Delhi Court June 2005 Judgments

Jaiswal Steel Enterprises Pvt. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal, the appellants have made challenge to the impugned order vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the Order-in-Original against the appellant company in respect of duty and penalty while setting aside the penalty against the Director.2. The duty of the amount, in dispute (rupees 2,18,992/-) has been confirmed against company on account of shortage of the finished goods detected by the officers at the time of stock verification in the factory of the appellants on 25.6.1999. The short found goods involved duty of rupees 1,04,404/-. The duty has been also confirmed against the appellant company on account of shortage of the raw-material and the finished goods as detailed in the impugned order itself, which was detected by the officers at the time of visit to their factory on 25.6.1999. The total duty involved on both the goods was worked out to rupees 2,18,922/-.3. The learned Counsel has contended that the shortage was arrived at by the officers only on ass...

Flex Industries Limited Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Appellants filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In this case benefit of MODVAT credit was denied on the ground that the manufacture of the inputs paid excess duty.3. The appellants are having various Units and manufacturing excisable goods. The excisable goods manufactured by one Unit were cleared to the other Unit on payment of duty and the other Unit has taken the credit in respect of the duty paid on inputs and capital goods. Show cause notice was issued for denial of the credit, which was paid excess to the specified duty as provided under the Central Excise Tariff. The case of the Revenue is that 16% duty is to be paid on the goods cleared by the manufacturer, whereas the manufacturer paid 24% duty and the credit was taken by the other Unit wrongly. The Revenue's case is that the credit can taken in respect of the specified duty as provided under Central Excise Tariff.4. The contention of the appellants is that rate of duty for th...

Synthetic Polymers Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the appellant in spite of notice. Therefore, the appeal is being taken up in absence of the appellant. Heard Id. JDR.2. The appellant filed these appeals against the common order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant made import of natural rubber at ICD, Tuglakabad and filed Bills of Entry. The goods were confiscated and allowed to be released on payment of redemption fine and personal penalties were also imposed on the ground that in view of DGFT Notification No. 41(RE-2001)/1997-2002, dated 19-12-2001 the import of natural rubber is allowed at port of Kolkata and Vishakhapatnam, 4. The contention of the appellant in the present appeals that the provisions of Section 111(d) of Customs Act cannot be invoked as the import is not unlawful and the notification issued by the DGFT is without jurisdiction. I find that regarding import of natural rubber as per DGFT Notificati...

Dina Iron and Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The stay application is directed against service tax demand on the finding that the appellant rendered the service of "clearing and forwarding". The orders themselves are not of much help in understanding the nature of service rendered. Order-in-Original points out that the appellant has not candidly revealed facts about nature of service provided by it. The service mentioned and highlighted in the order is "activities of promoting sales and purchase of goods". The appellant's own contention is that it is a mere Sales Promotion commission agent.2. The service is rendered by the appellant in terms of a written agreement. The appellant's principal is M/s. Unimers India Limited.Clause 1 describes the appellant's service as "have to sell" single phase and three phase electricity energy meters manufactured by the principal. Clause 2 states that the appointment is initially for one year "for procuring orders from Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Mumbai". The commission is 7% of the v...

Chivas International Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the appellant in spite of notice, therefore, the appeal is being taken up in absence of the appellant. Heard ld. JDR.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of MS products and availing the benefit of Modvat credit under Rule 57 of Central Excise Rules. The appellant received certain inputs i.e. MS scrap from M/s. Mahabir Prasad & Co. On verification by the Revenue, it was found that M/s. Mahabir Prasad & Co. only issued the invoices showing the clearance of MS scrap whereas no such scrap was received by the appellant. The copies of invoices recovered from the premises of M/s. Mahabir Prasad & Co. shows that the triplicate copy of invoice shows the description of goods as empty containers and in invoices the copy of description and quantities are different than the invoices produced by the appellant for availing the benefit of Modvat credit. It was also found during investig...

