Delhi Court June 2005 Judgments

Supreme Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT411TriDel

1. In this appeal, the appellants have contested the correctness of the impugned order, vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority regarding confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty as detailed therein, on the appellants.3. The record shows that the appellants are dealing with Aromatic Chemicals. On 1-10-2001, on receipt of an information that a consignment of 12 packages weighing about 300 kgs. of non-duty paid 'Sandal Wood Oil' booked from Kolhapur to Kanpur through M/s. GATI Ltd. in the guise Aromatic Chemical, was lying in the godown to M/s. GATI Ltd. conducted the raid. The officer-incharge M/s. GATI Ltd. Shri M.K.Mukerjee, however, produced the relevant documents and invoices of M/s.Sanjay Laxman Gaikwar of Sangli, Maharashtra alongwith dockets and photocopy of Form C, before the officers. The samples were drawn from those packages and sent for tests to the I.I.T., Kanpur. The officer, who conducted the test...

Sultan Singh Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(1)SLJ183CAT

2. In this O.A., a challenge has been made to an order passed by the respondents on 30.01.2004 terminating the services of the applicant under Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 as well as an order dated 19.6.2004 whereby representation preferred against the termination has been rejected.3. The brief factual matrix of the case shows that the applicant had applied for the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police and filled up various forms i.e. Application Form on 12.4.2002, Attestation Form on 16.12.2002 and an undertaking on 18.01.2003 to the effect that he has neither been involved nor arrested/prosecuted/convicted nor dealt with under any law in force in any criminal case and no criminal case or Court proceeding is pending against him at present.4. The brief background, leading to filling up the forms, shows that though on a complaint by one Sh. Ashok Kumar an FIR No. 82/2001 was registered on 18.4.2001 against one Kappu and Malkhan. On a detailed investigation ...

Asstt. Cit, Circle, Panipat Vs. Liberty India

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)4SOT93(Delhi)

The revenue has filed this appeal against the order of the CIT(A) passed in Appeal No. IT/122/PPT/CIT(A)/KNL/2003-04 dated 4-10-2004 on the following effective ground : "On facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law in directing the assessing officer to allow deduction under section 80-IB on duty drawback, ignoring the judgements of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Viswanathan & Co. 261 ITR 737 and CIT v. Jameel Leathers & Uppers, 246 ITR 97 and also the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Ritesh Industries Ltd. 192 ITR 81 wherein similar issue was decided in favour of the revenue." The relevant and material facts for the disposal of this ground of appeal are that the assessee claimed deduction under section 80-IB in respect of duty drawback amounting to Rs. 1,74,316. The same was disallowed by the assessing officer as according to him this duty drawback was not a profit and gain derived by the ...

Lord Vishwakarma Heat Exchangers Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT83TriDel

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of parts of steam turbine, electric motors, generators etc. Under the impugned order, differential duty demands of about Rs. 11 lakhs was confirmed. The above demand is on two grounds. One, that the appellant manufactured 'fin tubes' and 'bend tubes' in the factory and used them for repair of air coolers etc.without payment of duty and the other that raw materials had not been accounted properly. The appellant contests the duty demand under both heads.2. With regard to the demand in respect of Fin Tubes and Bend Tubes, the appellant has many submissions. The very first is that the demand is time-barred. It is being pointed out that the alleged manufacture was during the period 1994-95 to 1998-99, and no demand was raised within the normal period stipulated in the statute. Instead, the demand was raised on 3-8-99 by issuing of a show cause notice alleging that the appellant had suppressed relevant information from the excise authorities. It is being p...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. I.T.W. Signode India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(102)ECC433

1. This appeal comes up before us for hearing it afresh on remand, in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7868 rendered on 9th November, 2003 by which the Supreme Court set aside the judgment and order of the Tribunal dated 6-4-95 wherein it was held by majority that the goods in question were excisable and classifiable under Heading No. 7308.90 of the Excise Tariff.2. The assessee had started production of Tensile Steel Strappings in 1983 without a licence claiming that the said goods were nothing other than steel strips on which appropriate Central Excise duty liability was discharged at the point of their procurement. The raw material i.e.steel coils was directly sent to some other units for job work such as slitting, pickling and cold rolling and the resultant product i.e. cold rolled steel strips was cleared on payment of duty and duly received by the assessee. These cold rolled steel strips were cut into smaller width and subjected to the processes of ...

