Delhi Court December 2005 Judgments

Jalandhar Vs. Ranjitgarh Sales (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC465

1. The Revenue has filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Chandigarh dated 24.12.2004. The matter relates to the services received by the respondents from clearing and forwarding (C & F) agents which were, according to the Revenue, liable to service tax.2. The issue relates to non-payment of service tax from services received from C & F agents. In the original order passed by the learned Jt. Commissioner on 30.9.2003, the adjudicating authority had an occasion to examine the allegations against the respondents (M/s.Ranjitgarh Sales (P) Ltd.) that they had received the services of clearing and forwarding (C & F) agents during the period July 1997 to August 1999, without paying the statutory service tax amounting to Rs. 9,07,134/-. In this order, the adjudicating authority had confirmed the demand holding that the so-called dealers were actually C & F agents whose services are taxable. He had also imposed penalty fo...

Suchita Steels Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 5.12.2003 wherein it was held that deemed credit is not permitted in the absence of evidence of payment of duty.2. Relevant facts for consideration are that the appellant purchase sheets and section from a manufacturer who was working under Section 3A and discharging duty liability under compounded levy scheme under Rule 96ZP. The appellant availed deemed credit on the invoices relying upon the Notification No. 58/97, dated 30.8.97. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant as to why the credit should not be denied on the ground that the deemed credit is admissible only if the 'duty has been paid'. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demanded and also imposed a penalty on the appellant. On an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) also concurred with the views of the adjudicating authority and dismissed the appeal. Hence this appeal before me.3. Learned Advocate submits that the appellant has scrupulously followe...

Devidayal Aluminium Industries Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants are manufacturers of Aluminium Racks. They initially classified their products under sub-heading No. 7616.90 but subsequently filed a revised classification list on 10.2.95 classifying their products under sub-heading No. 9018.90. After approval of the revised classification, the appellants took credit of Rs. 1,10,317/- in RG-23A, Part-II vide Credit Entry No. 466 dated 16.2.95 for the amount paid in excess. The Range Superintendent advised them to file refund claim for the excess duty paid instead of taking the credit in RG-23 A, Part-II themselves. They accordingly filed a refund claim on 1.8.95 requesting for ex-post facto approval of the claim as they have already credited the amount in RG-23 A. Part-II. The refund claim was rejected by the Asstt. Commissioner vide Memorandum No. 239/95 dated 12.10.95 on the ground that the show cause notice for recovery of the amount in dispute is pending and credit has already been taken by the appellants.This memorandum was ch...

indo Cosmesi Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC458

1. The appellant M/s Indo Cosmesi Pvt. Ltd., Nehru Place, New Delhi imported from M/s JJR International Pvt. Ltd., Singapore, a consignment of lipsticks and lipliners bearing brand name/trade name 'Oriflame' and filed Bill of Entry No. 332548 dated 16.11.2001 for its clearance before Customs authorities at Delhi. Based on a complaint from M/s Oriflame India Ltd., the authorities held up the clearance of the consignment. The dispute was adjudicated by Deputy Commissioner of Custom, Patparganj, New Delhi under Order-in-Original No. 17/2002 dated 25.9.2002. This adjudication order directed "release of goods...subject to production of No Objection Certificate from M/s Oriflame International who are registered owner of trade mark 'Oriflame".Aggrieved with this order, the importer filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner dismissed the appeal holding that "there is no reason for me to interfere with the impugned order in original" as "the appellant have failed to bring...

Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Both Revenue and assessee are in appeal against the same order (Order-in-Appeal No. C3/162/0/2003-Sea dated 31.10.2003) passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai. Accordingly, both appeals were heard together and are disposed under this common order.2. The appellant manufactures Toyota brand automobiles in India under a collaboration agreement with Toyota Motor Corporation, Japan. The said Toyota Motor Corporation is also the major shareholder in the appellant company.3. The present dispute arose in regard to valuation of capital goods and parts imported by the appellant from M/s Toyota Motor Corporation, Japan for the manufacture of automobiles in India. Under the impugned order Commissioner has held that royalty for "ordinary assistance" and lump-sum payment for "additional assistance" paid by the appellant to M/s Toyota Motor Corporation should form part of the assessable value of the imported goods.4. Even though the orders noted that the appellant importer and t...

