Delhi Court October 2005 Judgments

Cce Vs. Prabhat Chemicals

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Revenue has preferred this appeal against the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein the Respondent's appeal was allowed.2. The relevant facts in the case for consideration are that the Respondents were directed by the authorities below to deposit an amount of Rs. 18,154/- as duty against the show cause notice issued which the Respondent did so by debiting the amount in RG23A Part-II, "UNDER PROTEST". The Respondents contested the show cause notice and were successful in their appeal. They filed refund claim of the above said amount, but the said claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority on the ground that the refund claim is time barred. The Respondents appeal found merit with the Commissioner (Appeals) and their appeals were allowed. Revenue is contesting the said Order-in-Appeal.3. Heard the D.R. and considered the written submissions made by the Respondents.4. I find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has in his order-in-appeal at Para 4 has held as under:-...

Hindustan Lever Limited and Sneh Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. All these appeals are directed against the Order-in-Appeal wherein imposition of penalty on the appellants is upheld.2. The relevant facts arising for consideration are that M/s. Sneh Silicate the appellants in appeal No. E/127/04 is a job worker of M/s.Hindustan Lever Ltd. and appellant in Appeal No. E/125/04 & E/126/04.M/s. Hindustan Lever Limited used to get the goods Sodium Silicate manufactured on job work basis from M/s. Sneh Silicate. The inputs like Soda Ash & Silicate etc. was directly delivered to the premises of the job worker and part of inputs was delivered by M/s. Hindustan Lever Limited on job work challan. M/s. Sneh Silicate, the job worker took the credit of the inputs received directly by them and also consumed some of inputs procured by themselves for manufacture of Sodium Silicate . The said goods, Sodium Silicate was cleared by M/s. Sneh Silicate on payment of appropriate duty. The valuation is not challenged by the department. The Revenue issued a show...

Shyam Afinwale Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The brief facts of the case are that on the personal search of the appellant at Land Customs Station, Sonauli Rs. 97,000/- in denomination of Rs. 500/- were recovered from the appellant under Notification No. 81/89-RB issued under Section 13 of 1973, there is prohibition of bringing currency denomination notes from Nepal to India. In view of this, the currency notes were received and adjudicating authority confiscated the currency notes and omposed a penalty of Rs. 2,500/-. The appellant filed appeal the same was dismissed.2. In the present appeal, the appellant is only asking for release of the currency notes in question on payment of redemption fine. In view of the provisions of Section 125 of Customs Act, the contention is that the currency which was confiscated by the lower authorities is the Indian currency, therefore, it should be released on imposition of appropriate redemption ...

Bansi Lal Leisure Parks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT301TriDel

1. Common issue involved in both the appeals, therefore, are being taken up together. The appellant made import of raw silk from China through Custom Check Post at Gunji. The raw silk of Grade 2A and below are liable for anti-dumping duty. The raw silk of Grade 2A and below imported are exempted from payment of custom duty if it is imported through Land Custom Station Gunji and only anti dumping duty is leviable on raw silk, The appellant filed Bill of Entry declaring as raw silk and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 38/96, dated 27-7-96 by claiming that the raw silk is of Grade 3A and above. The goods were provisionally released after taking samples and furnishing the bank guarantee and execution of bond.2. On receipt of result of the samples it was found that out of the total quantity of 628 Kgs. and 611 Kgs., in the case of Bansi Lal Leisure Parks Pvt. Ltd. and 1225.70 Kgs. in the case of M/s Toran Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. of raw silk is of Grade 2A and below which is liable for anti...

Ester Industries Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal the appellants are aggrieved by the rejection of their refund claim by the authorities.2. The relevant facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturer of Polyster Chips, Polyster films, Polyster Filament Yarn.The appellants cleared polyster film (T.F.-12 Grade) from their factory on payment of appropriate duty to their depots. Due to some technical problems some quantity of the duty paid, Polyster film was brought back for farther processing. The appellants filed the proper D-3 declarations and the other relevant documents to the Revenue authorities. The Revenue authorities duly verified the D3 declarations.The appellants after removing the defects, cleared the goods for "Export under Bond" from their factory, by debiting the B1, Bond Register, They submitted the proof of export to the authorities and claimed Refund of duty paid, under Rule 173L on the goods received back from their depot. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants for rejection of t...

