Delhi Court February 2005 Judgments

Cce Vs. Perfect Refractories

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT163TriDel

1. In the above captioned appeals, the issue involved is common and as such, are being disposed of by this common order. The controversy in these appeals relates to the classification of Acid Resistant Clay bricks manufactured by the respondents. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) had classified these goods under Chapter heading 6901 for the period prior to 14.5.97 and after expansion of Chapter heading, under Chapter heading 6901.10. The Revenue has contested this classification by asserting that since acid resistant bricks also fall under the category of fire clay bricks, are classifiable under Chapter sub heading 6902.90. If the classification found by the Commissioner (Appeals) is held to be legally correct, in that event, the respondents are entitled to benefit of Notification No. 8/96 and No 5/97 for exemption from payment of duty, otherwise not.2. The learned SDR has contended that the bricks manufactured by the respondents are in fact fire clay bricks and not simple clay brick...

Ballarpur Indus. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal, which has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the denied of modvat to the appellant on the goods i.e. Felt to the tune of Rs. 7,27,254 to the period 1.4.1994 to 9.1996.2. The main ground on which the modvat credit has been sought to be denied to the appellants is that, they had failed to prove the utilization of the same in the factory. This very ground has been reiterated by the learned SDR before us. But we are unable to accept to this ground keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case.So far as the receipt of the goods in question by the appellant in their factory and their duty paid nature is concerned, the same remains undisputed. The only lapse committed by them is that they had failed to maintain proper entries in the RG-23-C, Part-1 Register showing the date of issuance, date of installation and date of starting the use of the goods i.e. Felts as capital goods. For this lapse, the substantial...

Dhillon Kool Drinks and Beverages Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC362

1. Though these two appeals are posted for hearing applications for staying the recovery of penalty imposed on M/s. Dhillon Kool Drinks & Beverages Ltd. and their General Manager, we taken up the appeal, themselves for disposal after staying the recovery of penalty as the entire amount of duty stands deposited.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, mentioned that M/s. Dhillon Kool Drinks & Beverages Ltd. manufacture aerated water; that the penalty has been imposed on the Appellants on the ground that they had effected clearance of excisable goods by taking credit in their PLA without actually depositing the duty due on the bank. The leaned Advocate submitted that they had an OD account with the bank learned Advocate submitted that they had an OD account with the bank against which the Central Excise duty was credited to the account of the Revenue; that they were of bonafide belief that the amount of TR6 challans presented by hem would be debited to their account; that the Bank ...

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(182)ELT463TriDel

1. Heard both sides. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant are subsidiary of General Insurance Corporation of India, engaged in the business of general insurance and they are liable to pay service tax in respect of the service provided by them. During the period April, 1997 to March, 2000, the appellant asked for provisional assessment in terms of Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules. At the time of finalising of the provisional assessment, it was found that for some period the appellant paid excess service tax and for some period the appellant paid less service tax.The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned Order held that where appellant paid excess amount of service tax, they have to file refund claim and where service tax was paid short, the appellant to pay the amount of differential amount of service tax along with interest.3. The contention of the appellant is that during the per...

N.C. Maheshwari and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT321TriDel

2. The appeal is directed against a penalty of Rs. 7,700/- imposed on the appellant for delay in payment of service tax. The period of the short payment is September, 2000 to March, 2001.3. The facts of the case are that, according to value of taxable service rendered during that half year, the appellant was liable to pay service tax of more than Rs. 10,000/-, but the appellant had made payment of only Rs. 5,124.50. Accordingly, notice issued on 12-10-2001 demanding differential tax and appellant made payment on 16th January, 2002. The penalty has been imposed for the delay in making the payment.4. The submission of the appellant is that error was made while entering the service charges realized during December, 2000, inasmuch as the "billed amount' was repeated as 'received amount' also, while his records would show that the amount received was much less. It is being submitted that there was actually no short payment; but only higher figures being mentioned in the return by mistake. ...

