Delhi Court February 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 29 of about 296 results (0.013 seconds)Balaji and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT419TriDel
2. The appellant filed this appeal against adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Customs. The appellant made import of certain goods and declared in the Bill of Entry as old and used components of photocopier. The goods were examined by the Customs authorities and it was found that these were not part of photocopier but these are old and used photocopier machines. The Customs authorities obtained opinion of Shri M.J. Damodaran, Chartered Engineer of Superintendence Company of India Ltd. Shri M.J. Damodaran in his opinion opined that these are complete old and used photocopier machines. The Customs authorities treated the imported goods as old and used photocopier machines and enhanced the value. The goods were also confiscated on the ground of misdeclaration and as these old and used parts of photocopier require specific import licence.3. The contention of the appellant is that they made import of old and used parts and quantity of each part separately mentioned in the invo...
Tag this Judgment!Bihariji Mfg. Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC221
1. These are ten appeals filed by M/s. Bihariji Mfg. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.against confiscation of demand of Central Excise duty and imposition of penalties.2.1 Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, mentioned that the case of the Department is that M/s. Bihariji Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. (M/s. Bihariji in short) manufactured S.S. Sinks in the brand name of Safari, Century, Indica, Orient, Starwell Marvel, Flomate, which belonged to M/s. Cosmos Industries; that Cosmos Industries were getting S.S. Sinks manufactured from M/s. Bihariji; that M/s. Bihariji received raw-materials i.e. S.S.sheets from M/s. Cosmos Industries and used the same in the manufacture of S.S. Kitchen sinks which were removed to Cosmos Industries without issuing challans; that M/s. Bihariji and M/s. Hindustan Silicate Chemicals (M/s. Hindustan Silicate in short) also received raw-materials i.e. P.P. Granuels for conversion into the goods which were purchased by M/s. Supreme Plast India and M/s. Cosmos Industries and were u...
Tag this Judgment!Controls and Switchgears Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC316
1. The common issue is involved in these appeals, therefore, are being taken up together.2. The brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Contactors, Overload relays, Electrical timers and accessories thereof falling under Chapter heading 8536.90 of Central Excise Tariff. Vide Notification No. 13/2002-CE. (NT), dated 1-3-2002 all the products of Chapter Heading 8536.90 were brought under MRP base levy under Section 4-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The show cause notices were issued to the appellants for demanding duty after assessing the goods under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.3. The contention of the appellants is that the goods in question are not for retail sale. These goods are for exclusive use of industries as a 'raw material' and these are not intended to be for retail sale, therefore, exempted under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (SWMA). The goods are liable for assessment under Section 4 of the Central Ex...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Saraswati Steel Rolling Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT196TriDel
1. In this appeal, the Revenue has contested the validity of the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has quashed the Imposition of penalty on the respondents under 96ZP(3)(ii) of the Rules.2. We have heard both sides. The facts are not much in dispute. The respondents declared furnace of their rolling unit as batch type and paid the duty @ Rs. 3,19,014/- per month, whereas the competent authority vide its provisional Order dated 5-2-1998 as well as the final Order dated 27th April, 1998 adjudged the furnace of the respondents as pusher type and fixed the ACP as 26084.304 MT on the parameters supplied by them. Therefore, the monthly duty liability of the respondents under Rule 96-ZP(3) was worked out as Rs. 6,51,108/-.Consequently, the demand for the differential duty was raised through a show cause notice from the respondents.3. No doubt the differential duty had been paid with interest before 25-5-1999 by the respondents, but that itself could not be made b...
Tag this Judgment!Sabarmati Steels and Allied Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC710
1. Shri Bipin Garg, learned Advocate submitted that M/s. Sabarmati Steels and Allied Pvt. Ltd. have deposited a sum of Rs. 2,84,733 out of total duty of Rs. 3,38,284 and penalty of Rs. 3,50,000. In view of this fact, we stay the recovery of remaining amount of duty and entire amount of penalty during the pendency of Appeal, which is posted for regular hearing on 26.4.2005....
