Delhi Court December 2005 Judgments

Aakar Communication (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is filed by M/s. Aakar Communication Ltd. against imposition of penalty of Rs. 34,101/- under Section 76 and Rs. 3,200/-under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994.2. Show cause notice was issued to the appellants that they have filed returns for the quarter ending 3/99 late by 32 weeks. Therefore, they are liable for penalty under Sections 76 and 77. The original authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 34,101/- under Section 76 and penalty of Rs. 3,200/- under Section 77. The Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order of the adjudicating authority on the ground that the present appellants had filed half yearly returns of quarter ending 31-3-1999 on 22-12-1999, which was required to be filed on 25th of the month following the particular half year. Thus, there was a delay of 32 weeks.3. It was pleaded that service tax was paid by the appellants along with the interest and, therefore, penalty under Section 76 should not be imposed on them. The penalty imposed on the appellants ...

Asstt. C.i.T. Vs. Shri J.L. Kumar, Prop., Anmol

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)99ITD79(Delhi)

1. On account of difference between the Member of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Benches, the following question has been referred to me for disposal Under Section 255(3) of the Income-tax Act: Whether, under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in law there is any legal justification in sustenance of penalty under Section 271 (1)(c) of the I.T. Act, on the agreed amount of addition of Rs.. 4,50,679 for the year under consideration? 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that Shri J.L. Kumar, Prop.M/s Anmol Publications filed return for assessment year 1990-91 declaring income of Rs. 52,110. The assessee appellant, in the relevant period had carried business of publication and sale of books. In the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish quantitative tally of books purchased (direct), published, sold, sales returns and in the closing stock. The aforesaid detail asked for could not be furnished as proper books of accounts were not ...

Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against an excise duty demand of over Rs. 1.8 crores and imposition of penalty of Rs. 30 lakhs. Duty demand is on Coal Handling Plant erected by the appellant on job contract basis at Ropar for Punjab State Electricity Board. The demand is upon a finding that the said Coal Handling Plant is excisable under 84.28 of the Central Excise Tariff.2. The submission of the ld. counsel for the appellant is that the very issue (duty liability of Coal Handling Plant erected) was the subject matter of dispute between the appellant and the revenue in regard to some other job contracts and the issue now remains settled by different judgments. Reference is being made in this connection to the judgment of the Apex Court on an appeal filed by the revenue in regard to the Order-in-Appeal of the Tribunal in appellant's case - Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Chandigarh] in Civil Appeal No.165/2000. It is being pointed out that the Apex Court rejected the appeal with the ...

Emtici Engineering Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These appeals are being taken up in pursuance of the remand order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the present case, the demand was confirmed and penalty was imposed in respect of the parts of structure manufactured by M/s. EMTICI Engineering Ltd. on the ground that these are classifiable under Heading 73.08 of the Central Excise Tariff. The issue in respect of excisability of parts of structure now decided by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. in favour of the Revenue.2. Now the contention of the appellants is that they are not manufacturer of parts of structures. The Gujarat State Electricity Board gave a contract for setting up a Coal Handling Plant to M/s.Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. M/s. Ele-con Engineering Co. Ltd. further gave a contract to the appellant for fabrication of structures.Appellant entered into a contract with Ms. Essar Engineering Ltd. and M/s. Dynamic Construction for fabrication of the parts of structures.As per...

German Remedies Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants had filed a refund claim of Rs. 976893 for the period from 18/2002 to 24/2002 on the ground that they have imported products 'FLUDARA' and this was sold by them in the market after putting a sticker. The Department considered that this process of putting the sticker amounts to manufacture and accordingly, the appellants have provisionally paid the duty. But finally the issue whether the process of putting the sticker amounts to manufacture or not was decided by the Tribunal and it was held that the process of putting of sticker does not amount to manufacture. Therefore, they filed the refund claim. The refund claim was sanctioned by the adjudicating authority but it was credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The appeal against the order of the original authority was rejected under the impugned order.2. It is pleaded that the appellants had imported the goods and sold these goods in the market after putting the sticker. When they started paying the duty, they had not ...

