Delhi Court June 2005 Judgments

Padmini Polymers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT370TriDel

1. The above captioned appeals have been directed by the appellants against the impugned orders-in-original vide which the Commissioner of Customs as adjudicating authority has imposed penalties on them as detailed therein, under Section 112 of the Customs Act.2. I have heard both the sides. From the record, it is evident that appellants filed certain Bills of Entry for import of in all 22 CD ROMs declaring as Multimedia Application Software, on CD ROMs from California and Singapore, and claimed benefit under Section No. 173 of Notification No. 11/97 dated 1-4-97, which exempted completely computer software from payment of duty. On examination, it revealed that the goods had been over-invoiced, with intent to drain out for more foreign exchange, from the country, and on that account, penalties had been imposed on the appellant-company, M/s. Padmini Polymers (in short, PPL) as well as on its Chairman and the Directors as detailed in the impugned order. But in my view, the impugned orde...

Dimensions Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT475TriDel

1. In this appeal, the appellants have contested the correctness of the impugned order confirming the demand of Rs. 3,34,723/- and penalty of Rs. 46,368/-. I have heard both the sides. The duty demand has been confirmed against the appellants on the ground of having wrongly availed Modvat credit in respect of the inputs utilised by them in the manufacture of export goods which were exempt from duty. But it is quite evident from the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority, that the appellants were filing rebate claims in respect of the duty paid by them on the inputs utilized in the manufacture of exempted goods and debiting the amount in their RG-23-A, Part-II account, which in fact they were maintaining for their own purposes. They were initially showing the rebate amount to which they were entitled, in their Cenvat account but after availing the rebate, they were reversing it, as is borne out from the observations of the adjudicating authority recorded at page 9 of the order...

S.B. Packaging Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT289TriDel

1. The appeal is directed by the applicant against the order of the Commissioner dated 8-10-2003 by which the Commissioner directed recovery of Rs. 43,24,933/- from the applicant under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against which an amount of Rs. 3,45,995/- already paid by the applicant was to be adjusted. Penalty of Rs. 1,000/- was also imposed on the applicant under Rule 210 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 38A of the Act.2. The applicant has sought stay of the impugned order on the ground that at the time of clearance of Lay Flat Tubing, the applicant had paid the amount of duty at 8% which was now being demanded and the provisions of Section 11D did not apply since the said provisions could be invoked only when the amount collected from the buyers had not been paid to the Government. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that in view of the rubber stamp put on the invoices to the effect that the amount was reversed under Rule 57AD and the ...

Pritam Singh Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT70TriDel

1. In these appeals filed against the impugned Order-in-Appeal the Appellants have contested the confiscation of the goods (Fertilizers & Pesticides) seized from tractor trolley, lying in the godown, as well as imposition of penalty. I have gone through the record and heard both sides. The appellant, Shri Prem Chand Agarwal, was having his godown in village Tikonia in U.P. where he was storing fertilizers and pesticides at the relevant time. One tractor and trolley carrying the goods from his godown was intercepted on 5-5-2000 by the Customs officers before the Nepal Border at a distance of 1.5 km. on the belief that the goods were intended to be exported to Nepal by Shri Prem Chand Agarwal. The goods loaded in the tractor and trolley were seized along with tractor and trolley. Shri Pritam Singh, appellant was the driver of tractor and trolley. Thereafter, the Customs officers visited the godown of Shri Prem Chand Agarwal and seized the entire stock of the goods lying therein. Aft...

Bikaner Steel Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT309TriDel

1. In this appeal the Appellants have contested the confirmation of duty and penalty on them by Commissioner (Appeals) through the impugned Order. The Appellants have sent written submissions for deciding their appeal.2. Duty of Rs. 38,424/- have been confirmed against the appellants along with equal amount of penalty on account of shortage of finished goods found in their factory at the time of visit by the officer. The perusal of the file shows that the officer of Central Excise visited the factory premises of the Appellants on 21-11-2001. Physical verification of the finished goods i.e. M.S. Bars lying in the factory conducted by the officer in the presence of Shri Ramesh Chander. On verification shortage of 20.258 MT of finished goods were found. Shri Ramesh Chander, Proprietor, accepted this shortage and deposited the duty amount in question on the same day. Subsequent, pies, of the Appellants that weighment of the goods was not done and shortage was arrived at by eye estimation ...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Bharat Steel Rolling Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)STR83

