Delhi Court August 2005 Judgments

Max India Ltd. (Maxmet Division) Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT246TriDel

1. Heard both sides. The appellants filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, whereby a demand of Rs. 77,13,896/- was confirmed under Rule 12 of Cenvat Credit Rules and imposed penalty of Rs. 20 Lakh under Rule 13 of the Cenvat Credit Rules.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of metallised films and were availing the facility of the Cenvat credit. The appellants are also undertaking the process of metallization of films received from the other manufacturer on job-work basis. Such metallised films were cleared without payment of duty under the provisions of Notification No. 214/86-C.E., dated 25-3-1986 under the cover of job-work challans. The appellants are also availing the Cenvat credit in respect of the inputs which are used in the processing of metallised films which were manufactured on job-work basis. In respect of the inputs on which Cenvat credit has been taken by the appella...

Cawnpore Sugar Works Ltd. Vs. Appellate Authority for Industrial and F ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]129CompCas778(Delhi); 123(2005)DLT333

Vijender Jain, J.1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the AAIFR, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. Ms.Maneesha Dhir, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order passed on 18.6.2003 by BIFR has erroneously sanctioned a scheme in terms of Section 18(2)(i) read with Section 18(11) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, (SICA) based upon the take over of 2 units of the petitioner company situated at Marhowrah and Padrauna along with the distillery and RMU estate by respondent JHV Distillery and Sugar Mills Ltd., a new company incorporated by JHV Sugars Ltd.2. It was contended that the scheme has been sanctioned in utter disregard of law and said scheme would cause wrongful enrichment to respondent at the cost of the petitioner company as also its creditors/statutory authorities and workers. It was also contended that the scheme as sanctioned was bad as the same is based upon the acquisition of the assets of two units of the p...

H.P. Labellette India (India) Private Ltd. Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi26; 123(2005)DLT218; 2005(84)DRJ153

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Prayer made in the petition is to quash the bills raised by Delhi Vidyut Board (Annexure IX A) and to issue a mandamus to it to treat the petitioner as a consumer falling under SIP category.2. Backdrop of the facts which have led to the filing of the petition is that the petitioner obtained an electricity connection from the respondent having a sanctioned load of 87.9 KW.3. As per tariff, loads up to 100 KW are treated as small industrial power (SIP) and loads above 100 KW are treated as the large industrial power (LIP). Tariff applicable is higher in the later category. 4. According to the petitioner, it was desirous of expanding. It needed more power. In December,1995 it applied to the respondent for additional load by increasing the same by another 61 KW. On 25.1.1996, petitioner deposited Rs. 89,736/- with the respondent as the said sum was worked out by the respondent for changing the existing meter and replacing the same with a meter of higher rating as al...

Ajay Kumar Bhatnagar and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 123(2005)DLT242

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. In these Petitions we are concerned with applications for retention of Government accommodation owing to the retirement of the allotted during the existing eligibility of the retirees' ward for grant of Government accommodation. The applications in these petitions are all post May, 1999. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the Petitioners on Office Memorandum dated 12.10.1990 in which it was possible to retain Government accommodation from the general pool, even though the next entitlement (of the ward) is from the departmental pool and vice-versa. Under the 1990 Office Memorandum the retention was possible in certain circumstances. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents submit in unison that the Office Memorandum dated 12.10.1990 is no longer in vogue after the coming into operation of Office Memorandum dated 20th May, 1999, Clause 2(i) of which reads as follows:When a Govt. servant, who is allottee of general pool accommodation, retires from se...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Siel Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]284ITR381(Delhi)

ORDER1. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the order under challenge. The Tribunal had, it appears, disposed of the appeal on merits ex parte in the absence of the assessed vide order dt. 27th Feb., 2003. An application was thereafter filed seeking recall of the said order in what was described as a miscellaneous application under Section 254(2) of the IT Act. The Tribunal has, by the order impugned in this appeal, allowed the said application and recalled the order of dismissal passed by it. The said order dt. 27th Feb., 2003 is clearly referable to Rule 24 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, which empowers the Tribunal to dispose of an appeal on merits in the absence of the appellant or its Authorised Representative. The proviso to the said rule, however, permits the Tribunal to recall any such order of disposal if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the non-appearance of the appellant when the matter was called on for hearing. This is precisely what has...

