Delhi Court October 2005 Judgments

Cce Vs. Prism Cement Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal dated 12.7.2004 wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the assessee is eligible for the refund of the Service Tax paid by them during the exemption period.2. Relevant facts of the case are that the Respondents are having a depot at. Allahabad and are distributing the cement received from their manufacturing premises. For distributing the cement to their stockists/dealers the Respondents are utilizing the service transporters. The Respondents under the wrong appreciation of law, paid service tax on the GTO for the period June, 1998 to September, 1998.The Respondents, came to know that the said service tax was not payable under provisions of Notification No. 49/98-ST dated 2.6.98. The Respondents preferred a refund claim which was rejected and the matter was brought up to Tribunal. This Tribunal vide its Order No. A/940/04 -NB(SM) remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the matter afresh with ...

Harvinder Singh Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appellant filed these appeals against the common Order-in-Appeal whereby their truck was absolutely confiscated and personal penalties of Rs. 10,000/- each were imposed on the appellant. The appellant Sukhbir Kaur was the owner of the truck and Harbinder Singh is the husband of Sukhbir Kaur.3. The case of the Revenue is that on 7-4-2002 a truck was intercepted at Raxaul and some yellowish powder was found in the cavity of the truck and it was sent for chemical examination which confirmed that it was oxy-tetracyclene. The adjudicating authority ordered the confiscation of the truck and imposed the penalties.4. The contention of the appellant is that nothing was recovered from the truck only remains of yellowish powder which found to be oxy-tetracyclene. The Revenue confiscated the truck only on the ground that driver of the truck made a statement that truck was used earlier to smuggle tetracycline. The contention is that no quantity of oxy-tetracyclene was mentioned which was re...

Shri Ram Saran Mukesh Kumar, Shri Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appellant filed these appeals against the common order-in-appeal. The brief facts of the case are that 90 Qtls. of Indian potatoes valued at Rs.72,000/- were confiscated and allowed to be released on redemption fine of Rs.10,000/- on the ground that the appellant tried to smuggle the potatoes to Nepal in violation to the provisions of Notification No. 26/98 dated 27,10,98 Issued under Section 5 of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 read with Import and Export Policy 1997-2002, The case of the Revenue is that the potatoes were added at SI. No. 32 in part II of Chapter 16 of the policy whereby the export of the potato was restricted and this restriction on export amounts to prohibition imposed under Section 11 of the Act. The truck from which the potatoes were seized were also confiscated and allowed to be redeemed on redemption fine of Rs.10,000/- individual penalties were imposed on the driver, owner and the consigner Sh. Anil Kumar. The appellant Sh. Ram Sara...

Nirman Singh Contractor and Builders Welfare Association (Regd) Vs. M. ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(2)CTLJ333(Del); 124(2005)DLT714; 2005(85)DRJ206

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari to quash an order dated 14.9.2005 by which all tenders have been directed to be processed only through e-tendering. The Petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus to be issued to the respondents to adopt both the procedures of e-tendering and manual tendering.2. In our opinion there is no merit at all in this petition. It is well settled that the court does not interfere in policy matters. It is only where the policy is in clear violation of some statutory or constitutional provision or is shockingly arbitrary that the court can interfere. Within the parameters of the law it is open to the authority to take any decision as it deems fit and it is not for this court to decide whether the decision was wise or unwise. The authorities are experts in the matter and in any case this Court cannot ordinarily interfere in matters relating to administrative policy vide Tata Cellular v. Union of India : AIR1996SC11 . The...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ginni International Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)202CTR(Del)551; [2008]296ITR652(Delhi)

ORDER1. The assessed had credited a sum of Rs.26,35,746 as interest payable to M/s Ginni Filaments Ltd. on 31st March, 1995. On 10th March, 1995, the said company had intimated the assessed that being a 100 per cent EOU, it was exempted from payment of income-tax and that it was applying to the competent authority for an exemption certificate for tax deduction at source. It was on the basis of the above intimation that the assessed credited to the account of the payee the aforementioned amount on 31st March, 1995, without making any tax deduction at source.2. It is common ground that the assessed had two months time available to it to pay the tax, if any, deducted at source. This time would have expired on 31st May, 1995. On 10th May, 1995, however, the competent authority had issued an order granting exemption to the assessed from deduction of tax at source. The AO, all the same held the assessed to be in default under Section 194A of the Act. In appeal, the CIT(A) took a contrary vie...

