Delhi Court September 2004 Judgments

Cit Vs. Motor General Finance Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2005]142TAXMAN300(Delhi)

B.C. Patel, CJ. On remand made by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1479/2004 in the case of M/s. Motor General Finance Ltd. v. CIT, Delhi Decided on 25-2-2004, this appeal is listed before us for hearing.2. From the order of the Tribunal, it transpires that there was a specific ground with regard to the disallowance of Rs. 10 lakhs in respect of fresh advances made in the year in question to the sister concern by the appellant. In all, the loan granted to the sister concern extended to the tune of Rs. 47,67,740.3. The assessing officer was of the view that the basic information was not provided so as to arrive at a conclusion of the nexus between the advances and the assessed's over-draft and, thereforee, adverse inference had to be drawn to the effect that the assessed had utilised interest bearing loans to make the advances to the sister concern and ultimately, considering this aspect, came to the conclusion that interest liability charged to the profit and loss account or to th...

Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking Vs. Veer Singh

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Videimpugned order dated 25.1.1996 the appellant DESU was directed to restore the supply of the agricultural electricity connection within one month on the respondents completing commercial formalities in respect of change of name and also the appellant shall apprise the respondent of the commercial formalities and in the event of delay in restoration of the supply, the appellant shall be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 50/- for each days delay. 2. Appellants grievance is limited to the extent that unless and until the respondent produces a certificate from the B.D.O. The appellant will not be in a position to restore the supply as the appellant has been receiving letters from B.D.O. that the applications for restoration of the electricity in respect of agricultural connection on the plots which are situated in the area in question were withdrawn. 3. It appears that the application of the respondent for change of the name after the death of his fathe...

Gopal NaraIn Aggarwal Vs. Laxmi Batteries and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Complaint of appellant was dismissed vide impugned order dated 24.8.2002 on the ground that the fact regarding the defect in the battery and the defect in the inverter can only be decided by recording the detailed evidence of the technical experts. 2. The appellant had purchased an Exide battery from the respondent for use in the inverter installed at his residence. Battery was found defective and as a result Inverter could not function properly. The respondents have taken plea that the electric system of the inverter wherein the battery was used was in fact defective and the complainant was requested to get the faulty inverter charging system rectified by the mechanic. The mechanic checked the inverter and after the fitment of new replaced battery found that the inverter was faulty due to faulty electricity system. 3. As is apparent, it was a case of deficiency in service as to the quality of battery and could have been decided on the basis of evidence filed...

BhasIn and Co., Advocates Vs. Airsirco Pvt. Limited

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 17.10.1994 whereby the complaint of the appellant seeking compensation on account of deficiency in service in repairing two air conditioners was dismissed, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. The appellant is an Advocate Company. There is no dispute that the respondent had been entering into service contract for the maintenance of air conditioners of the appellant every year since 1982-83. Every year fresh contract used to be entered into between the parties. According to the appellant the last contract for maintenance of the air conditioners was executed on 12.3.1993 for a period from 7.4.1993 to 6.4.1994. However, according to the respondent this was not a concluded contract but an offer from the respondent to enter into service contract with the appellant for maintenance of their five air conditioners in consideration of Rs. 10,450/- and since the aforesaid offer was not accepted nor was the said amount paid by ...

Anand Duplex Ltd. and ors. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC767

1. Appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of paper and paper board at Meerut. They have two manufacturing units, Unit No. 1 being engaged in the manufacture of kraft paper and Unit No. 2 being engaged in the manufacture of Paper Board. They sell their finished goods on payment of duty to their sales depot located at Delhi from which goods are sold to various buyers. They started selling their finished goods on consignment sales basis from May 1999 onwards, in respect of Unit No. 1 and October 1999 onwards, in respect of Unit No. 2. They appointed a number of consignment agents all over India to whom finished goods were dispatched on payment of duty, and the agents in turn sold the finished goods on commission basis. During 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 there were six consignment agents and twenty-five consignment agents respectively. Appellants paid duty based on the factory gate price of finished goods in respect of transfer of goods to consignment agents. Central Excise authorit...

