Delhi Court December 2005 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bsnl

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)8STT368

1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 28-2-05 passed by Commissioner (Appeals). While passing impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) has considered the plea made by the respondents that the demand was time barred in terms of subsection 1 of Section 73(1)(a) and thereafter, reflexed the period of demand modifying the Order-in-Original. As the SCN was issued on 11-6-2001, the Commissioner (Appeals) took into account the month of April 96 for calculating the demand since under the Service Tax Law the quarterly payment for the month between April to June is made in the month of July. In addition, the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has not made any mention about the penalty which stood imposed under the order-in-original.2. Ld. Authorised Departmental Representation representing the appellants enumerates the ground namely: (i) In respect of the tax accrual for the month of Feb '96, for which payment has to be made on 12-4-96, Commissioner (Appeals)...

Delta Adhesive and Chemicals Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC334

2. Appellant filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby demand was confirmed after denying the benefit of Notification No. 276/67 dated 21.12.67 on the ground that inputs received without payment of duty are not used in the manufacture of chemical formulation.3. The demand was confirmed on the ground that appellants were manufactured out of the inputs, received without payment of duty, Rubber solution. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh after getting the samples retested. The Chemical Examiner found that as the sample is 17 years old and has been deteriorated, therefore, it is not possible to identify the nature and composition in the original state.4. The appellant relied upon the opinion given by Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi whereby it has been opined that Rubber solution is a Chemical Solution. The appellants produced the copies of invoices to show that they are marketing the product as che...

Shyam Telelink Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)99ITD576(Delhi)

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT-III, New Delhi dated 9-3-2005 passed under Section 263.2. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are as follows. The assessee in the present case is a limited company incorporated on 20-4-1995. It bid for various telecom circle licenses and was selected as the highest bidder for providing basic telephony services in the Rajasthan Telecom Circle. After some initial hiccups, the license for providing the said services was awarded to the assessee company on 4-3-1998. Meanwhile, on 26-2-1998, the assessee company entered into project agreements with M/s. Qualcomm Inc., USA and its subsidiaries (hereinafter referred to as "Qualcomm") which was then one of the largest telecom companies in the world and leader in CDMA technology. In all, sixteen different project agreements were entered into by the assessee company with Qualcomm for the purpose of setting up a broad-band network on the convergence ...

Shree Sita Ram Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)6SOT585(Delhi)

This appeal by the assessee relates to the assessment year 1998-99. The assessee is a company engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of multi liner craft paper in its plant located in Gujarat.The first two grounds are directed against the disallowance of the loan procurement expenses of Rs. 2,35,000. The assessee claimed deduction in respect of the following expenses : (a) Legal fee for legal documentation of a loan of Rs. 200 lakhs from IDBI While computing the assessment under section 143(3), the assessing officer called upon the assessee to show cause why the aforesaid expenses should not be treated and disallowed as capital expenditure.It appears that the assessee did not respond to the query and, therefore, the assessing officer came to the conclusion that the nature of the above expenses was capital, "as these have been incurred for obtaining loan from IDBI for acquiring fixed assets". He accordingly disallowed the above expenses, though in the actual computation the amount ...

Country Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant M/s. Country Enterprises have challenged the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 20.8.05. In this order, Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,51,978/- under Section 76 which is reduced to Rs. 1,43,933/- by him and penalty imposed by the lower authority under Section 77 (Rs. 1,000/-) was upheld in this Order-in-Appeal. The appellants are challenging the penalty imposed under Section 76 only before us on the plea that the provisions under Section 80 envisaged that no penalty shall be imposable on the assessee for any failure referred to in the connected provisions, if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure.2. Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant has stated that the current proprietor of the firm Shri Charan Das has taken over the control of this firm w.e.f. 19.2.04 from the earlier proprietor of Shri Ramesh Kumar Sahni. He has also informed that immediately after taking over the new firm i.e. ...

C.C. Vs. Alpine Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Revenue has filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of Notification No.16/2000-Cus dated 1.3.2000 was allowed in respect of the imported Soyabean oil which was destroyed during transit.2. Contention of the revenue is that the conditions of Notification No.16/2000-Cus are applicable to the vegetable oil imported for the manufacture of oil commonly known as Vanaspati oil or for refining. In the present case, as the respondents made import of the vegetable oil for manufacture of vanaspati oil and during accident in transit, one truck load containing 14.060 MTs. of soyabean oil were destroyed. The contention is that imported goods which were cleared at concessional rate of duty were not used for the intended purpose, therefore, the respondents are liable to pay duty.3. We find that this issue is now settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BPL Display Devices Ltd. v. C.C.E., Ghaziabad - 2004 (174) ELT 5 (SC). In t...

Rajasthan Foils Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Rajasthan Foils Pvt. Ltd. & Shri Siddhartha Sharma the applicants have filed these appeals before this Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner(Appeals) dt. 12.8.05. Ld. Counsel for the applicants refers to para 1 of the appeal memorandum, and states that till today copies of relied upon documents have not been supplied to them by authorities despite requests made by them several times.2. Ld. Authorised Representative of the Deptt.(ADR) draws our attention to para 8 of the impugned order of the Commissioner(Appeals) which reads as follows: I also find that the allegation of the appellant that documents were not supplied them thus the principles of natural justice have not been complied with by the department is not acceptable, the adjudication authority has followed the principles of natural justice as the copies of all the relied upon documents have been supplied along with show cause notice. No evidence has been shown by the appellant which prove that the adjudicating a...

Greenply Indus. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicant Greenply Industries Ltd. engaged in receiving services from goods transport operators has also filed an appeal under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994 challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 30.8.05, which confirmed the demand of interest on delayed payment of service tax, under Section 75 ibid, inflicting penalty under Section 76 ibid, as amended. The main contention is that the ratio of the case of L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. is squarely applicable to the present issue and hence they are not liable to pay tax. The Apex Court has also affirmed this position in their judgment dated 27.7.05 reported in [2005 (187) ELT 5(SC)].2. Learned Counsel for the applicant states that his clients had on their own deposited service tax without even receiving a demand notice from the Department and only thereafter the authorities have started coming up with charges against them through a show cause notice, demanding interest and contemplating penal action. In this ...

Bajaj Food Products (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(106)ECC109

1. The applicants M/s. Bajaj Food Products (P) Ltd. and others have filed three appeals against the impugned order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise on 23.9.2005. While valuing the biscuits manufactured by them under Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944, the appellants were claiming abatement from the contract price for arriving at the assessable value for duty payments. Section 4A(1) of the Act stipulates that the Central Government may by notification in the official gazette specify any goods in relation to which it is required under the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 or the Rules made thereunder to declare the retail sale price of such goods on the package thereof. Biscuits is one such commodity specified by the Central Government in this regard.2. The Department in this case has not accepted the price arrived at by the manufacturers and hence a show cause notice was issued to them which was adjudicated by the Commissioner on ...

Electrical and Allied Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby demand was confirmed after denying the benefit of Notification No. 38/97-CE on the ground that the appellant had not complied with the conditions of the notification.3. The contention of the appellant is that Notification No. 38/97-CE was issued on 27.6.97 and they filed necessary declaration for availing the benefit of Notification on 21.7.97 which was duly received in the office of Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise. In this letter they had given all the information such as name and address of the manufacturer, location of the factory, date of option and list of the commodities manufactured by them. In spite of this in the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellant had not complied with the conditions as laid down in the notification as all full particulars viz. name and address, location, description of goods, date of option etc. are not mentioned ...