Delhi Court December 2005 Judgments

Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Dharam Pal

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. On account of having disconnected the electricity connection without serving show-cause notice in respect of the bill for an amount of Rs. 2,83,023 payable by 26.10.1999 raised on the basis of minimum guarantee, in respect of a commercial electricity connection, the District Forum has vide impugned order dated 27th October, 2001 directed the appellant to immediately restore the supply of electricity and pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation and Rs. 2,000 as cost of litigation. 2. The perusal of the impugned order shows that the electric meter became defective and continued to be so for years together and so much so in spite of inspection report in the year 1995 in this regard bills were being raised on the minimum guarantee basis for four long years and on 11th August, 1999 the electricity was disconnected without any show-cause notice. 3. In view of the aforesaid facts particularly non-quashing of the bill of minimum guarantee and there being direction of restoratio...

Faiyaz Shamim Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicants are seeking restoration of appeal on the ground that it was dismissed for non-prosecution. On the date of hearing i.e. on 12^th August, 2005, the counsel of the applicants could not appear for hearing as he had to attend to his wife, who had suffered fracture in her hand due to fall and in such a situation, the Counsel could not intimate the Tribunal for adjournment.2. Considering the facts stated in the application, the appeal is restored to its original number and it will come up for hearing in its due course....

C.C.E. Vs. Himachal Futuristic

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appeal of the Revenue is directed against the finding regarding valuation of telecommunication equipment supplied by the respondent to M/s. BSNL. The Commissioner held to the effect that sale price should constitute the assessable value. In passing that order, he was following the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Telephone Cables Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh The present appeal has been filed on the following grounds :- (i) The deductions on account of late supply of goods are not admissible. (ii) The relied upon decision in case of Telephone Cables Ltd., has not been accepted by the department.2. When the matter came up for hearing, we have perused records and heard both sides. It is seen that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Telephone Cables Ltd., (supra) has become final upon the dismissal of the appeal filed against it by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2004 (163) E.L.T. All. 7.3. On the question of deductions on account of late supply, it is noticed that...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Prashant Electrode

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The issue involved in this case is regarding the question of demand of duly from the respondents after a considerable period of time of investigation. The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the duty is totally time-barred. Against this order, the Revenue is in appeal.2. The relevant facts for my consideration are that, the respondents' factory was visited by the officers on 28-1-2000 for the exercise of stock taking. When the exercise was being done, the Officers found that there are some shortages in the finished goods. The officers did not draw any Panchnama on that date and left the premises of the respondents. On 16-4-2002, a show cause notice was issued to the respondents for demand of the duty on the goods which were found short on 28-1-2000. The respondents took the plea of time-bar before the adjudicating authority, but he did not consider it and confirmed the demand and imposed penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals), on appeal, considered the said plea and came to the concl...

Shri Ravi Jagota, Managing Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(104)ECC321

1. Both the appeals are filed against the same impugned order, therefore, are being taken up together.2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s H.B. Fibres Ltd. made import of two consignments and filed bills of entry declaring the goods as wool waste. The goods were examined and it was found that the goods were not wool waste but acrylic fibres. A show-cause notice was issued to the appellant for assessing the goods as acrylic fibres by enhancing the value of the goods and also proposing imposition of penalties. The adjudicating authority assessed the goods in question, i.e., acrylic fibre and also held that the acrylic fibre originating from USA is liable to pay anti-dumping duty under notification No. 81/97-Cus. A personal penalty was imposed on M/s H.B. Fibres. A personal penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs was imposed on Sh. Ravi Jagota, M.D. of M/s Youngman Industries as he was the actual importer.3. The appeals were filed and during the hearing of the appeals, the contention on behalf of...

Vikaswood Works Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(104)ECC507

1. Appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs. The dispute in this appeal is in respect of the classification of rough sawn teak wood of Ghana imported by the appellant. Appellant claimed the classification under heading 4403 of Customs Tariff whereas the adjudicating authority classified the same under heading 4407 of the Customs Tariff.2. The contention of the appellant is that wood in question is rough sawn wood, therefore, it is classifiable under heading 4403 of the Customs Tariff, whereas the tariff entry under heading 4407 does not cover the rough sawn wood. The contention is that the wood in question is roughly sawn just for packing. The appellant also relied on the HSN explanatory notes to submit that the goods in question are classifiable under heading 4403 of Customs Tariff.3. On the last date of hearing, Revenue was directed to produce the sample today. We have seen the sample.4. We find that the heading 4403 of Customs ...

Shri Tej Karan Sethia Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(104)ECC267

1. This appeal is filed by Shri Tej Karan Sethia, proprietor of M/s.Freez Component Industries. On the basis of information, officers of Customs Preventive, New Delhi visited the office and godown premises of M/s. Freez Component Industries and searched the said premises. As a result of search of the godown, 74 Nos. of refrigerant liquefied gas cylinders of foreign origin "made in China" containing chloro di fluoro methane non flammable liquefied gas cylinders were recovered. Shri Tej Karan Sethia could not adduce evidence for legal import of these goods.Import of refrigerant liquefied gas cylinders is restricted under Exim Policy 2002-2007. Therefore, show cause notice was issued to Shri Tej Karan Sethia for confiscation of the seized goods and imposition of penalty on him. After adjudication, the Joint Commissioner ordered for absolute confiscation of the seized cylinders under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 Lakhs on Shri Tej Karan Sethia. The appe...

Hero Cycle Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC167

1. The appellants had filed a refund claim of Rs. 45,330/- on the ground that by mistake the invoice value was taken in US$ instead of Canadian $ while calculating the duty. The refund claim was sanctioned by the Dy. Commissioner of Customs but he credited the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground that the claimant had failed to substantiate that incidence of duty for which refund has been claimed has not been passed on to the buyer as provided under Section 27(1)(b) of the Customs Act. The appeal against the order of the Dy.Commissioner was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Raj Industries , where the apex court has held that the principles of unjust enrichment applies to cases of captive consumption as well. If a claim is found to be justified on merits, even then it has to be examined from the unjust enrichment point of view. In the appeal petition, it is pleaded that in case of Union of I...

S.B. Packaging (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(104)ECC503

1. Interim stay was refused on 23.6.05. It was observed in the order refusing the interim stay, that prima facie, the applicant had recovered the amount by way of excise duty from the customers, and, therefore Section 11D of the Act could be invoked. It appears that the application under Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions)) Act, 1985 was made by the applicant on 24.6.2005. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the application was sent on 23.6.2005, being the date on which the interim relief was refused. Apart from the fact that the application may have been strategically made in view of the interim relief being refused, it is clear from the ratio of the decision in Metal Box India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai covered under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, does not fall under any of the categories mentioned in Section 22 of the said Act. We may note that before the Hon'ble High Court in CM No.16047-48/2005, the learned Counsel for ...

indus Communication Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants, M/s. Indus Communication are engaged in the service of publications job and non-publication job. An order issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Service Tax on 28-11-2001 confirmed a demand of Rs. 24,337/- plus interest in respect of advertising services provided by them during October, 1998 to March, 1999.2. Being aggrieved, the appellants filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). They pleaded before him that the adjudicating authority has wrongly calculated the service tax at 5% on all the services, while they were engaged in the services of publication and non-publication job whose rate should be 0.75% and 5% respectively.They relied upon a circular issued by Advertising Agencies Association of India to its members. Though they could not cite any Notification issued by the Government in this regard, they pleaded that the rate should be 0.75% on publication job and 5% on non-publication job. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that appellants had provided servi...