the Deputy Commissioner, SVB, Mumbai in his order dt. 11.1.2000 2. The appellants are engaged in the business of undertaking projects for high quality building automation systems, automatic temperature controls, fire alarm systems and security and access control for office etc. They have their registered office in Mumbai with branches at New Delhi, Calcutta, Hyderabad and Bangalore. The appellants are a wholly owned subsidiary of M/s. Johnson Controls International B.V.Netherlands (JCIBV). JCIBV is a subsidiary of Johnson Cont...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »