Delhi Court August 2005 Judgments

Creative Dyeing and Printing Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(103)ECC136

1. In this appeal, the appellants have contested the correctness of the part of the impugned order relating to the demand of interest from them.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants during the period in dispute opted to work under the Compound Levy Procedure from 1.5.2001. They submitted an application to avail special procedure relating to processed textile fabrics from that date by alleging that they were eligible for the said procedure as the original value of plant and machinery did not exceed Rs. 3 crores. They accordingly paid the duty under the Compound Levy Scheme, but again from 1st September reverted to the Adv. basis for having purchased a merceriser and as a result thereof, the value of their plant and machinery exceeded Rs. 3 crores. However, on verification, it revealed that they were not entitled to avail the Compound Levy facility as the value of the plant and machinery was more than Rs. 3 crores as on 1st March, 2001. They were required to pay the diffe...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Narmada Gilatine Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT104TriDel

2. The Revenue filed this application for condoning the delay of 56 days.3. The only contention of the Revenue is that four Commissioners (Appeals) have passed a large number of during the past period. The number of orders passed by the Commissioners of Appeal during the months of July to December, 2004 is 725 and due to rush of work the appeal could not be filed within the period of limitation.4. I find that the Tribunal has power to condone the delay in filing the appeal on showing reason that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the period of limitation. The only reason i.e. rush of work cannot be said to be sufficient cause for not filing appeal within the period of limitation. Therefore, the applications for condoning the delay are dismissed, consequently appeals are also dismissed. The cross-objections are also dismissed....

Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of chemical products. Acetic anhydride gets manufactured during the production of chemicals. The present appeal is in regard to refund/56A claim of the appellant in regard to acetic anhydride so manufactured and captively consumed during the period 17-3-85 to 28-2-86. Refund application was filed on 3-3-87. Under the impugned order, the refund application remains rejected on the ground of limitation and merits.2. Developments leading to the filing of the refund application may be recalled. Till 17-3-85, it was classifiable under T.I, 68 and was exempt from duty when captively consumed. From that date, classification shifted to T.L 14AAA. The appellant filed a classification list which was approved on 29th March 1985. The classification list had indicated classification under T.I. 14AAA and duty rate of 15%. Even before the classification list was approved, the appellant wrote a letter dated 26-3-85 to the Assistant Collector, Moradabad with the subje...

Hexacom India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)STR38

2. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty. The amount of Service Tax has already been deposited by the applicant. In this case the benefit of Service Tax credit has been denied on the ground that input service and output services do not fall under the same category.3. The contention of the applicant is that the applicant had taken on lease the telephone lines of BSNL, which is a registered assessee under Service Tax under the category of telephone services. The applicant is regularly paying Service Tax on the lease lines and BSNL is continuously charging it from the applicant in respect of the telephone services provided by them and the applicants are also providing telephone services, therefore, input and output services fall under the same category. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as the amount of Service Tax has already been deposited, the pre-deposit of whole of the penalty is waived for hearing of the appeal. The stay pet...

National Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of fertilizer. The issue in these appeals is the eligibility for exemption (under Notification No. 81/75) in respect of sulphuric acid used in the demineralisation of water in the course of manufacture of fertilizer. The lower authorities rejected their claim on the ground that sulphuric acid is not used directly in the manufacture of fertilizer while passing that order, they were relying on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-operative Ltd. 1991 (32) ECR 468.2. the submission of the learned Counsel is that the aforesaid order of the Tribunal remains overruled by the Supreme Court with the following observations: ...The water treatment, steam generation and inert gas generation plants are part and parcel of the composite process that produces as its end product urea, which is fertilizer. These off-site plants are part of the process of the manufacture of urea. There is no good reason why the exemption should be ...

Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT332TriDel

1. Heard both sides and perused the record. The applications are for recall of our order dated 10-5-2005, dismissing the Stay Application No. E/713/2005 in Appeal No. E/1015/2005. The present applications point out that the appellant has not been served notice of hearing and that is the reason for their failure to be present. Learned Senior Counsel submits that Tribunal is competent to recall the order passed in a case where party had not been served - Budhian Swain and Ors.]. Learned DR points out that it is well settled that Tribunal cannot review its own order and submits that since the earlier order was passed on merits as well it cannot be recalled.2. We accept the applications for recall of the order since the same had been passed without notice to the appellant and proceed to consider the stay application afresh. Duty in the present case is in regard to an EOU and the demand has been made on the basis that the EOU has ceased to be so. From the papers placed before us now, it is...

Sriganganagar Bottling Co. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the refund claim of the appellant was rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment.3. The contention of the appellant is that they made import of capital goods along with spare parts and the spare parts were separately assessed and the appellant paid duty and also challenged the assessment order. The matter went up to the Tribunal and the Tribunal set aside the assessment order whereby the spare parts are separately assessed.The appellant filed refund claim in respect of the excess duty paid under Section 27 of the Customs Act. The refund was rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment.4. The contention of the appellant is that the principles of unjust enrichment are not applicable in the case of capital goods. The appellant submitted that the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Solar Pesticide Pvt. Ltd. is in respect of the raw material which is ca...

Vanaik Investors Ltd. Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)5SOT591(Delhi)

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 20-1-2005 of the Commissioner (Appeals)-XX, New Delhi. In this appeal, the assessee has challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the order of the assessing officer imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The facts and circumstances under which penalty was levied by the assessing officer and confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) are as follows : The assessee is a company. It owned 8,150 equity shares of Vardhaman Spinning & General Mills Ltd., which had been acquired prior to 1-4-1981. It held the said shares by way of investment and not as stock-in-trade. These shares were sold during the financial year relevant to assessment year under appeal and the Capital Gain thereon had been computed and shown in the return by calculating indexed cost after taking into account the fair market value as on 1-4-1981 at Rs. 52.25 per share. During the year 1982, the assessee received 8, 150 bonus shares...

S.P. Pandey Vs. Mcd

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 122(2005)DLT529; 2005(83)DRJ643

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.2. The dispute which arose in the present writ petition relates to the valuation of the petitioner's property situated at 177, Sukhdev Vihar. New Delhi-11025(in short the `said property') which was originally constructed to the extent of 2357.60 sq. ft. on the ground and first floor in 1979 and thereafter added upon in the year 1999 by 2858 sq. ft., on the 1st and 2nd Floor. The challenge by the present writ petition is to the order of learned Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 5th April, 2004 passed in HTA. No. 56/03 (hereinafter referred to as the `appellate Court'). 3. The Joint Assessor & Collector of the respondent/Corporation (in short `the Assessing Authority') passed the order dated 5th March, 2003, amending the assessment list for the year 2001-02 in respect of the petitioner/asseesee's property at 177, Sukhdev Vihar which led to an appeal by the pet...

Shri Dilbagh Singh Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 123(2005)DLT318; 2005(84)DRJ208; [2005(107)FLR1106]; (2006)ILLJ480Del

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The claim in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for a direction to the respondent Nos 1 and 2 (hereafter 'DTC') setting aside an order of premature retirement, passed against the petitioner, due to his contracting an injury while on duty, as a driver with the DTC. A decision of the third respondent (hereafter 'Chief Commissioner') declining relief under provisions of the Persons with Disabilities ( Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereafter called 'the Act'), has been questioned.2. The petitioner was recruited as a driver, by the DTC in 1983. He continued in its services, and worked in that capacity, when, on 1-10-1991, as he was driving a bus on route from Delhi to Balaji, the vehicle was intercepted, surrounded by an irate mob in Oranda village, and not allowed to proceed further. The bus contained 60 passengers, who were forced to get down. The mob pelted stones, caused damage to it, ...