Delhi Court March 2005 Judgments

Prabhat Zarda Factory (i) Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These are two appeals, filed by M/s. Prabhat Zarda Factory (I) Pvt.Ltd. and their director Shri Deepak Kumar Arya against the Order-in-Appeal No. 85/2004 dated 28.5.2004 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the demand of duty of excise and penalty against them.2. Shri K. Narasimhan, learned Advocate mentioned that the appellants manufacture chewing tobacco and Quiwam and avail of Cenvat credit of the duty; that Central Excise Officers visited their factory premises on 8.6.2001 and took possession of a file containing rough worksheets prepared for the finalisation of the Balance Sheet for the year 1999-2000; that the Central Excise Officers took the figures shown as opening balance of glass bottles as on 1.4.2000 and worked out theoretically the stock balances of the different sizes of bottles that should have been there on the date of inspection i.e. 8.6.2001, assuming arbitrarily damage/breakage @ 2% for all the sizes of bottles; that thereafter Excise Authorities the...

Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT232TriDel

2. Appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Adjudicating order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh vide which the duty was confirmed in respect of the waste and scrap of the capital goods under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules on the ground that the scrap is in respect of the capital goods on which credit has been taken.3. The contention of the appellants is that from the very beginning, the stand of appellant is that the waste and scrap in dispute, is in respect of the capital goods on which, no credit has been taken. The capital goods were installed prior to 1-3-1994 and at that time no credit was available in respect of the duty paid on capital goods. All the relevant records were produced before the Adjudicating authority.The appellants filed the detailed list of the capital goods and their date of acquisition before the Adjudicating authority and the same was verified by the Revenue authority.4. The contention of the appella...

Hind Spinners Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT266TriDel

2. The appellants took the credit of Rs. 33,044/- accrued to them after 15-8-2000 but utilised the same for payment of central excise duty for the first fortnight of August, 2000 on 19-8-2000. The Central Excise Audit party visited their premises for audit and pointed out this mistake. They accordingly debited the amount of Rs. 33,044/- from PLA vide Entry No. 29, dated 20-9-2001 and took equal amount of credit in their RG-23A Part II account. Subsequently, the department issued show cause notice to them demanding the Cenvat credit of Rs. 33,044/- taken by them suo motu on the ground that it was taken without the strength of any prescribed document and penalty was also proposed The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order held that the appellants utilised Rs. 33,044/-towards discharging duty liability of first fortnight of August 2000, which was accrued to them after 15-8-2000. They took this credit on being pointed out by Audit on 20-9-2001 and on the same date, they debited the same amou...

Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The issue involved in this appeal is regarding the collection of amount as Insurance charges. The Revenue wants to include in the assessable value of the goods.3. We find that this issue is now covered by Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1997 94 ELT 13 (SC) and in the case of Indian Oxygen Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1988 (36) ELT 723 (SC). In view of the above decision the demand on account of excess Insurance charges collected by the appellants is not sustainable. Hence, set aside. The appeal is allowed....

Smt. Sujata Grover Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)99TTJ(Delhi)837

1. The assessee is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A)-XXIV, New Delhi, in appeal No. 31/2002-03, dt. 24th March, 2003. A number of argumentative grounds of appeal have been raised involving following two grievances only : 1. Disallowance of relief under Section 80HHC on export profits of Rs. 52,66,869, and 2. Addition of Rs. 10 lakhs as unexplained investment on office renovation.We may also mention that the assessee had also filed an application for admission of an additional ground challenging the validity of the assessment on the ground that notice under Section 143(2) was not served on the assessee within 12 months of 31st Oct., 1995 when the return was filed by her. We have already passed an order dt. 30th Sept., 2004 rejecting the application for admission of the additional ground.2. The appeal had also come up earlier before the Tribunal. Initially, the assessment was made on 27th March, 1998 in which similar stand was taken by the AO which was confirmed by the CIT(A) by...

