Delhi Court October 2005 Judgments

Misuki Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. (Exports-seaport)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Appellant filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Customs. The brief facts of the case are that appellant filed 13 Shipping Bills for export of man-made polyester (Rayon) scarves declaring the price per piece at the rate between Rs. 76.89 to 78.33. The Customs authority on investigation found that the scarves are not of Rayon but only polyester scarves and the appellant purchased the scarves at the rate of Rs. 8/- per piece. Show cause notice was issued to the appellant for confiscation of the goods on the ground that misdeclaration of the value of the goods and for denial of benefit of drawback on the ground amount of value of the goods is less than the amount of drawback and for imposition of penalty, the adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on the appellant and also denied the benefit of drawback. The adjudicating authority also held that the goods are liable for confiscation on the ground that misdeclaration of the valu...

Kinetic Motor Co. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The issue involved in this case is regarding the eligibility of modvat/cenvat credit on the tool kits and jack assembly supplied with motor vehicles.2. When the matter was called out, none appeared for the appellants, but a request was on record to decide the matter on merits.3. The learned DR fairly submits that the issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the Larger Bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. CCE 4. Considered the submission made by the Seamed DR and perused the record. It is not in dispute that the tool kit and jack assembly are supplied along with the motor vehicles sold by the appellant. It is also not in dispute that the cost of such tool kit and jack assembly is included in the cost of the motor vehicle. IN view of the above undisputed facts, the ratio of the Larger Bench decision of this Tribunal, in the case of Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. CCE, (supra), is squarely applicable in this case.5. Following the said Larger Bench decision, t...

Greater Kailash Welfare Association and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 124(2005)DLT550; 2005(85)DRJ674

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seek a quashing order, in respect of the sanction of the building plans for alteration/ conversion of the existing building into a multiplex, mini cinema-cum-commercial complex at Savitri Cinema point Greater Kailash-II. This sanction was issued in favor of the 7th respondent. A consequential direction to restrain that respondent from raising construction and orders to quash the permission granted by various authorities imp leaded as respondents have also been claimed.2. The first petitioner is a registered Society; it claims to represent respondents of the Greater Kailash-II; the other petitioners are residents of that locality. Greater Kailash-II is spread over an area of about 3.40 acres containing 1680 residential plots of various sixs. It's estimated population is about 15,000. It is claimed that there are approximately 8500 vehicles in the entire colony. The petitioners have annexed ...

Jindal Polyster Limited Vs. Rahul Jaura

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2006)BC56

ORDERJ.P. Singh, J.1. This petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated 5.5.2005 dismissing an application under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, subject to cost of Rs. 1000/-.2. I have heard Mr. Parag Tripathi, Senior Advocate-learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.S. Bajwa, learned Counsel for respondent for final disposal of the matter and have gone through the impugned order and the file.3. Briefly the facts are that the respondent herein (plaintiff in the trial Court hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff') filed a suit for recovery of Rs.7,02,700/- and a sum of Rs.47,300/- towards interest against the petitioner herein (defendant in the trial Court hereinafter referred to as the 'defendant')-The defendant filed written statement denying that the plaintiff had been appointed as insurance consultant on the terms and conditions mentioned in the plaint and added that the appointment letter dated 29.4.1988 was issued by M...

Daman Kumar Malhotra Vs. A.K. Malhotra

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)142PLR2

ORDERJ.P. Singh, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the impugned order dated 30.7.2005 passed by Civil Judge, Delhi dismissing an application under Order xviii Rule 16 of Code of Civil Procedure for immediate examination of a witness.2. I have heard Mr. Alok Lakhanpal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G.C. Sharma, learned Counsel for respondent and have gone through the impugned order as also copies of the documents placed on the file.3. Briefly the facts are that the respondent herein (plaintiff in the trial Court hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff') filed a suit for declaration, perpetual injunction and recovery of possession against the petitioner herein (defendant in the trial Court hereinafter referred to as defendant). It is prayed in the plaint that the Will executed by late Shri B.L. Malhotra be declared as a forged and fabricated document and for declaring some sale deed as void. There was a question of partition ...