Surya Finvest P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appellant filed this appeal against order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The brief facts of the case are that on 9-11-2000 at about 12.30 A.M. a truck was intercepted and it was loaded with SS Flats. The driver of the truck could not produced any bill or invoice or any other transport document covering the goods in question.The goods were seized thereafter on next day the invoice showing the payment of duty was produced by the appellant. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and demanded duty of Rs. 50,832/- and imposed penalty of the equal amount. The goods were ordered to be released on redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/-. Penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed on Shri Chander Sekhar, Director of the company.3. The contention of the appellant is that the invoice was issued at the lime of clearance of goods but the driver could not carry the invoice. The contention is that as the duty has been paid at the time of clearance of goods and prior to issuance of...

Leeladhar Kachroo Vs. Umang Bhat Kachroo

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 121(2005)DLT218; II(2005)DMC193; 2005(82)DRJ609

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. The petitioner/husband and the respondent/wife, both Canadian citizens married in the year 1987 in India at Delhi. Two children, named Arjun Kachroo and Bhareth Kachroo were born to them. The dispute of custody arising in the present case is now confined to the younger son Bhareth aged about 9 years since the other son Arjun has almost attained majority.2. In June 2001, the parties came to India to permanently settle down here, but after some time differences arose between the parties. A settlement was reached between the parties whereby it was agreed that:(a) The respondent would go back to Canada and start her practice as Doctor.(b) Both the children would also be admitted to their earlier school, Bay View Glen in Canada.3. Thereafter, in December, 2003, the respondent for the purposes of making arrangements to settle down there, went to Canada and came back to India in March, 2004 After she arrived in India, she claimed that she was denied access to both her child...

Syndicate of Press of the University of Cambridge Trading as Cambride ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(31)PTC58(Del)

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This is an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'CPC') in a suit filed by plaintiff No. 1 the Syndicate of the Press of the University of Cambridge which trades in the name of Cambridge University Press. The Edinburgh Building, United Kingdom (hereinafter referred to as the 'Syndicate') and its Associate in India which has published the low price edition of the book in question, M/s Foundation Books Private Ltd., i.e., the plaintiff No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Company'). The Syndicate has averred inter alias that it is a reputed publisher with an international standing and holds all rights in respect of the publication 'Advance Grammar in Use by Martin HEWINGS' (hereinafter referred to as the 'subject work').2. The plaintiff's have averred in the plaint as follows:-(a) that the aforesaid subject work has been prescribed and used in several institutions and universities all over the world and is inter ...

Modi Rubber Ltd. Vs. Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]85SCL85(Delhi)

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.C.M. No. 7560 of 2005:1. Allowed subject to all just exemptions. W.P. (C) No. 10284 of 2005:2. Rule D.B.3. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.4. The petitioner-company filed an application before the BIFR under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') on 4-2-2004. There are various proceedings pending between the petitioner and its secured as well as unsecured creditors where directions have been passed from time to time.5. The limited question which arises for consideration in the present petition is on account of a prayer made by the petitioner under the provisions of Sections 19A and 22(3) of the said Act to avail of the public offer issued on behalf of Holdcem Cements India (P.) Ltd. (HCIPL) for purchase of 23,10,000 equity shares of the face value of Rs. 10 each of Ambuja Cement Eastern Ltd. (ACEL) held by the petitioner, the shares he...

Sh. Hari Shankar and Sh. Vijai Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Both the appeals are filed common order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The brief facts of the case are that on 3.4.98 the officers of Revenue searched the premises of Shri Hari Shankar, appellant and 86 Kgs. of Chinese silk yarn was recovered from the premises which was seized on the reasonable belief that the yarn in question is smuggled in nature and liable for confiscation. The adjudicating authority confiscated the yarn and imposed penalties of Rs. 10,000/-on the appellants. The appellant filed appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalties to Rs. 5000/- each.3. The contention of the appellant is that they were engaged in twisting of raw silk yarn and they were got this silk yarn from Sh.Anil Mishra and Sh. Deepak Mishra and also from other persons and after twisting this yarn the same was supplied in the market. The contention is that some times the yarn was supplied by their customer for twisting purposes. The contention is that the raw silk ya...