Avon Udyog and anr. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(117)LC293Tri(Delhi)

1. Heard both sides. Appellant filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise whereby the annual capacity of the Unit was fixed under Notification No.34/2001 after taking into consideration the production of 2 cold rolling machines.2. Contention of the appellant is that appellant was working on one cold rolling machine and in the month of February 2002 they purchases a second hand machine and the foundation for that machine was filled in April 2002 and thereafter the machines was installed and put to trial run and production was started in July 2002. After that the applied for permission for installation of new machine from August 2002 which was duly granted by the Superintendent of Central Excise.3. The contention of the appellant is that from 1.8.2002 they are liable to pay duty in respect of the re-conditioned machine installed by them.4. Contention of the Revenue is that the machine was installed in the month of April 2002 and on 12.7...

Nahar Fibres Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(117)LC581Tri(Delhi)

1. This issue involved in this case is whether the AED under Additional duties of Excise (Textile & Textile Articles) Act 1978 @ 15% of BED is Chargeable when the EOU clears the goods in DTA. The original authority confirmed a demand of Rs. 1,25,466/- and imposed an equal amount of penalty on the appellants on the ground that from 1.3.2000 onwards, the appellants had cleared cotton yarn in DTA and paid only the basic duty and not the additional excise duty under Additional Duties of Excise (Textile & Textile Articles) Act 1978. The Commissioner (Appeals) also confirmed the order of the original authority based on the Board's Circular No. 554/50/2000-CX dated 19.10.2000 for interpretation of Notification No. 8/97-CX dated 1.3.1997. However, the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority was set aside by him. The appellants challenged the Circular of the Board No. 554/50/2000-CX dated 19.10.2000 before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court in its order in the case of Nahar ...

G.M. Enterprises Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(117)LC577Tri(Delhi)

1. The appellant is a job worker for Gillete India Ltd. It receives parts from Gillete India Ltd. and assembles razors out of them. Those razors are subject to excise duty. The razors are packed along with free supply (from Gillette) blades by blister packing. While paying duty on razors, the appellant claimed CENVAT credit in respect of duty paid on the free supply blades (which are packed along with the razors). Under the orders impugned in these appeals. Central Excise authorities held that no credit was available in respect of free supply blades, inasmuch as such blades are not inputs going into the manufacture of razors under assessment. It was also rioted that blades in question are free supply (promotional) items and their value is not included in the assessable value of the razors under assessment. The lower authorities were following the order of this Tribunal in the case of another job worker in Gillette India, namely, G.S. Enterprise , while passing the impugned order. The ...

Swarup Castings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC207

1. Heard both sides. Appellant filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise whereby the annual capacity of production was determined under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act.2. Contention of the appellant is that as against an earlier adjudication order the appellant filed appeal and the Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for redetermining the actual capacity after taking into consideration the annual production under Section 3A(4) of Central Excise Act. The contention is that even after a specific direction by the Tribunal in the remand proceedings the Commissioner again determined the annual capacity not on the basis of actual production. The contention is that Revenue's appeal filed against the Tribunal decision has been dismissed by the Supreme Court.Therefore, after the judgment of the Supreme Court the finding of the Tribunal are binding on the revenue, and as per the remand order the annual capacity shou...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Swaraj Mazda Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(174)ELT447TriDel

1. Heard both sides. Shri P.M. Rao, learned SDR for the Revenue, pleaded that in this case the appellants were receiving metallic parts as inputs and were taking Modvat credit on the same. On scrutiny of their Modvat credit account and the material receipt account, it was found that when they were receiving the material in their factory, they physically verified the receipt of the material and the quantities found short were noted in their material receipt account. However, they have taken Modvat credit on the basis of the invoices under which the material was received. Since the material short-received was not utilized in the manufacture of the final product, therefore, they are not eligible for Modvat credit on the quantity received short.Accordingly, the Addl. Commissioner confirmed a demand of Rs. 82,784/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 82,784/- under Rules 57-I(4) of the Rules.However, on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the demand and penalty on the ground that short-rec...