Sanjeev Woollen Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides. The appellant filed these appeals against the common adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Customs.2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Sanjeev Woollen Mills the appellant made import of a consignment and declared the same as synthetic waste with predominance of acrylic staple fibre with wide variation in denier and length containing both drawn and undrawn fibres. The appellant claimed the clearance of the consignment without payment of duty under Notification No. 117/88-Cus. under Import Licence dated 29-9-89 which allows the import of synthetic waste having pre-dominance of acrylic staple fibre with wide variation in denier and length containing both drawn and undrawn fibres under the Import -Export Pass Book Scheme. The Customs authorities on examination found that the bales are having manufacturers, label showing the goods as Acrylic Staple Fibre of Commercial quantity Bright. The 48 samples were drawn and were sent for Chemical examination to M...

Samsara Shipping (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. All these applications raise identical contentions which were already dealt with earlier in C/Stay/654/2005-Cus. in Appeal No.C/511/2005, decided on 20-9-2005. The authorized representative of the applicants in all these cases, Capt. Vinay Sud who is the Regional Manager of the appellant, is heard. He reiterates the same contentions as were dealt with in the order dated 20-9-2005. He further adds that in some of the containers contraband shells, etc. were not found.However, that aspect makes no difference and will not absolve the shipping line from the liability to pay the penalty as imposed under the impugned orders. The consignments covered many containers and penalty has been imposed on such consignments which contained contraband articles such as used shells, cartridges, etc. These were got segregated and removed and penalty imposed in the context of the consignments that covered them. Therefore, there is no valid reason to take a different view on this ground as regards imposi...

S. Surya Food and Agro Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. On going through the agreement, it appears that the appellant had authorised use of their trade mark and design for manufacture of biscuits retaining full control and supervision over the design and/or printing of packing material and publicity. In consideration of the use of the trade mark and design, the appellant was entitled to reimbursement, by way of royalty, of a sum of Rs. 38/- per carton on the total quantity of the product sold. No other consideration was fixed under the agreement in respect of any service. There is no finding that the services of a qualified engineer or any engineering firm having a qualified engineer were provided under this agreement.The appellant has, therefore, made out a prima facie case for the stay of the impugned order. The pre-deposit of the amount payable under the impugned order is, therefore, waived and there shall be interim stay of the impugned order during the pendency of the appeal. This application stands disposed of accordingly. The app...

Cce Vs. Motherson Sumi Systems Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(107)ECC77

1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner (Appeals).2. The facts in brief are that: M/s. Mother son Sumi Systems Ltd., Noida (hereinafter referred to as "MSSL") during the period 1999-2000 to 2000-2001 paid technical assistance fees/service charges for services received by them from M/s. Sumi Tomo Wiring Systems Ltd., Japan (hereinafter referred to as "STWSL" under the category of "Management Consultancy" and "Consulting Engineer". M/s. MSSL also paid Royalty/Service Charges for services received from M/s. STWSL, Japan under the category of "Consulting Engineer", on which, service charge was paid to the government either by M/s. MSSL or by M/s. STWSL, Japan.Therefore, show cause notice was issued to M/s. MSSL and M/s. STWSL for recovery of the service tax. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida, who confirmed payment of Rs. 16,05,850 under the provisions of Section 73A of the Finance Act 1994 against M/s...

Malwa Fastners Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides. The appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of HDPE pipes. On 3-9-98, the officers of revenue intercepted two trucks carrying HDPE pipes of various sizes and it was found that the goods were cleared by the appellant and without cover of any invoice showing payment of duty. The revenue officers visited the factory of the appellant and on verification, it was found that certain quantity of final product i.e. HDPE pipes of various sizes were found in excess to the recorded balance in the statutory record and certain quantity of pipes were also found short.The inputs i.e. HDPE granules were also found short by the recorded balance in the statutory record. During the verification it was also found that the appellant cleared 53,000 metres of HDPE pipes at lower price to evade payment of duty.2. The contention of the appellant is that the trucks were loaded with pipes and ...