Delhi Court February 2005 Judgments

Head Post Master Vs. Kishan Lal

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Vide impugned order dated 1.12.2004 passed by District Forum, the appellant has been directed to refund Rs. 500/- to the respondent with 9% interest from the date when the amount was sent by the respondent by way of Money Order to one Mr. Phool Singh, R/o 29/5, Gali No. 13, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi and also to pay Rs. 1,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service resulting in harassment to the respondent. 2. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. We have perused the impugned order and find that the Money Order was returned as the address was not available at the given address. So much so as the sender was also not available at the given address in spite of six visits by the Postman. We do not find any deficiency on the part of the appellant and maintain the order of only return the amount of Rs. 500/- to the respondent and set aside the rest of the order. 4. FDR/Bank Guarantee/Post Office Pass Book, if any, deposite...

Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. Somani Iron and Steels Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT201TriDel

1. Perused the records and heard both sides. The Revenue's appeal is directed against the rejection of their appeal by Order-in-Appeal No.49-CE/Appl/Knp/2004, dated 13-2-2004. That Order-in-Appeal was passed against the corrigendum dated 26-10-2001 to the Order-in-Original No.200-DCK-II/Seiz/2000, dated 30-10-2000 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, C.Ex., Division II, Kanpur. The Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal of the assessee with the following observations : A personal hearing in the case was held on 20-2-2003 which was attended by Shri Amit Awasthi, Counsel and Shri K.K. Singh, Manager on behalf of the Appellants and submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has no power to review/issue addendum/errata where additional liability is being created. They further submitted that the "impugned case is squarely covered under M/s. Flocks India & Others. They also submitted that to sum up a functus officio cannot reopen the case. I have carefully, gone through the case rec...

Cce Vs. Swaraj Mazada Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. A common issue arises for determination in these two appeals against two separate adjudication orders and the appeals are, therefore, heard together and disposed of by common order.2. The issue relates to classification of ambulances, whether under CET sub-heading 8702.90 as claimed by the manufacturers/respondents or CET sub-heading 8702.10 as contended by the Revenue.3. We find that the Tribunal has held in the assessee's own case as seen from 2005 (119) ECR 177 that ambulances fall for classification under CET sub-heading 8702.90 in view of the certificate issued by Research and Development Establishment that the seating capacity of the ambulances is more than 12 persons. This order has been followed in Final Order NO. 129/0S-NB-A dated 14.1.2005. Following the ratio of the above orders we upheld the classification arrived at by the adjudicating authority under CET sub-heading 8702.90 and reject the appeals.4. Operative part of the order already pronounced in the open Court on 1...

Consolidated Photo and Finvest Vs. Commissioner of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT461TriDel

1. The appeal filed by the appellants was allowed by the Tribunal vide Final order, dated 21-2-2004 and the Revenue is not refunding the amount deposited during the investigation and amount of pre-deposit.Learned J.D.R appearing on behalf of the Revenue undertakes to comply with the order of the Tribunal by 25th February, 2005. In case, the Revenue fail to refund the amount in pursuance to the final order passed by the Tribunal, the interest accrued to the appellant for delay in refund shall be recovered from the pay of the Officer who caused delay. Copy of this order be sent to the Secretary (Revenue), Ministry of Finance, as well as to the Chairman of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, North Block, New Delhi for necessary action. Copy of the Order be issued Dasti. Adjourned to 25-2-2005....

G.M. Pens International Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT413TriDel

1. In these three Appeals filed by M/s. G.M. Pens International Ltd. and others, issue involved is whether the inks for market pens are classifiable under Sub-Heading 3215.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff as claimed by them or under sub-Heading 3215.90 of the Tariff as confirmed by the Commissioner under the impugned order.2. We heard Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, learned Advocate and Mrs. Krishna A Mishra, learned SDR. It was mentioned by both learned Advocate and learned SDR that the issue of classification of marker pen have been the subject matter of various decisions of this Tribunal wherein it has been held that market inks which are special kind of inks would fall under sub-Heading No. 3215.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The decision are :CCE, Madras v. G.M. Pens (International) Ltd. 2001 (133) ELT 720 (Tri) 3. Learned Advocate submitted that in case of Technik Industries, the Tribunal, while classifying the impugned goods under sub-Heading 3215.90 has observed t...