Amar Coach Builders, Skyways Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT621TriDel

1. In These 3 appeals filed by M/s. Amar Coach Builders & ors, arising out of three different order-in-appeal, the common issue involved is whether the appeal can be filed by Revenue on the point which was neither mentioned in the show cause notice nor decided by the Adjudicating Authority in Order-in-Original.2. Shri Sudhir Malhotra, Learned Advocate, submitted that all the 3 appellants fabricate bodies on chassis which fall under Heading 87.02 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that during the relevant period the Appellant cleared the impugned goods under Heading 87.02 on payment of Central Excise duty availing partial exemption under Notification No. 162/86-CE dated 1.3.86; that the show cause notices were issued to them for denying the benefit of the said notification on the ground that they had not furnished evidence regarding payment of Central Excise duty or appropriate Customs duty on chassis; that the Dy. Commissioner, under Order-in-Original No. 408 to 429...

Bajaj Tempo Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC289

1. The dispute is about the availability of Modvat credit on First Aid Box. During the adjudication, the Assistant Commissioner allowed the claim for credit holding that First Aid Box is accessory prescribed under Motor Vehicle Rules. However, when the Revenue went on appeal, that order was reversed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. During the hearing today, learned Counsel points out that 'accessory' remains specifically mentioned as input under the Rules and since the Motor Vehicle Rules had prescribed the First Aid Box as compulsory item supplied with vehicle in question, it merits treatment as accessory. He also points out that the Excise Authorities were including the cost of First Aid Box in the assessable value of the goods.3. Learned DR points out that First Aid Kit Box is not within the scope of accessory also. He relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M & B Footwear Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Noida, 2004 (97) ECC 407 wherein it was held that plastic carry bags sup...

Doaba Coach Builders and ors. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT853TriDel

1. In these 4 appeals, arising out of common Order-in-Appeal No.163-16/04 dated 26.3.2004, the issue involved is whether body built on motor vehicle chassis is classifiable under heading 87.02 or 87.07 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.2. Shri Sudhir Malhotra, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants are engaged in the fabrication of bodies on chassis for public transport of passenger motor vehicles; that they were discharging Central Excise duty on such bodies under Heading 87.02 of the Tariff in terms of the Board's instructions F. No. B-19/4/86-TRU dated 1.7.1986 wherein it has been clarified that body built on motor vehicle chassis cleared by independent body builders are not liable to duty under Heading 87.07 and that the Excise duty is leviable on independent body builders under Heading 87.02, 87.03, and 87.04. The learned Advocate contended that as held by the Supreme Court in the case of CCE Vadodara v. Dhiren Chemical Industries , the Revenue cannot go a...

R.K. Gupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(3)SLJ390CAT

1. This O.A. is directed an order dated 28.5.2004, whereby the period from 26.7.85 to 5.5.88 has been restricted to subsistence allowance paid to applicant.2. Applicant who retired on superannuation as Postal Assistant on 26.2.96 was accorded provisional pension and DCRG but his leave encashment was withheld.3. Applicant was placed under suspension on 26.7.85 due to his alleged involvement in a criminal case RC-11/84 under Sections 420/467/471/IPC, through the suspension was revoked by an order dated 4.5.98.4. Applicant filed O.A.1832/98 before the Tribunal for release of his retiral benefits. By an order dated 6.4.99 with a direction to calculate the benefits and interest O.A. was disposed of.5. By an order dated 29.11.2003 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, applicant was acquitted of the criminal charges for lack of sufficient evidence and as offence of conspiracy has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.6. O.A. 64/2004 was filed by applicant for treatment of suspe...

Skyline Engineering Contracts Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)94TTJ(Delhi)201

1. ITA 1583 is an appeal by the assessee against the order dt. 5th Nov., 1997 of CIT(A)-XIII, New Delhi, relating to the assessment order 1993-94 while ITA No. 396/Del/1999 is an appeal by the assessee against the order dt. 13th Nov., 1998 of CIT (A)-XIII, New Delhi.2. In both these appeals the only dispute is regarding the eligibility of depreciation at 100 per cent on scaffolding material. First we shall take up for consideration the facts in the asst. yr. 1993-94. The assessee is a company and it is engaged in the business of civil engineering and construction work for industrial units. In the claim for depreciation, the assessee included a sum of Rs. 34,82,091. This was nothing but the cost of scaffolding materials, which were purchased during the previous year. The assessee claimed 100 per cent depreciation on these scaffolding materials on the ground that each item of the material did not exceed Rs. 5,000. The AO called for the details with regard to purchase of these scaffoldin...