Delhi Court October 2005 Judgments

All India Women'S Conference Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. A notice was issued to the appellant on 14.2.2001 for taking registration as Mandapkeeper in relation to the service provided by them as Mandapkeeper. They applied for registration and started collecting service tax from their customers from 1.4.2001. They had not collected the service tax for the period prior to 1.4.2001. However, after collection of tax from 1.4.2001, they did not deposit the same under the account of the Central Government and kept the amount with them. Finally when they were asked to deposit the amount by the Deputy Secretary, they started depositing the amount from 26.12.2002. Show cause notice was issued to them for charging interest and imposition of penalty. Show Cause notice was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner confirming the amount of interest of Rs. 3,65,508/- which was paid by the appellant on 10.2.2004 and also imposed penalty of Rs. 7,06,145/- under Section 76 for late deposit of service tax and Rs. 13,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Ac...

Ex. Engr., M.P. Power Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These two stay applications have been filed by Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board for staying recovery of duties demanded from the applicant for hearing the appeals.2. Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board has workshop where they are manufacturing parts of transmission power, structures, H.T. Line, V.cross Arms, H.T/L.T. Line materials and thick washers. Show cause notices were issued to them demanding duties on these structures and parts of structures under sub-heading Nos. 7308.90 and 7318.29 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The case after adjudication originally had gone up to Supreme Court and it was remanded back to the Tribunal by the Supreme Court along with other cases for examining each case on merits. After remand from the Supreme Court, the Tribunal further remanded this case to the original authority for re-examination of the cases on the basis of the facts. The original authority dropped the demand. Against the order of the original authority, the Revenue f...

S.M. Telesys Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(109)ECC581

1. Heard both side. The appellant filed these appeals against the common adjudication order.2. The appellant made import of pager and appellants are also manufacturing pagers. A SCN was issued to the appellant in respect of pager imported by them on the ground that the imported pagers are being brought to the factory and thereafter being programmed. Hence the process undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture in view of the provisions of Note 6 of Section XVI of Central Excise Tariff Act.1985.3. The contention of the appellant is that they are importing complete pagers and no programming is done in their factory. There are only repacking and relabelling the imported pager and this activity does not amount to manufacture. The contention is that revenue is only relying upon the statement of Shri S.K. Kaul, General Manager of the appellant whereby he submitted that the imported pagers are brought into the factory for programming labelling and packing of stickers. The contention i...

Le Designco Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides. The appellant filed these appeals against the common adjudication order whereby the demand of Rs. 1,33,17,085/- was confirmed and personal penalty of the equal amount was imposed on the firm.2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Le Designco (firm) imported of Mulberry raw silk and availed the benefit of Notification Nos.204/92-Cus. and 80/95-Cus. on the condition that the imported Mulberry raw silk is use for in the manufacture of garments and which are to be exported. The case of the revenue is that the appellant failed to fulfil the export obligation, therefore, they are not entitled for the benefit of above-mentioned notifications. Custom duty was demanded in respect of the Mulberry raw silk imported by the appellant.3. The contention of the appellant is that they filed a detailed reply to the SCN and raised certain issues which were not considered by the adjudicating authority and effective opportunity of hearing was not granted by the adjudicating authorit...

Asha Jawatkar Vs. Rudrakshi Co-op. G/H Society Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The main grievance of the appellant against the impugned order whereby the respondent No. 1 Rudrakshi Coop Group Housing Society Ltd. have been directed to refund the money paid by the appellant after resignation of his membership of the society with interest @ 9% p.a., Rs. 5,000 towards compensation and Rs. 3,000 towards cost is that the person who had received and collected money on behalf of the cooperative society should have been jointly and severally held liable. We have perused the complaint and found that Mr. J.D. Sharma and Mr. S.K. Sharma did not hold any office in the society nor have they been impleaded or arrayed in their capacity as office holder of the society. There are only averments in the complaint that Mr. J.D. Sharma acted as Liaison Officer and Mr. S.K. Sharma as Secretary of the Society. 2. Since it was a Society in whose account the money was deposited. Liability can be cast upon the society. At the most, the then Secretary of the Soci...