1. In this appeal the Revenue has contested the correctness of the date from which interest has been allowed to them on the delayed payment of service tax by the Respondents. None is present on behalf of the Respondents. They have sought decision on merit. I have heard the learned D.R.2. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the interest to the Revenue on the delayed payment of service tax, from 12-6-2000 by observing as under :- In terms of Section 75, every person who fails to pay the service tax under Section 68 within the prescribed period, he shall pay the service tax for the delayed period. As discussed herein above, the service is legally payable and thus the mandatory interest is also payable. The leviability of service tax on the goods transport operators was under dispute in view of Laghu Udyog Bharti case. But the controversy was over by revalidation of the law by the Finance Act, 2000 with retrospective effect. In terms of Finance Act, 2000, the tax was to be paid wit...

Barjatiya Steel Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT310TriDel

1. In this appeal the Appellants have contested the denial of the Modvat credit of Rs. 28,024/- to them by the Commissioner (Appeals) through impugned Order. I have heard Shri S.K. Jain, Partner of the Appellant company and the learned D.R. The Credit had been availed by the Appellants on the invoices issued by M/s. K.L. Steel Ltd. from whom they purchased scrap. The plea taken by the Appellants is, that in fact, the goods were re-rollable material which was utilized by them in the manufacture of their final product after re-rolling. This plea has not been accepted by the authorities below for want of corroborative evidence. Since the supplier in the invoices has given the description of the goods as scrap, in my view, the lower authorities have rightly denied the Modvat credit, specially when he later on had not given any evidence in the form of affidavit, that the goods were in fact re-rollable material. Therefore, the Modvat credit had been rightly denied to the appellants. The imp...

Motorola Inc., Erisson Radio Vs. Deputy C.i.T.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)96TTJ(Delhi)1

1. All these cross appeals and cross objection in respect of the three assesses are directed against the orders of the learned CIT (Appeals) in the respective cases. Since common issues are involved in all these appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order, for the sake of convenience.1.1. These matters were fixed before the Division Benches but at the instance of the assesses and in the light of the importance of the issues involved, a request was made to the Hon'ble President to refer the matter to a Special Bench Under Section 255(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The President, I.T.A.T after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, decided to constitute a Special Bench.The following question was referred to the Special Bench: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the revenues earned by the appellant from supply of equipment and software to Indian Telecom Operators were taxable in India?" 2. It may be relevant...

Om Prakash Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 121(2005)DLT686

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. The petitioner is accused of having committed offences under sections 376/506/34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC'). The petitioner claims 'bail-on-default' under the provisions of proviso (a)(ii) to section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CrPC'). thereforee, some dates would be relevant. The First Information Report (FIR) was registered at Police Station Sameypur Badli on 17.2.2005. He was arrested on the same day. On 18.2.2005, he was remanded to judicial custody and continues to be in custody. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the charge-sheet was required to be filed within 60 days from the date of the first remand i.e., 18.2.2005. Since, the charge-sheet had not been filed by 18.4.2005 (the date, when, the 60 days period came to an end) the petitioner, on 4.5.2005 filed an application before the Magistrate claiming release on bail in terms of proviso (a)(ii) ...

Cce Vs. Gajra Gears Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal the Revenue has contested the correctness of the impugned Order vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the confiscation of excess goods found in the factory of the Respondents, dropped the redemption fine and penalty under Section 11AC of the Act.I have heard learned JDR. Shri S. Mani appearing on behalf of the Respondents, has requested for decision on merit.2. From the record it is evident that the factory premises of the Respondents was visited by the Officers on 5.9.97 and during the course of physical verification of the stock, finished goods were found short involving duty of Rs. 17,442/- and 2,19,450/-. This shortage was accepted by the Respondents and they deposited the duty. Similarly certain goods were found in excess which wore not entered in RG-1 register and the same were seized. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the duty demand and imposed penal y of equal amount under Section 11AC.That authority also disallowed the Modvat Credit and ord...