Delhi Court April 2005 Judgments

Thyrocare Services Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT414TriDel

2. The Service Tax of Rs. 39,087/- has been confirmed against the appellants through the impugned order by holding it to be covered under the 'business auxiliary services' in terms of Clause (19) of Section 65 of the Act.3. The sole ground contended by the learned consultant is that, the appellants are in fact covered only under the 'Franchise Services' and the liability to pay the Service tax is on their principal who has given them franchise for carrying out Thyrocare Technologies, as they collect the samples of the blood from the patients and after carrying out some procedural treatment, sent the same to the principal and they are also working under the name and style of Thyrocare Services. But, prima facie, this contention of the learned Counsel has no merits. Even under the alleged franchisee agreement, the appellants are rendering service to their principal by collecting blood samples and after carrying out some procedural treatment, transmitting the same to them.I do not find, ...

Sterling Associates Inc. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal, the appellants have questioned the validity of the part of the impugned order vide which the Commissioner of Customs had directed the forfeiture of their bank guarantee furnished to the Department under the Courier Imports & Export (Clearance) Regulations, 1998.2. I have heard both sides and gone through the record. The bare perusal of the record shows that the appellant is a firm registered with the Customs as a courier under the above referred regulations. On the intervening night of 12/13-7-2001 one consignment of ten packages containing smoke detectors arrived at the airport through the appellant's firm, against three Airway Bills, but the appellants failed to file the courier Bill of Entry. Thereafter, the Supervisor of the firm, produced one invoice covering the consignment wherein the names of two different consignees were recorded. But correct address of one of the consignees, namely, M/s. Shivas International, was not mentioned on the air bill and the a...

Cce Vs. Modi Rubber Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Revenue has filed this Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 10/2004 dated 23.1.2004 which the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the MODVAT credit to M/s. Modi Rubber Ltd. 2. Heard Shri P.M. Rao, learned Departmental Representative and Shri Ajai Singhal, Excise Officer of the respondent company. The Deputy Commissioner, under Order-in-Original No. 153/2000 dated 20.10.2000, has disallowed the MODVAT credit as two invoices issued by M/s.Hindustan Wires Ltd. were not proper invoices inasmuch as these were extra copies on which 'duplicate copy for transporter' were typed after using white fluid on 'extra copy'. Commissioner (Appeals), however after perusing both the invoices in question issued by M/s. Hindustan Wires Ltd., Faridabad gave his specific finding that the words 'duplicate for transporters' were typed after using white fluid under the signature of the authorized signatory of the supplier. He has further observed that 'in case of any doubt regarding the genuineness of invoices...

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT49TriDel

2. The Revenue filed this application for condoning the delay of one day. In view of the reasons explained in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.3. As the issue involved in the appeal is already covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Siel Sugar v. CCE reported in 1998 (99) E.L.T. 54, therefore, the appeal is being taken up for hearing.4. In this case the Revenue challenged the impugned order whereby the credit in respect of bagasse baling machine was allowed.5. The contention of the Revenue is that this machine is used for pressing the bagasse, which is exempted from payment of duty, therefore, the respondents are not entitled for the benefit of credit in respect of the bagasse baling press.6. The respondents relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Siel Sugar (supra) where the credit was allowed in respect of the bagasse baling press. In this case, the Tribunal held as under :- "4.5 Bagasse Baling Press : Bagasse baling press is...

Ars and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(102)ECC316

1. The appellant seeks stay of that portion of the impugned order dated 28.12.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichirapalli which is prejudicial to the appellant, pending disposal of the appeal and waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 23,10,712, and stay of its recovery till the disposal of the appeal.2. The appellants are manufacturers of various varieties of scented powdered "supari" falling under Chapter Sub-heading No. 2107 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The scented supari was packed in sachets of various sizes containing less than 10 gms of such material. These sachets were sold in the multi-piece packages and such packaged indicates the maximum retail price of the number of sachets contained in them. The packages also indicated the net weight of the contents thereof. Since the retail price of individual sachets was not mentioned on the sachets, the Department, on the ground that such price was required to be stated in individual sachet...