Urals Heavy Machine Building Vs. Designated Authority/Ministry

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT194TriDel

1. The appellant Urals Heavy Machine Building Plant, JSC, an exporter from Russia has preferred this appeal against the Final Findings dated 2.7.2003 of the designated authority and the Notification No. 127/03 dated 14.8.03 imposing anti-dumping duty under Section 9A(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, read with rules 18 and 20 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, on "induction hardened forged steel rolls" of the sizes above 300 mm and up to 605 mm diameter covered under Tariff Item 8455.30.00 of schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, imported into India from Russia, at the rate equal to the difference between the amount of US $ 2762.79 PMT and the landed value of the goods, w.e.f. 1.1.2003 being the date from which the provisional anti-dumping duty was earlier imposed.2. On receiving an application from M/s. Gontermann-Peipers (India) for and on behalf of domestic indu...

Agarwal Color Lab Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)STR41

1. The dispute is as to whether abatement has to be allowed to the appellant, towards the cost of photographic paper and chemicals, while subjecting the photography services rendered by the appellant to service tax.3. The submission of the learned DR is that in rendering photography service, there is no separate sale of chemical on photographic paper.4. Prima facie learned DR would appear to be correct. There could be no picture without paper. The appellant is directed to deposit the service tax demanded within a period of six weeks from today. Upon deposit of that amount, there will be waiver of pre-deposit of penalty and stay of recovery. Matter to come up for reporting compliance on 3rd October, 2005....

Sudarshan Steels Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the imposition of the penalty on the appellants on the ground that the appellant, being a registered dealer had not brought the duty paid goods in their registered premises before selling the same to their customers an action which has violated the provisions of the law.2. The Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants is undoubtedly a registered dealer and he has purchased the duty paid goods for the trading. The appellant has sold these goods in the year 1997 to their customers. He also submits that their customers have given a statement that the appellants have in fact given the dealers invoice as coils'. He further submits that the appellants have been filing the returns to the authorities regularly and hence the Show Cause Notice issued to them on 7-3-2002 for the violation of the provisions, if any, is time barred. He also states that the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q(1)(bbb) read with Rule ...

Pratap Rajasthan Spl Steel Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of steel products. It collected sales tax from its buyers upon sale of his produce. The said amounts collected as sales tax were not included in the assessable value while assessing the goods to Central Excise duty, on the ground that taxes payable remained excluded under proviso to Section 4(4)(d)(2). Under the impugned orders that claim of the appellant remains denied. It has been held that since the amounts collected as sales tax had not been deposited with the state Government, they were not sales tax payable, and are to be included in the assessable value for the purpose of excise duty.2. The Contention of the appellant is that the amounts remain as sales tax and dispute only is whether the appellant is entitled to retain them under the incentive scheme or it is required to be deposited with the State Government. The learned Counsel submits that in either case, the amount is sales tax and such a tax is required to be excluded while determining t...

Pnp Castings (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 30.8.2004, dismissing its appeal and upholding the order of the Joint Commissioner, Central Excise, Lucknow, made no 30.5.2003 confiscating the seized goods under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001, giving option to the appellant to redeem them on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- and imposing a penalty of Rs. 29,623/- under Rule 25 read with Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of CI Castings falling under sub-heading 7325.10 of the Schedule to the Tariff Act. A team of the Central Excise Officers visited the manufacturing premises of the appellant on 30.8.2001 and on physical verification of the records, they found stock in excess and unaccounted for in daily stock register, as noted down in the panchnama, which was prepared on the spot. The verification was done in the presence of the Production Manager and authorized signatory of the ...