Berkowits American School of Electrolysis Vs. Shashi Vermani

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. This case demonstrates the agony consumers suffer at the hands of quacks and ill qualified and non-medical persons engaged in the business of treating the skin and sensitive parts of the face for beautification. 2. Respondent is a young working woman. She suffered scratches on the right cheek below the eye in an accident way back in the year 1995. Appellant is engaged in the business of treatment of removing scratches that apparently disfigure the face. 3. On account of wrong treatment the scratches, instead of being removed, turned into black spots, the appellant vide order dated 1.10.2001 has been directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards proposed plastic surgery and Rs. 50,000/- towards damages for mental pain and agony. Feeling aggrieved it has preferred this appeal. 4. Relevant facts in short are that in July, 1995 respondent met with an accident and received scratches on the right cheek below the eye. She approached the appellant for treatment. On 5.9.1995 M...

Recron Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT150TriDel

2. The appellant filed this appeal against order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby Modvat credit in respect of the capital goods was denied on the ground that the capital goods were sold to the finance company. Therefore, the appellants are not entitled to take credit in respect of the duty paid on the capital goods.3. The contention of the appellant is that the appellant after taking the credit on the capital goods sold the goods to the finance company, therefore, it amounts to removal of the goods. Hence they are liable to pay the duty on such removal of capital goods.4. The contention is that the goods were installed in the factory and thereafter they were sold to the finance company to recover the cost of the capital goods and the goods were taken on lease from the finance company. The contention of the appellant is that vide Notification No.27/94-CE(NT) dated 17.6.1994, the Revenue allowed the credit in respect of the capital goods which are on lease, hire-pu...

Phoenix International Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(102)ECC356

1. Common issue involved in these appeals, therefore, are being taken up together.2. The issue involved in these appeals are whether the manufacturer of shoes can avail the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of duty paid on carry bags, which are being put in the cardboard boxes along with shoes.3. The issue is now settled by the following decisions of the Tribunal in favour of the Revenue:-Liberty Shoes Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi reported in 2001 (135) ELT 1193.M & B Footwear Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Noida reported in 2004 (97) ECC 407.In these cases, the Tribunal held that carry bags placed in cardboard boxes along with pair of footwear, utilised by retailers at the time of sale to consumers to enable them to carry footwear cardboard box cannot be said to be used even indirectly in the manufacture of shoes nor these are packing material. In view of the above decisions of the Tribunal, I find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeals are dismissed....

Cce Vs. Lifelong Appliances Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT593TriDel

1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of MODVAT credit of Rs. 29,667/- on account of MODVAT credit on inputs treated as Store Rejection and Rs. 62,056/- on account of MODVAT credit inputs treated as Line Rejection has been allowed.2. The contention of the Revenue is that as the inputs are not used in the final product, therefore, the credit is not available.3. The contention of the respondent is that the inputs were received in the factory for intended use is the final product. The contention is that when the inputs were issued for manufacture and they are used in the manufacture of final product and during this process some inputs were rejected during the testing. As these inputs are used in the final product, therefore the credit cannot be denied.4. In this case there are two types of rejection. One is Store Rejection. Under this rejection the inputs were rejected before issue the inputs for manufacture. As ...

Cce Vs. Modern Polyplex Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(102)ECC112

1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the respondent.Heard Ld. JDR.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 15.7.99 or 18.7.99 the officers of Revenue department visited the premises of respondents and on physical verification it was found that certain final product and waste and scrap was unaccounted. Show-cause notice was issued for confiscation of the excess goods. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and allowed the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 20,000 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000. On appeal filed by the respondent, the Commissioner (Appeals) after relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Raipur v. Bhilai Conductors (P) Ltd., 2000 (125) ELT 781 held that the goods which are lying within the factory are not liable to confiscation in the absence of any allegation about the assessee indulging clandestine removal of the goods.3. The contention of the Revenue is that the goods which were not accounted in the statutor...