Shiv Cable and Wire Industries Vs. Additional Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)99TTJ(Delhi)106

1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee on 5th Jan., 2004, against the order of the learned CIT(A)-XXIV, New Delhi, dt. 24th Nov.2003, in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment order under Section 143(3) for asst. yr. 2000-01.2. Main dispute in this appeal is directed against the addition of a sum of Rs. 3,02,50,000 made by the AO under Section 68 in respect of cash credits in the name of Kamlesh Steel (P) Ltd. Facts of the case leading to this ground of appeal, briefly, are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the learned AO noted that there was a credit balance of Rs. 11,27,40,000 appearing in the books of account of the assessee in the name of Kamlesh Steel (P) Ltd. The learned AO noticed that the opening balance in this account was Rs. 8,24,90,000 and during the period 30th July, 1999 to 16th Aug., 1999, the assessee received further amounts by way of cheque Nos. 352210 to 352221 of the value of Rs. 3 crores and another cheque No. 470216 for Rs. 2,50...

Prof. P.K. Chandla Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 121(2005)DLT142; 2005(83)DRJ319

B.C. Patel, C.J.1. The writ petition styled as a public interest litigation seeks directions in respect of what is alleged to be the clandestine entry of foreign media houses in India. The petitioner had earlier filed Civil Writ No. 1207 of 2004 which was disposed of on 28.1.2004, in terms whereof directions were issued to the respondent to treat that petition as a representation and reply to the petitioner within two weeks. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to again approach this Court in case of need. The occasion to file the petition is stated to be the failure of the respondent to reply in terms of the said order.2. An additional affidavit has been filed after filing of the writ petition. Since the reply dated 23.4.2004 was received by the petitioner, the writ petition was filed on 19.4.2004 and thus this reply appears to be received soon thereafter. The reply records that the order of this Court dated 28.1.2004 was received only on 12.3.2004 and the five matters raised by the ...

Rajendra Singh Negi and ors. Vs. National Capital Territory

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 119(2005)DLT148; 2005(82)DRJ124

Rekha Sharma, J.1. The petitioners, namely, Rajendra Singh Negi, Shambhu Nath and Dushyant Kumar Garg, after passing Senior Secondary examination, i.e, 10+2, did one year Diploma Course in Operation Theatre Technology from Institute of Health and Hygiene, Mahipalpur, Delhi. In the year 2002, the `Times of India' carried an advertisement from the Government of NCT of Delhi, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, inviting applications for recruitment to 10 posts of Technical Assistants Grade II and 22 posts of Technical Assistants Grade IV falling in the description of para-medical staff. The petitioners applied for the jobs and were successful too. However, before they could receive actual letters of appointment, they ran out of luck. They were informed by the Govt. of NCT vide its communication dated 4th June, 2003 that their selection was provisional and that on scrutiny of their applications, they were found ineligible as the diploma certificate which they possessed was not from an I...

Asiasoft (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Globesyn Technologies Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(2)ARBLR264(Delhi); [2006]129CompCas704(Delhi); 119(2005)DLT665

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Application filed by the defendants invoking Section 5 and 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is being disposed of by the present order. Section 5 and Section 8 relied upon read as under:-5. Extent of judicial intervention.- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, in matters governed by this Part, no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided in this Part.8. Power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an arbitration agreement. - (1) A judicial authority before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement shall, if a party so applies not later than when submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute refer the parties to arbitration.(2) The application referred to in sub-section(1) shall not be entertained unless it is accompanied by the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof.(3) Notwithstanding that an...

Charu Steels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT195TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Charu Steels Ltd. relates to eligibility to abatement of duty under Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Heard Shri S.K. Dhanda, learned Consultant and Shri P.M. Rao, learned Departmental Representative. The Appellants manufacture non-alloy MS ingots chargeable to Central Excise duty on the basis of annual capacity of production under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. They had claimed abatement of duty under Sub-section (3) of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act for the period from 3-5-1998 to 10-5-1998 as their factory has remained closed on account of damage suffered by the furnace. There is no dispute that all the conditions specified in Rule 96ZO(2) in this regard have been complied with by the Appellants. Commissioner, however, has disallowed the abatement of duty on the ground that when the Central Excise officers visited the factory premises on 10-5-1998, the date on which factory recommenced the production, the ...