Delhi Court March 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 13 of about 273 results (0.015 seconds)Texcomash Export Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT188TriDel
1. M/s. Texcomash Export have filed this Appeal against Order-in-Original No. 56/2000, dated 28-11-2003 by which the Commissioner of Customs has disallowed the drawback claimed by them and has imposed a penalty on them under Section 114 (iii) of the Customs Act.2. Shri A.K. Jain, learned Advocate, mentioned that the Appellants had made 29 export shipments of Children's garments through ICD, Tuglakabad, New Delhi during November, 1993 to June, 1994 and 9 export shipments of ladies garments through Mumbai Customs House during September, 1994 to October, 1994; that the proper officer at ICD New Delhi reduced the FOB value to Rs. 210/- per set of garments and granted drawback claims; that the Government of India, by Order No.406/99, dated 26-3-1999, has fixed the FOB value to be Rs. 242/- per set and has ordered that the amount of draw back be settled as per law.The learned Advocate submitted that in the said Order, the Government of India has accepted the purchase price of Children's gar...
Tag this Judgment!Sat NaraIn Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)94TTJ(Delhi)499
These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the common Order dt. 28th Oct., 2003, of CIT{A)-XXV, New Delhi, relating to the asst.yrs. 1999-2000 and 2000-2001.2. Before we take up the main grounds of appeal for adjudication, we have to consider a prayer for admission of additional grounds on behalf of the assessee. The assessment for both the years had been completed under Section 147 of the Act. The additional ground of the appeal raised by the assessee reads as follows : "That the impugned assessment Order has been framed under Section 143(3) without assuming the jurisdiction to frame such assessment inasmuch as notice under Section 143(2) was not issued and served within the statutorily allowable period of 12 months from the end of the month in which return under Section 148 was filed." In the additional ground, the assessee has prayed for declaring the assessment framed under Section 147 r/w Section 143(3) as without jurisdiction on the ground that no notice under Section 1...
Tag this Judgment!Sakun International Vs. Joint Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)94ITD138(Delhi)
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee firm, namely, M/s Sakun International. New Delhi against the block assessment order dated 29-10-1998 for the block period from 1-4-86 to 10-10-96 in the case of the assessee, passed Under Section 158BC/158BD of the Income-tax Act.2. Shri C.S. Agarwal, Senior Advocate along with Shri R.K. Gupta, Chartered Accountant appeared for the assesses while Shri Amitab Mishra, Senior D.R. (CIT) represented the Department.3. The assessee has taken as many as 46 grounds in the appeal.Condensed grounds of appeal have also been filed by the assessee which are 17 in number. The grounds of appeal originally taken are mainly in two parts i.e. ground No. 1 and 2 which are legal grounds and which have been taken to challenge the competency and validity of the jurisdiction of the AO and consequently the validity of the assessment order itself whereas Ground No. 3 to 44 assail various additions made in the block assessment order. Ground No. 45 also challenges t...
Tag this Judgment!Prasar Bharti Vs. Fame Communications
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 119(2005)DLT78; 2005(81)DRJ121
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. By this petition under Section 11(6)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, petitioner Prasar Bharti (Broadcasting Corporation of India) has prayed for appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon their disputes with the respondent M/s. Fame communications, arising out of Agreement between the parties dated 28.1.2994.2. Facts, in brief, are: That an agreement dated 28.1.1994 was executed between Doordarshan Commercial Service (hereinafter 'DCS') and M/s. Fame Communications (hereinafter the 'respondent') whereby the respondent was appointed as an accredited agent. The agreement inter alias provided that respondent will be responsible for payment of advertisement and other related bills jointly and severally with advertisers. The respondents were entitled to 15% commission. The agency was responsible for payment of advertisement and other related bills, jointly and severally with the advertisers. The respondent was to pay to DCS its bill according to...
