Delhi Court April 2005 Judgments

Jindal Electricals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT282TriDel

1. In this appeal, which has been filed by the appellants the issue relates to the recovery of the Modvat credit amount of Rs. 26,693/- with penalty of Rs. 10,000/- from the appellants.2. The learned Counsel has contended that the demand is time barred and that the Rule 57-CC stood repealed on 1-7-2001 much before the issuance of the show cause notice dated 21-1-2003. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. In my view, the contention of the learned Counsel, is wholly misconceived. From the record, it is evident that during the relevant time, the appellants were manufacturing and clearing Automatic Voltage Controllers. They availed the Modvat credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of these goods. They, however, cleared these goods at NIL rate of duty under Notification No.10/97-C.E., dated 1-3-1997 to M/s. National Physical Laboratory, New Delhi, but did not reverse the credit availed by them on the inputs.The contention of the learned Counsel that there was no su...

Akash International Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(197)ELT200TriDel

1. The appellant challenges the order made by Commissioner of Customs (Port), Calcutta on 7.10.2002 confiscating the goods in question under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and enhancing their value on the basis of contemporaneous evidence discussed in the order, for the purpose of assessment and also imposing penalty of Rs. 62,000/-on the importer under Section 112(a) of the said Act.2. The entire debate of both the sides had centered around the letter dated 17.7.2002 addressed by the appellant to the concerned authority.According to the Revenue, by this letter, since the show cause notice contemplated by Section 124 of the said Act was waived and the appellant had agreed to accept the loading on the transaction value for the consignment in question, it was not open to the appellant to challenge in the impugned order. It is contended on behalf of the appellant, on the other hand, that there was only waiver of show cause notice and personal hearing was no waived.3. The appella...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shapoorji Pollanji and Co. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Revenue has filed this Appeal against the Order-in-Appeal. No.252/04 dated 16.2.04 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the Appeal of the respondent M/s Shapoorji Pollanji and Co. Ltd. to the extent of Service Tax paid amounting to Rs. 47,00,000/-. I heard Shri Vipin Verma, learned Departmental Representative and Shri K K Anand, learned Advocate. In this Appeal, the respondents, an engineering firm, executed a turnkey project of 'Multiserve Line 600 BPM Coca Cola Bottling Plant' for M/s. Hindustan Coca Cola Bottling North West Pvt.Ltd for total cost of Rs. 15.25 crores. Out of the said total cost, Rs. 62, 03,987/- were charged by the respondents towards project management and design of the plant, which has been considered by the Revenue as services provided by Consultant Engineering. as defined under section 65(31) of the Finance Act, 1994. On Appeal preferred by the respondents, the Commissioner (Appeals) agreed with their contention that the respondents had obtained th...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Arihant Foam Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT46TriDel

1. Revenue has come in Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 179/04, dated 27-2-2004 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the confiscation of the goods and penalty imposed on M/s. Arihant Foam Pvt.Ltd. 2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the respondents in spite of notice. I also observe that when the Appeal was posted for hearing earlier, no one was present on behalf of the respondents. I therefore heard Shri Bipin Verma, learned Departmental Representative and perused the records.3. In this case when the officers of the Central Excise visited the factory premises of the respondents on 15-8-2001 have found 61 pieces of cushions duly packed in polythene covers and 55 Nos. of P.U. Foam Blocks unaccounted in the statutory records. The Deputy Commissioner, under Order-in-Original No. 84/02, dated 3-9-2002, had confiscated the goods found in excess with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/- and imposed a penalty of ...

Prabhat Plastic Industries Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. As Shri Prem Ranjan, learned Advocate, mentioned that M/s. Prabhat Plastic Industries have deposited the entire amount of penalty imposed on them, Stay application has become infructuous and is dismissed as such.2. Heard the learned Advocate and Shri Vipin Verma, learned DR. In this matter Appellants manufacture seat covers. The Central Excise Officers, on visit of the factory premises of the Appellants on 30.1.2003, found 25630 ring covers/rings (components of seat covers) and 1300 pieces of seat covers. The Officers also found 60 bags containing components. The search of adjacent premises of the Appellants also resulted in recovery of 11 cartons of seat covers and 150 pieces of seat covers bearing brand name such as "Hindustan". The goods seized at first premises were bearing various brand names including "Safari". The Assistant Commissioner, under Order-in-Original No. 10/2004 dated 27.2.2004 confiscated all the goods recovered and seized by the Officers with an option to redeem...