Lakhi Ram Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 125(2005)DLT759

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The petitioner, in these proceedings, impugns an order dated 23.07.2003 dismissing him from the services in terms of Regulation 9(1) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Services (Control and Appeal) Regulations 1959.2. A First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner, alleging receipt of illegal gratification. He was placed under suspension on 15.07.1994 by the respondent.3. The FIR led to investigation and framing of charges before the Special Judge, Delhi under provisions of Section 7 read with 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. The complaint was that the petitioner had accepted an amount of Rs. 1500/- as illegal gratification.4. The petitioner stood trial and by judgment and order dated 21.11.2002 was convicted by the Special Judge. He appealed to this Court; during pendancy of the appeal, on 19.12.2002, this Court suspended his sentence.5. The MCD which had placed the petitioner's services under suspension during the pendancy of trial, is...

S.B. Singhal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 125(2005)DLT83; 2005(85)DRJ155; 2006(3)SLJ105(Delhi)

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The petitioners in these cases were employees working with the Fertilizer Corporation of India. The Corporation had formulated a scheme known as voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS). As per the Scheme, two options were given to the employees, including the option to seek reparation on the basis of what is called DHI (Department of Heavy Industries) model or formula that enabled grant of appropriate ex-gratia compensation.2. The petitioners' offer for voluntary retirement were accepted; amounts were calculated and disbursed to them. All this happened in the year 2002.3. Subsequently, after the cessation of employment of the petitioners, (on account of what is alleged to be certain inter departmental correspondence between the Corporation and the Central Government), a view was taken that excess amounts had been paid to the petitioners and other employees. This was disputed by the petitioners.4. The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned orders which are certificat...

Subh Karan JaIn Vs. Director, Enforcement Directorate

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. The following order of the Appellate Tribunal has been delivered by Shri R.N. Poddar, Member. 2. This appeal is directed against the adjudication order No. 415/89/Ad dated 24-10-1989 passed by the Asstt. Director, Enforcement Directorate whereby a penalty of Rs. 10,000 has been imposed on the appellant for contravention of section 8(1) and 8(2) of FERA, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and also confiscated seized currency wit US $ 7493, DM 290, Nepali Taka 156, Pakistani Rs. 50, Bengladesh Taka 7000 and Bhutanese currency notes 10 in terms of section 63 of the Act. 3. A show-cause notice No. 225/86/SCN/AD, dated 8-5-1986 was issued to the appellant asking why adjudication proceeding should not be held against him for acquiring/purchase of foreign exchange to wit US $ 7493, DM 290, Nepali Taka 156, Pakistani Rs. 50, Bangladesh Taka 7000 and Bhutanese currency notes 10 from person not being authorised in foreign exchange without previous general or special permission of RBI a...

Indian Farmers Fertilizer Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)2STR194

1. The applicant seeks stay of the order dated 1.6.2005 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the Order-in-Original made by the Deputy Commissioner under which demand of Rs. 14,26,231/- of service tax under the provisions of Section 73, Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994, was confirmed, a penalty of equal amount was imposed and payment of interest ordered.2. The authorities below held that the said amount of service tax was payable by the applicant on account of services which were rendered as Consulting Engineer under the agreement in question. The authorities below have considered the terms of the agreement and come to the conclusion that the taxable service viz. Consulting Engineering Service was provided for the consideration mentioned in the agreement.3. A copy of the Agreement dated 29.10.2003 is on record from which it appears that the applicant desired to obtain from M/s. Haldor TOPSOE, Certain engineering for the redesign, modification, and operation of the Aonla Plant a...

Priyanka Overseas Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appellant filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Customs. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant made import of various raw materials on 13-12-94 against the import licence under the Advance Licence Scheme. The appellant cleared the goods without payment of duly under Notification No.203/92-Cus dt. 19-5-92. Once of the condition is that in respect of the goods exported towards fulfil of the export obligation is that no credit under Rule 57A or 56A of Central Excise Rules has been availed by the manufacturer. The appellant got the goods manufactured through their supporting manufacturer. At the time of import of the raw material without payment of duty, the appellant executed a bond to the effect that they will produce necessary certificate regarding non-availment of input credit by the manufacturer. A SCN was issued to the appellant for demanding duty on the goods imported by the appellant on the ground that the appellant had not ...