Jagannath Steel (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants availed Modvat credit of duty paid on iron scrap under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. 1944 during the month of May, 1994 amounting to Rs. 25,170/-. This amount of credit was taken by them for the gate passes issued in the month of March, 1994 to April, 1994, which are endorsed in their name by M/s. P.R. Trading Co., Calcutta. On investigation by the Department, it was found that the gate passes were issued by M/s. Machine and Allied Machinery Corporation, Durgapur and these were endorsed by M/s. P.R. Trading to the appellants. On investigation, it was found that M/s. Machine and Allied Machinery Corporation, Durgapur, is a non-existent entity, therefore, gate passes issued in their name are fictitious and the appellants are, therefore, not entitled for the Modvat credit taken on seven gate passes endorsed by M/s. P.R. Trading Company. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued to them for recovery of the credit and imposition of penalty. The original authority ...

Simplex Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. During the hearing of the applications for interim stay, the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned authorised representative for the department, submitted that the appeal itself can be finally disposed of in the light of the contentions canvassed by both the sides. We have, therefore, taken up the appeal itself for final disposal.2. The grievance of the appellant is that the Commissioner did not consider the claim of the appellant under Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and failed to determine the actual production as contemplated therein, for the purpose of redetermining the amount of duty payable by the assessee with reference to actual production at the rates specified under Sub-section (3) of Section 3A.3. There is no dispute over the fact that the appellant had not opted to pay the lump sum amount as contemplated under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 96ZO framed under the said rules. Since such an option was not exercised under Sub-rule(3) of Rule 96 ZO, it remai...

Pioneer Profiles Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Appellant as well as the Revenue filed appeal against the same impugned order. The adjudicating authority in the impugned order held that the activity undertaken by the appellant by way of cutting of M.S.Plates as per the requirement of their clients amounts to manufacture and confirmed the duty and allowed the benefit of small scale benefit exemption notification. The Commissioner however, restricted the demand to the normal period of limitation on the ground that the appellant was representing to the Revenue in respect of their processes undertaken and asking for opinion whether it amounts to manufacture or not. The revenue filed appeal against this finding and also for imposition of penalties.3. After hearing both sides, we find that it is not in dispute by the appellant that they are undertaking the process of profile cutting of M.S. Sheets, M.S. plates as per the design and drawing supplied by their customer and these are further used in the manufacture of parts of machinery o...

Sudhir Gensets Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(3)ARBLR588(Delhi); 125(2005)DLT602; 2006(86)DRJ238

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The matter has been passed over once and called for second time. None has appeared for the respondents.2. The petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for appointment of an arbitrator. The disputes relate to the telephone connections of the petitioner which were disconnected on account of non-payment of dues. It is the submission of the petitioner that the petitioner is not liable to pay the dues. The disputes are mentioned in para 15 of the petition. The petitioner served a notice on 01.02.2003 on the respondents to appoint an arbitrator in terms of arbitration clause 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. No reply was forthcoming and thus the petition has been filed.3. In reply to the petition, it has been stated by the respondents that Shri R.C. Sen, DGM (Accounts) CO-MTNL, Jeevan Bahrti Building, was appointed as an arbitrator in terms of the order dated 03.06.2003.4. The only issue to be considered is whether M...

Beebcon Engineers (Pvt) Ltd. Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(1)ARBLR194(Delhi)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This suit pertains to the award dated 30.01.2000 made by the sole Arbitrator. This suit has been filed under Section 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). is No.639/2002 has been filed by the respondent objecting, under sections 30, 33, 16, 15 and 17 of the said Act, to the said award dated 30.01.2000 passed by the sole Arbitrator in the arbitration proceedings between the petitioner and the respondent. By way of this application, the respondent has prayed for the setting aside of the said award dated 30.01.2000 under Sections 30 and 33 of the said Act inasmuch as it is contended that the Arbitrator has acted contrary to the documents on record and has gone beyond the Terms of Contract and letter of reference and has misconducted the arbitral proceedings.2. The respondent [Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL)] had invited tenders in respect of the design, engineering, manufacturing, testing, supply, erection, com...