Telco Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Common issue is involved in these appeals, hence are being taken up together. Appellants are challenging the denial of MODVAT credit in respect of the following accessories : The appellants of the ae not challenging the denial of MODVAT credit in respect following items : 3. The contention of the appellants in respect of Assembly Wheel Cover, which is used to cover Spare wheel it that it an accessory and its value is included in the assessable value of the Vehicle. The appellants also claimed chasis record bag and, Key Ring on the same ground.4. The contention of the Revenue is that these are not accessories. The accessory is that can contribute to be effectiveness of equipment conveyance and to enhance in functioning of the product. The goods in question such as Assembly wheel cover, Key ring, Chassis record bag is noting do for enhancement of performance of the vehicle.5. As the appellants are claiming the benefit of MODVAT credit in respect of the above items as accessories as p...

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. British Airways

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)95TTJ(Delhi)980

1. All these four appeals are by the Department for financial years 1994-95 and 1995-96. ITA Nos. 4009 and 4011/Del/2004 are in respect of the order under Section 201(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act). ITA Nos.4008 and 4010/Del/2004 are in respect of orders under Section 201(1A) of the Act. Since a common issue is involved in all the four appeals, we find it convenient to dispose all of them together by this combined order.2. In the appeals relating to orders under Section 201(1) of the Act, the following two grounds have been raised : "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the reasons advanced by the appellant for not deducting tax at source appeared bona fide. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deciding that the demand raised against the appellant on account of non-deduction of tax at source will stand deleted if payments made by the appellant to the hotel have been include...

Delhi Development Authority, Through Its Director (Mm) Vs. Hindustan P ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 120(2005)DLT143; 2005(82)DRJ269

Vijender Jain, J.1. Aggrieved by the order passed by learned Additional District Judge, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. It is contended by Ms. Salwan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that in view of clause 2 of the agreement entered into between the parties, the subject matter pertaining to clause 2 was outside the scope of reference to the arbitration. Our attention was drawn to the language of clause 2 of the agreement and clause 14 as it would be relevant to determine the controversy agitated before us by the petitioner. The relevant clauses of the contract are reproduced below:Clause 2:'The time allowed for carrying out the supply and the dates of delivery of the materials mentioned in the tender shall be strictly observed by the contractor and shall deemed to be of the essence of the contract and the contractor shall deliver the material on or before the dates mentioned in the tender. Should the contractor fail to deliver the materials on or befor...

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Mrs. Meena Chaturvedi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2005)ACC711; 2006ACJ406; 122(2005)DLT75; 2005(83)DRJ309; 2005(4)ESC2408

B.C.Patel, C.J. 1. This appeal preferred by the claimants against the decision rendered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala House, New Delhi in Suit No. 94 of 1987 decided on 25.3.1991 under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is placed before this bench in view of the order made by learned Single Judge on 30.10.1992. According to learned Single Judge, there is a conflict of opinions in the views of different High Courts, which is apparent from the judgments of this Court, namely, (1) Nirmala Sharma and Ors. v. Raja Ram and another 1982 ACJ 143; (2) Delhi Transport Corporation v. Harbans Ram and Ors. 1983 ACJ 110 and (3) Satyawanti Pathak v. Hari Ram and Ors. 1983 ACJ 424.2. The question raised before the Court was whether payment of benefit such as pension is required to be correspondingly reduced from the amount of total compensation payable or not? The judgments delivered by other High Courts, namely, Jammu and Kashmir, Gujarat and Bombay were also considered by the ...

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Meena Chaturvedi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 3(2005)ACC711

B.C. Patel, C.J.1. This appeal preferred by the claimants against the decision rendered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala House, New Delhi in Suit No. 94 of 1987 decided on 25.3.1991 under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is placed before this bench in view of the order made by learned Single Judge on 30.10.1992. According to learned Single Judge, there is a conflict of opinions in the views of different High Courts, which is apparent from the judgments of this Court, namely, (1) Nirmala Shartna and Ors. v. Raja Ram and Anr. 1982 ACJ 143; (2) Delhi Transport Corporation v. Harbans Ram and Ors. 1983 ACJ 110; and (3) Satyawanti Pathak v. Hari Ram and Ors. 1983 ACJ 424.2. The question raised before the Court was whether payment of benefit such as pension is required to be correspondingly reduced from the amount of total compensation payable or not? The judgments delivered by other High Courts, namely, Jammu and Kashmir, Gujarat and Bombay were also considered by the l...