M.G. Electronics Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal was remanded back for decision by the Supreme Court in C A No. 8113-8114 of 2001 along with other cases with the following directions:- "The appeals were allowed by the Tribunal relying on the decision rendered by this Court in Cotspun's case. However, on facts, it is agreed that the matter requires to be remitted to the Tribunal for deciding the question of classification and other issues. In the result, the appeals are partly allowed. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The Tribunal to decide the contention raised by the respondents with regard to classification of the goods in question and other issues, if any." 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants had filed classification list effective from 1.3.89 (Range Sl. No. 3/MGE/89). In column 6 of the said classification list, they have described the excisable goods manufactured by them intended to be removed from the factory as "Parts suitable for use solely or principally with the...

Margra Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT488TriDel

2. The appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants made import of rough marble blocks and goods were warehoused. The adjudicating authority on expiry of warehousing period confirmed the demand and imposed penalty of equal amount. On appeal filed by the appellant, the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the following order :- I find that the proceedings regarding dutiability and importability of the goods are subject matter of separate adjudication proceedings. It is not necessary to go into these issues in present adjudication. It is an admitted fact that goods have remained under warehouses long after their warehousing period has expired. Accordingly the order of the adjudicating authority directing them to clear the goods cannot be faulted with. At the same time, clearance of goods from warehouse can be effected, both by payment of duty and clearance to the domestic tariff area or witho...

C.C.E. Vs. Shiv Textile Printing Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal, the Revenue has contested the correctness of the part of the impugned Order vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the penalty under Section 11AC and set aside the penalty under Rule 173Q.2. None is present for the respondents. I, therefore, proceed to decide the appeal after hearing the learned JDR. The perusal of the records shows that on 16.10.1998, one Maruti Van loaded with the processed man made fabrics manufactured by the respondents, was intercepted and the goods were not covered by the invoice. The goods were seized. The physical verification of the stock lying in the factory premises of the respondents was carried out by the officers and the shortage of the goods was found. The adjudicating authority confirmed duty demand in all of rupees 63,988/- with equal penalty under Section 11AC and imposed penalty of rupees 10,000/- under Rule 173Q. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty under Section 11 AC to rupees 30,000/- and set aside the pen...

Supreme Collections (i) (P) Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)7SOT91(Delhi)

The Assessee has filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passed in Appeal No. 87/2003-04, dated 9-7-2004 on the following effective ground : "That on facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 2,51,725 on account of commission paid to Multiple Web Solutions Private Limited." Briefly stated the facts relating to the issue involved in this ground of appeal of the assessee are that the assessee has claimed payment of commission of Rs. 2,51,725 to M/s. Multiple Web Solutions (P) Ltd. @ 3 per cent on the sales amounting to Rs. 83,90,835. The assessing officer on persistent queries to the assessee and on examination of details found that this payment was not in fact a payment for commission, but was a payment for advertisement of the product of the assessee on the website of this company. He also noticed that through this so-called advertisement on the website...

Cce Vs. Nahar Sugar and Allied Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(102)ECC383

1. In this appeal, the appellants have contested the correctness of the impugned order vide which the Commissioner has allowed the Mod vat credit of Rs. 57,475 to the respondents on welding electrodes and D.A.gases used for repairing of the machine and machinery in the factory.2. The law regarding the availability of Modvat credit to the assessee on the welding electrodes and D.A. gases used for maintenance of the machines is well settled. In jaypee Rewa Plant v. CCE, Raipur, 2003 (88) ECC 503, the Larger Bench of the Tribunal has held that CENVAT credit is not available on these goods used for maintenance of machines. Similar in CCE, Belgaum v. Panyam Cements and Minerals Industries Ltd., 2003 (54) RLT 557, it has been observed by the Tribunal after following the ratio of law laid down in CCE Belgaum v.Bellary Steels and Alloys Ltd., 2001 (130) ELT 873, that the Modvat credit is not available to the assessee on the welding electrodes and gases used for maintenance of machines and mac...