C.C.E. Vs. K.C. Alloys and Steel Castings

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC330

1. Heard both sides and perused the records. The Revenue's contention in this appeal is that the Commissioner (Appeals) should not have reduced the penalty under Rule 96 ZP(3) and penalty is required to be imposed equal to the duty imposed. Learned SDR points out that this position remains confirmed by the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Pee Aar Steels (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E. Meerut, 2004 (93) ECC 633 (All).2. As against the above submission of the learned SDR, the learned Counsel for the respondent has pointed out that this issue, including the judgement of the Allahabad High Court, was considered by the Tribunal in its Final Order No. 914/04-B dated 9.11.04 in the case of C.C.E., Chandigarh v. Deepak Iron & Steel Rolling Mills and the Tribunal 3. In the light of the aforesaid Division Bench Order of the Tribunal, there is no merit in the contention of the Revenue that penalty equal to the duty amount is required to be imposed. Appeal is rejected....

Rajasthan Explosives and Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT297TriDel

1. Perused the records and heard both sides. The matter is before the Tribunal for second time. The facts are like this : The appeal filed by the appellant was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) [Order-in-Appeal No. 100 (KDT) CE/JPR-I (53) dated 8-3-200] as barred by limitation. The appellant submitted before the Tribunal that no copy of the Order impugned before the Commissioner had been served on it. The Revenue's contention was that the Order had been served by registered post and thereafter by affixing a copy of the order on the appellant's premises on 28th January 1999. This contention was raised by relying on the panchanama covering the affixing of the Order. Since the correctness of the Panchanama was questioned before the Tribunal, the matter was remanded to the Commissioner to go into that issue. During the remand, proceeding, the Commissioner allowed the cross-examination of one of the witnesses to the panchanama. That person confirmed witnessing the affixing of some pap...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. D.S. Plastic

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT299TriDel

1. has contested the impugned order- in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has dropped the penalty on the respondents on the ground that they had deposited the entire duty amount before the issuance of the show cause notice by following the law laid down in the case of Dynamatic Technologies Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai - 2003 (54) RLT 675 and Amritsar Crown Caps Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh - 2002 (140) E.L.T. 437.2. None has come present for the respondents despite notice. There is no request for adjournment. Therefore, I proceed to decide the appeal after hearing the learned DR.3. From the record, it is evident that the respondents tampered with the statutory excise record and also the sale invoices to facilitate the removal of the goods and thereby evasion of the excise duty during the period in dispute. They also changed the debit entries in the RG 23A Part II Col. V., copies of the sale in voices as well as in the triplicate copies of the buyer/transporter. After they were cau...

Bae Systems Plc. Vs. Joint Commissoner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)96TTJ(Delhi)585

1. These appeals relate to the asst. yrs. 1997-98 and 1998-99. For the asst. yr. 1997-98, the assessee is in appeal whereas for the asst. yr.1998-99, it is the Department which is in appeal. However, in both the appeals, the issue is the same namely whether tax was to be deducted from the royalty payments at the rate of 15 per cent or 20 per cent, under Art. 12(3) of the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement between India and United Kingdom.2. The assessee is a company incorporated in England. At the time of incorporation its name was British Aerospace Public Ltd. Company. The name was changed on 5th May, 2000 to BAE Systems Plc. It entered into agreement with the Government of India through the President of India who was represented by the Jt. Secretary, Department of Defence Production, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi, on 12th April, 1979. This agreement has been classified as a secret document and, therefore, its only relevant portions thereof have been filed in the paper book filed by the...

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Iqbal Chand Khurana

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)94TTJ(Delhi)449

1. This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order of learned CIT(A)-XX, New Delhi, dt. 8th Feb., 2001, relating to asst. yr.1998-99. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,17,032 made by the AO on account of accrued interest on money advanced to two different parties." 3. The assessee is an individual. The assessee was to receive monies from DCM Services Ltd. and M/s Credential Finance Ltd. The monies were lent to DCM Services Ltd., by discounting a bill for Rs. 50 lakhs. The assessee had paid a sum of Rs. 46,97,945 on 8th April, 1997. The assessee received a sum of Rs. 3,02,055 towards bill discounting charges on 10th July, 1997. Another sum of Rs. 5 lakhs was received on 23rd Oct., 1997. Thereafter, the assessee did not receive any money either towards principal or interest from DCM Services Ltd. On 17th June, 2000, the principal amount due from DCM Services Ltd. was Rs. 41,97,945 and this was converted ...