Delhi Court January 2005 Judgments

Rajasthan Foils Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC53

1. These appeals have been directed against the common order-in-original dated 10-3-2004 vide which the adjudicating authority (Commissioner of Central Excise) had confirmed the duty and imposed penalty as detailed therein on the appellants.2. The appellant No. 1 is a company engaged in the manufacture of aluminium foils, while appellant No. 2 was Director and others were employees of the company, at the relevant time. The duty against the company has been confirmed for having removed the finished goods during the period in dispute i.e. 31-1-1999 to 19-2-2000 in a clandestine manner without payment of duty as well as under the cover of parallel invoices. Some part of the duty amount has been confirmed against the company in respect of the scrap cleared by it without payment of duty.Against other appellants, penalties have been confirmed for having assisted the company in the clandestine removal of goods as well as scrap.3. The learned Counsel has contended that there is no tangible ev...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Jalota Tools Corporation

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC315

1. In this appeal, the Revenue has contested the correctness of the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the order-in-original and set aside the duty demand and the penalty against the respondents.2. None has come present on behalf of the respondents. On the last date, the hearing for today was fixed in the presence of the Counsel, but neither the Counsel nor any representative of the respondents has come present. No request for adjournment has also been received from them. Therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the learned JDR.4. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of hand tools. It had been alleged in the show cause notice that they had been manufacturing and clearing the goods under the brand name of 'Smith' which belongs to another person namely M/s. Smith Tools Co., Jalandhar. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand on the respondents along with penalty as detailed in the order-in-original ...

S.T.L. Exports Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(182)ELT165TriDel

1. The appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In this case, the appellants are 100% EOU and applied for Customs Private Bonded Licence and the same was granted on certain conditions. One of the condition was that the appellant required to pay for the establishment staff posted within two weeks of the demand made by the Range Supdt. The appellant also executed a bond binding themselves to the condition of the warehouse licence. In pursuance to the condition of the warehouse licence, the demand was raised in respect of the establishment charges. The appellant paid the amount thereafter filed a refund of the establishment charges collected by the Revenue on account of salary of Sepoy on the ground that no Sepoy was posted at their bonded warehouse, the refund was rejected.2. The contention of the Revenue is that they had wrongly paid the establishment charges as Sepoy was posted in their godown.3. I find that as per the terms and con...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Suchitra Components

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC59

1. The issue involved in this Appeal, filed by Revenue is whether the demand can be raised for past six months in respect of excisable goods cleared on the basis of classification list approved by the competent officer.2. Mrs. Krishna A. Mishra, learned Senior Departmental Representative, mentioned that M/s. Suchitra Components manufactured "Fly Back Transformers' which were classified by them in their classification list under Heading 85.29 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act which was approved by the Assistant Commissioner on 30.4.1990; that subsequently a show cause notice dated 29.8.90 was issued to the Respondents for demanding the differential duty as the impugned goods were classifiable under Heading 85.04 of the Tariff in terms of Board's Circular No. 19/90-CX 4 dated 9.7.1990; that the Assistant Commissioner, under Order-in-Original No. 7/91 dated 11.11.1990, classified the impugned goods under Heading No. 85.04 and confirmed the demand of differential Central Ex...

Astra Marine Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT94TriDel

1. In this appeal, the appellants have sought waiver of penalty amount of Rs. 5 lakhs which has been imposed on them under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. We find from the record that the goods (Zinc Carbon Battery) were imported under bill of entry dated 24-3-2003 by declaring as of Malaysia origin and also shipped from Port Kelang, Malaysia, whereas the investigation revealed that the goods were of Chinese origin and shipped from China.2. The present appellants admitted vide their letter dated 4-4-2003 that M/s. Sea Power Shipping Agency who shipped the goods from Hongkong, was the principal. They had also the knowledge that two bills of lading in respect of the same goods had been issued, one from Malaysia and other from China. The contention of the Counsel that the appellants had no role to play in the shipment of the goods; that they were not the agent of the shipping company, prima facie, cannot be accepted. Their role has been duly described and discussed in the impugned ord...