M.T.N.L. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is filed by M/s. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited against Order-in-Appeal dated 25-3-2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi-I.2. A show cause notice dated 1-10-97 was issued to the Chief General Manager, MTNL, that they have collected service tax during the months from Jan. 1997 to March, 1997 but have failed to credit such tax to the Central Government and accordingly, they are liable to pay interest of Rs. 6,72,205/- on delayed payment of service tax @ 1.5% per month Under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Dy. Commissioner under Order-in-Original No. 3/98 dated 19-11-98, by which he confirmed the interest upto the extent of Rs. 5,20,871/- and the balance amount was dropped. The appellants had filed appeal against this order of the Dy. Commissioner before Commissioner (Appeals). It was decided under Order-in-Appeal dated 4-5-2001 dropping the demand. When the appeal was pending before the Comm...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Printotech Global Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)6STT346

1. M/s. Printotech Global Ltd. entered into a contract with M/s. Yuan Harng Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'YHCL') for technical collaboration on 15-9-97. M/s. YHCL was to provide to the respondents technical know how for the manufacturing Mono layer seamless tube. The services provided by M/s. YHCL to the respondents were categorised under the services of consulting engineers and the respondents were asked to pay the service tax on the gross amount paid by them as technical assistance fee to M/s. YHCL, Taiwan. Show cause notice was issued to the respondents demanding service tax and also imposing penalty on them for not filing the returns. The original authority demanded service tax and imposed penalty on M/s. YHCL and M/s. PGL jointly and severally. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order observed that the present respondents were the service receiver and the service was provided by M/s. YHCL, Taiwan prior to 1-3-99. During that period, M/s. YHCL, Taiwan, ...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. JaIn PolyvIn (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 30-1-2004 wherein the appellate authority has upheld the appeal of the respondents allowing them Modvat credit on the inputs lying in finished goods stock.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the respondents were working under SSI Exemption and filed declaration for availing Modvat credit on the goods lying in stock as on 1-9-99. The respondents filed a declaration of the goods/inputs lying in stock as well as inputs contained in the finished goods in stock, a working based on consumption ratio. The respondents were sought to deny the credit by issuing the show cause notice. But adjudicating authority in his adjudication order granted Credit on the inputs lying in stock but denied the Credit of duty contained in finished goods lying in stock.On appeal by the respondent, the appellate authority allowed the appeal of the respondents. Hence, this appeal.3. Learned D.R. submits that the respondents have no...

Parabolic Drugs Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Three show cause notices were issued to the appellants on the ground that they have availed modvat credit on certain inputs without filing declaration under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. After considering the defence of the appellants, the original authority came to the conclusion that in respect of 7 inputs heading/sub-heading numbers under which the inputs have been received were at variation with those declared in the declaration. Three inputs namely HDPE drums, 6 Amino Penicillanic Acid and DMAC were declared on 21.10.98 i.e. much after taking of the credit and, he accordingly, disallowed the credit of Rs. 6,69,025.66 and imposed penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the appellants. The Commissioner (appeals) upheld the order of the original authority.2. It was pleaded for the appellants that they had filed declaration for the disputed products before taking the modvat credit. The description of the product which was received by them from the supplier of the inputs tallied w...

Punjab Chemi-plants Ltd., Avon Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC50

2. The duty demand is in regard to the Steel structures and parts thereof fabricated by the appellants as job work, in terms of contracts. Demands have been raised for the extended period as permitted under proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.3. The contention of the appellant is that the demands have been raised beyond the permissible time limit, inasmuch as there was no 'wil ful' suppression of facts by the appellants 'with intent to evade payment of duty' so as to attract the extended period stipulated in the proviso to Section 11A. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that a perusal of the findings of the Commissioner would make it clear that these cases do not satisfy the ingredients like willful suppression or mis-statement of facts or fraud which allow of issuing demands beyond the normal period and up to five years.4. The finding of the Commissioner on the issue of limitation is on identical terms in all these cases. We may read the fi...