Ms. Soma Chakravarty Vs. State (Through Cbi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 126(2006)DLT289; 2006(86)DRJ424

Manju Goel, J.1. The two petitions assails the order of the Special Judge, Delhi in case CC No. 63/2001 titled CBI v. Priya Uppal and Ors. in which the present petitioners have been charged for offences under Section 420 read with Section 120B, 419, 429, 467, 468 & 471 of Indian Penal Code (in short `IPC') as well as under various provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act (in short `PC Act'). The present petitioners 'accused in the case' were employees of India Trade Promotion Organization (in short `ITPO'). The two petitioners along with the other accused in this case allegedly entered into a criminal conspiracy and by misusing their official position caused undue pecuniary advantage to themselves to the tune of Rs. 30,30,057/- and caused a corresponding loss to ITPO from whose account money was released against bogus receipts of advertisement which had actually never been carried by any newspaper or other publication.2. The story of the prosecution is that the publicity department o...

Dr. Anil Kumar and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 125(2005)DLT713

ORDERS. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The petitioners in this case are employees of the National Horticulture Board, the second respondent in these proceedings (hereafter called 'NHB'). They are aggrieved by orders dated 27.5.2003, 29.5.2003 and 2.6.2003 issued by respondents by which n increment granted to them earlier order was withdrawn and a re-designation order issued by the second respondent was also cancelled.2. The petitioner are working with the NHB. Pursuant to the ISO 9001 : 2000 certification of the NHB in the year 2002, all of them and the other officers of the NHB were granted an additional increment. The petitioners rely upon an advertisement issue in the press, intimating that the Union Minister for Agriculture received the ISO certification on behalf of the NHB; that advertisement also cites that the achievement was possible because of the efforts of the 90 professionals in the NHB.3. The NHB by an order dated 20th December, 2002 in terms of the power delegated to the Managing D...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Sharda Impex

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the respondent inspite of notice, therefore appeal is being taken up in the absence of the respondent.2. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal. In this case the respondent made import of Compact Fluorescent Lamps. The respondent declared the country of origin as Malaysia whereas the revenue was of the opinion that lamps appears to be Chinese origin and are liable to Anti-dumping duty. After going through the evidence produced by the appellant as such certificate issued by the Kaula Lumpur and Selangor Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry to the effect that the goods are of Malaysia origin and copies of invoices, packing list, country of origin certificate as attested by Third Secretary, Malay-sian Asstt.High Commission, Madras held that goods in question of Malaysian origin.3. The only contention of the revenue is that the respondent vide letter dt. 22-5-03 admitted that the goods are of Chinese origin, therefor...

I.O.C. Ltd. vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides. The appellant filed these appeals against the common impugned order. In this case the appellant had three depots namely Hanumangarh, Jaipur and Sawaimadhopur depot. On 3.7.96 there was upward price revision in respect of petroleum products and on 23.7.96 the rare of duty was revised in respect of petroleum products. The goods stored at depot were duty paid goods. The duty was paid at the time of clearance of the goods. The revenue was asking for duty on account of price revision as well as revision in rate of duty on the petroleum products which were lying in stock at the relevant date in the above mentioned depot.2. The appellants are not contesting the demand raised in respect of Sawaimadhopur depot.3. In respect of the other two depots i.e. Hanumangarh and Jaipur depot, the contention of the appellant is that the demand is confirmed on the basis of circular dt.8.6.01 issued by their Head Office whereby certain quantities of petroleum products were mentioned as ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Anurag Board and Paper Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the respondent M/s. Anurag Board & Paper Mills (P) Ltd. The notice issued to the respondent was received back that nobody was present to receive the notice. In these circumstances, the ROM application is being taken up in absence of the assessee.2. Heard Ld. DR. The contention of the revenue is that the Final Order No. 361/2005-B, dt. 17-2-2005 was in respect of the restoration application filed by the assessee whereas facts as stated in the final order are not relevant to the facts of the appeal filed by the assessee. The dispute in the present case in respect of excisability of newsprints whereas in the Final Order "the excisability of goods (GI wires) has been decided".3. We have gone through the final order. We find that the facts recorded in the final order are not relevant to the facts of the present case as on 17-2-2005, the application filed by the assessee for restoration of appeal was listed for hearing and in Final ...