Cce Vs. Dhillon Kool Drinks and Beverages

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal, the Revenue has challenged the correctness of the impugned order in appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the order in original and allowed the modvat credit to the respondents on the broken glass bottles as the value of the same was added in the assessable value of the goods by the respondents during the period in dispute.2. The learned SDR has contended that the respondents did not add full value of the broken glass bottles in the assessable value of the goods and as such, they were not entitled to claim the modvat credit. But we find that no such plea has been taken in the show cause notice wherein, it has been only alleged that respondents did not add the value of the broken glass bottles in the assessable value of the goods. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded the findings that the value of the broken glass bottles was added by the respondents in the assessable value of the goods during the period in dispute. That being so, they ...

Salora International Ltd. Vs. Additional Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)98ITD0187S(Delhi)

This appeal has been filed by the assessee on 29-4-2004 against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax-III, New Delhi dated 15-3-2004 in the case of the assessee in relation to order under section 263 of the Act for the assessment Year 2000-0 1. In this appeal the assessee has disputed the impugned order as without jurisdiction and requested that the same may be set aside. Facts of the case leading to this appeal briefly are that the assessing officer completed an assessment order under section 143(3) on total income of Rs. 15,78,77,720 on 28-2-2003 as against the return of income filed by the assessee at Rs. 13,92,23,280 on 30-11-2000. Under the policy of review of assessments by the Commissioner, the learned Administrative Commissioner of Income Tax called for and examined the records of the case. On 13-2-2004 he issued a show-cause notice to the assessee requesting the assessee to explain its stand in respect of the following issues and show cause as to why action unde...

Sanjay Sharma and ors. Vs. the State (Nct) of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(79)DRJ570

Manju Goel, J.1. The revision petition is directed against the order dated 19th November, 2004framing charges under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC passed by Shri A.S.Jaichandra,ASJ, Delhi in case FIR No. 308/2002 Police Station Adarsh Nagar.2. The death in this case was caused by electric shock. For framing charge apart from other documents like the post mortem report etc. the prosecution reliedupon the statement of Smt.Murti, mother of the deceased, and the statement of Mahender, father of the deceased, who deposed about the demand for dowry made by the accused and the harassment caused to the deceased by them.Both the parents suspected foul play on the part of the accused in the death of their daughter. Before the court of Sessions it wa submitted by the defense that as per the report of the electricity department which had conducted a spot inspection there was a possibility of electric leak at the particular point in the house where the unnatural death took place and that the death, t er...

Hav. A.K. Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 116(2005)DLT630; 2005(80)DRJ205; 2006(2)SLJ395(Delhi)

Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. This petition is filed by the petitioner for restoration of his notional seniority in terms of the Army Order No. 20/81 to the rank of Naib Subedar after quashing the order dated 18th October, 2001 passed by the respondents.2. The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army on 25th March, 1987. While on leave, the petitioner was implicated in a murder case under Section 302 and Section 34 IPC in the month of June 1992.Around the same time, the cases of batch mates of the petitioner as also of the petitioner were considered for promotion to the rank of Naik. As a criminal case was pending against the petitioner at the relevant time, the petitioner was not given promotion to the rank of Naik but some of his batch mates were promoted to the said rank of Naik.3. By a letter dated 25th January, 1996, a clarification was issued that since the petitioner is involved in a criminal case registered under Sections 302/34 IPC, he is not eligible for promotion to the rank of ...

S.D. Joshi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT49; 2005(81)DRJ43; (2005)140PLR20

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. As far back on 26.09.1984, this Court had ordered that the operation of the impugned order dated 26.03.1984 be stayed till the disposal of the writ petition. Admittedly, the petitioner has served with the Respondent-NBCC for almost a quarter of a century. After 1989, the case was taken up on 08.04.2004, on which date it was dismissed because of the non-appearance of any person on behalf of the petitioner. The Respondents were also absent. 2. I have briefly narrated the annals of the litigation because it leaves no possibility for doubt that the failure to appear was not intentional. It appears that the petitioner is to superannuate in April, 2005 i.e. three months from now. In this period of almost a quarter century, the petitioner has received increments and also promotion while in the service of NBCC. However, his prayer for absorption with NBCC has remained inchoate only because of the pendency of the present writ petition. A person who has served for almost his...