Tag this Judgment!Finnpap (Finish Paper Mills Association) Vs. the Stc of India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(2)ARBLR82(Delhi); 118(2005)DLT748
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. On award dated 17.12.1998 published by the arbitral tribunal consisting of Justice M.K. Chawla (Retd.), Justice S.S. Chadha (Retd.) and Justice Satish Chandra (Retd.) being received in this Court, notice of filing of the award was served upon the parties. Objections have been filed to the award by State Trading Corporation (STC) by and under IA. No. 4731/1999. Present order disposes of the same.2. Shri S.K. Bandhopadhaya, learned counsel for the objector/STC urged three submissions at the hearing held on 7.3.2005.3. The three submissions were as under :i) There was no arbitration clause in the contract between the parties and, thereforee, award was a nullity. As a limb of this submission, it was urged that the arbitrators had no jurisdiction to decide the issue whether contract between the parties contained an arbitration clause.ii) Constitution of the arbitral tribunal was illegal for the reason, when Justice S.S. Chadha (Retd.), was nominated as member of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Cce Vs. Karan Engineers (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC553
2. The Revenue filed this appeal against order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that the show-cause notice was issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise and as per the Board's Circular dated 20.12.88, the Superintendent of Central Excise was not competent to issue the show-cause notice, only the adjudicating authority was competent to issue the show-cause notice. The Commissioner (Appeals) also allowed the appeal on merits by holding that the credit on original invoice is available subject to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner but it does not mean that it somebody does not approach the Assistant Commissioner on loss of duplicate copy of invoice, he will get dissatisfied. Rather his dissatisfaction will be logical and should be based on facts.3. The contention of the Revenue is that show-cause notice was issued in the month of December 1994 and during the relevant period as per the provisions of Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Truwoods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT583TriDel
1. Duty demands and penalties as detailed hereunder have been confirmed together with interest against the appellants on the ground of undervaluation of veneers and plywoods :--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------S. No. Name of the appellants Duty Penalty-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(1) M/s. Truwoods Private Ltd. Rs. 2,48,25,199/- Rs. 2,48,25,199/-(2) Alpine Panels Rs. 16,22,878/- Rs. 16,22,878/-(3) M/s. Maxworth Plywoods Ltd. Rs. 97,49,119/- Rs. 97,49,119/-(4) M/s. Deccan Veneers Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 1,03,65,967/- Rs. 1,03,65,967/-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The period in dispute is 1-12-2002 to 31-12-2003. The entire basis of the demand is evidence of undervaluation for the prior period (October 1998 to November 2002) forming the subject matter of an earlier show cause notice dated 1-11-2003 which was adjudicated...
Tag this Judgment!Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT430TriDel
1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Bar Loader, Loader, Backhoe Loader falling under Chapter Heading 84.29 of the 1st Schedule to the CETA 1985. During the period March 2002 to December 2002 they cleared 25 Nos. of the above mentioned excisable goods by availing exemption in terms of Notification No.108/95-CE dated 28.8.95 which inter alia exempts excisable goods supplied to projects financed by United Nations and International Organizations approved by the Government of India, subject to certain conditions relating to production of certificate from specified authorities. Before the clearance of each of the vehicles, they specifically informed the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction over their factory, of the proposal to clear the goods in terms of the Notification. Certificate issued by Project authorities as well as clearance issued by the Government of India was also enclosed. The show cause notice one dated 27.3.2003 covering the period Mar...
Tag this Judgment!Cce Vs. A.G. Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT704TriDel
2. In this appeal, the Revenue is challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the credit on parts and accessories of moulds and dies falling under sub-heading 8480.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act on the ground that under Rule 57Q in the table the moulds and dies are mentioned at serial No. 6 and there is no provision for allowing credit on parts and accessories of the moulds and dies.2. Shri S.S. Bhatnagar, learned JDR relied on the findings of the Original Authority wherein he held "that parts and accessories do not find any place in serial No. 2 of the list appended to Rule 57Q of the Rules.3. Shri R.C. Choudhary, learned Consultant on the contrary pleaded that moulds and dies on which the credit was taken by them are covered under heading 8480.10 and these are covered by serial No. 2 of the table under Rule 57Q. Serial No. 5 of the table allows credit on components, spares and accessories of the goods specified against serial Nos. 1 to 4. Since the goods viz., ...
Tag this Judgment!Tirupati Cigarettes Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT181TriDel
1. The appellant filed this appeal against adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise whereby the unaccounted goods such as cigarette tissue paper, filter tip paper, filter rods were confiscated and released on payment of redemption fine. A penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was also imposed on the appellant.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 4-2-1995, the officers of Revenue visited the factory of the appellants. On verification of the record, it was found that there were certain discrepancies in the stock of packing material and certain other goods which are used in the manufacture of cigarettes. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant for confiscation of unaccounted goods as the appellants contravened the provisions of Rule 94 read with Rule 226 and 209 of Central Excise Rules.3. The contention of the appellant is that on the date of visit i.e.4-2-1995 only cut tobacco was prescribed as principal raw material under Rule 55 of Central Excise Rules and cigar...
Tag this Judgment!