Tag this Judgment!Bently Nevada (Sales and Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC181
1. The issue raised in this appeal is the valuation of vibration monitoring machines imported by the appellant from is Holding Company in the United States. The Holding Company is the manufacturer also.2. The facts of the case are that all sales to India by the Holding Company are based on list price. Direct buyers obtained discounts. The discounts are at various rates. In the case of BHEL, the discount was found to be 17.5%. The Holding Company allows the appellant a discount of 20%. The impugned orders have held that the appellant's transaction value should be loaded by 15% for the purpose of assessment of the machines imported by them. the reason given for this loading is that the appellant received 15% commission in regard to sales to India.3. The contention of the appellant in the present appeal is that no loading of the transaction value is warranted in the facts of the case.It is being pointed out that when a stranger like BHEL is allowed a discount of 17.5% on the list price, ...
Tag this Judgment!Meham Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC759
1. In this appeal, M/s. Meham Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. are challenging the Order-in-Appeal No. 150/04 dated 12.3.2004 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority on the ground that the Order-in-Original was not a speaking Order.2. Shri O.P. Batla, Authorised Representative of the appellants, submitted that under the provisions of Central Excise Act, the Commissioner (Appeals) does not have the power to remand any matter to the Adjudicating Authority; that the duty had been demanded from them in respect of waste and scrap of capital goods; that the said capital goods were procured by them before the Modvat Credit Scheme was introduced in respect of capital goods.3. Countering the arguments, Shri H.C. Verma, learned DR, submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has remanded the matter as it was observed by him that the Original Authority had not given any finding on the point of demand being time-barred and had not considered the detailed subm...
Tag this Judgment!Ms. Ila Singh Vs. the Comptroller and Auditor
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Reported in: (2006)(1)SLJ9CAT
1. Applicant seeks promotion to the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) of Indian Audit and Accounts Service (IAAS, for short) w.e.f. 1.7.2004.2. A brief factual matrix is that applicant joined Group 'A' Service of IAAS on the basis of Civil Service Examination. She was promoted to the Senior Time Scale along with officers of 1988 batch in August, 1992.Applicant was further promoted in JAG in 1996.3. Applicant was also promoted to selection grade of JAG w.e.f.1.1.2001 with her batch-mates. A DPC met to consider the case of 1988 batch for promotion to the SAG, applicant who found her name missing in the list of promoted officers on the website on 15.6.2004 later came to know that junior officers of 1988 batch had been promoted to the SAG w.e.f. 1.7.2002. A representation made on 16.6.2004 when was not paid any heed the present O.A. has been filed.4. Learned Counsel for the applicant Mr. A.K. Behera contends by strongly placing reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v....
Tag this Judgment!Rajnagar Co-op. House Building Society Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Auth ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 117(2005)DLT412; 2005(80)DRJ134
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the allotment of land measuring 1.70 acres, by the first respondent (hereafter ''DDA'') to the second respondent (referred to as ''The Educational Institution'') has been assailed; a direction to quash that allotment and offer allotment of the plot to the petitioner has been sought.2. The petitioner is a Cooperative Group Housing Society. It was allotted 48 bighas and 2 bids was at Raj Nagar, Pitampura, Delhi for the purpose of developing house sites and allotting them to its members. A perpetual lease deed was entered into between the DDA and the petitioner society on 05.11.1977. The petitioner society developed the land, carved out plots and allotted them to its members.3. An area of 1.70 acres was left out for institutional purpose and as per the lease deed, reverted back to the lesser, namely, DDA. It is alleged that the lay out plan earmarks the site for a primary school.4. The petitioner is ag...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak Industries Limited (Prop. of Allenberry Works) Vs. Airport Auth ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: II(2005)BC493; 117(2005)DLT264; 2005(80)DRJ108; (2005)140PLR37
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Plaintiff a manufacturer of auto parts brings an action against Airport Authority of India and Union of India for recovery of Rs. 35,25,000/- on the allegation that, for manufacture of its product, it imported goods under 3 invoices. On import, goods had to be cleared by the custom authorities and pending clearance were kept under the custody of Airport Authority of India. Goods got stolen while in custody of Airport Authority of India. On import, plaintiff had to effect payment to the foreign supplier. For one of the consignment even custom duty was paid. As a result of loss of the goods while in custody of Airport Authority of India, not only did the plaintiff suffer loss on account of payment made to the foreign supplier but even suffered loss of reputation and damages, apart from custom duty paid on one of the consignment.2. Defendant No. 2 has chose not to file written statement and was proceeded ex-parte. Defendant No. 1, Airport Authority of India has, wh...
Tag this Judgment!