G.M. Telecom, Bsnl Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(113)ECC83

1. The appeal is being taken up with the stay petition as the appeal is also listed for regular hearing. appellant filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the interest was demanded in respect of the service tax, which was paid late.2. The contention of the appellant is that prior to September 2000, the appellants were the Department of Government of India. They are collecting telecom charges along with the service tax from their customers and Page 85 amounts were deposited in the account, i.e. under the head telecom receipt on day-to-day basis. Prior to October 1998, the service tax is to be paid through book adjustment from the account of telecom receipt and, thereafter, the appellant deposited the service tax after withdrawing the amount from telecom receipt. The contention is in the present case that the amount in respect of service tax duly collected from their customers were regularly deposited along with telephone charges in the...

Titawi Sugar Complex Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT119TriDel

1. Modvat credit has been disallowed to the appellants on (1) Electrodes, (2) Asbestos Packing, (3) P.M. Shaft and C.S. Castings - machine plates.2. I have heard both sides. Credit is not admissible on electrodes in the light of the Tribunal's order in the case of CCE, Belgaum v. Panyam Cements & Mineral Inds. Ltd. - and following the ratio of the above decision, I hold that credit of Rs. 1921/- is not available to the appellants. As regards Asbestos Packing, the ground for disallowing credit is that this item was not declared. However, the appellant was able to produce a copy of the declaration dt. 20-1-99 in which they stated that they had declared this item. They filed copy of declaration filed on July & Oct. '99 clearly showing asbestos packing - HP Steam Jointing. Further in the case of Kamakhya Steels (P) Ltd. v.CCE, Meerut Tribunal has held even when declaration has not been filed in respect of input, Modvat credit is admissible and remanded the case to the adjudicating...

Hind Lamps Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants herein, who are manufacturer of Electric Lamps and Fluorescent Tubes, exported their goods through merchant-exporter and reversed credit and thereafter filed claims for refund of Rs. 55,661/- and Rs. 46,420/- on the ground that they had wrongly reversed the credit as there was no requirement of reversal of credit under DEPB scheme which was applicable to them. The claims for refund were sanctioned by the Asstt. Commissioner. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) however, allowed the appeal of the Revenue against the sanction of refund on the ground that according to Rule 57F(4), credit shall be allowed to be utilized towards payment of duty subject to such safeguard and condition as may be specified and not refund of duty paid on the final product. Hence this appeal.2. None appears for the appellant in spite of notice, hence I heard Id.DR and perused the records. It is not disputed that under DEPB Scheme under which the appellants were covered, there was no requirement of rever...

A.K. Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT479TriDel

1. The facts of the case are that vide Order dated 20-7-1983, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi confirmed the duty demand of Rupees 18,07,787/- under the provisions of Rule 10(1) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules and imposed a penalty of Rupees 5 lakhs upon the appellants against which they filed an appeal before the Tribunal along with an application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty. Vide Stay Order, dated 19-12-1983 passed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, the Tribunal directed the appellants to furnish a Bank guarantee for Rupees 3 lakhs and deposit rupees two lakhs in cash, which they did. Vide Final Order No. 309-310/85-D, dated 17-9-1995, the Tribunal upheld the Collector's order on imposition of penalty but ordered re-quantification of the duty amount. Against that order of the Tribunal, the appellants filed Civil Appeal No. 680-681/1086 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court along with an application for stay of operation of the Tribunal's order a...

Guru Dutt Ranga Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(92)SLJ163CAT

1. By virtue of this OA applicant has assailed an order passed by the respondents on 29.8.2005, whereby in pursuance of Sub Rule (1) of Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, on expiry of period of notice of one month, services of applicant shall stand terminated.3. Brief factual matrix in this case is that in pursuance of an advertisement for recruitment to the post of Grade-II of DASS applicant made an application and after the examination conducted by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB, for short) in November, 2000 a memorandum dated 17.6.2004 was served upon applicant from the office of Medical Superintendent, Loknayak Hospital, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCT Delhi), asking him to submit his testimonials. Immediately thereafter, applicant was served with a memorandum dated 5.8.2004, an offer of appointment, where he was appointed to a temporary post of Grade-II of DASS, Head Clerk, in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 subject to ...