Delhi Court January 2006 Judgments

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. S.S. Ahluwalia

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT73; 2006(87)DRJ171

Vijender Jain, J.1. This appeal has been filed impugning the order dated 20.12.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) Nos. 637/96, 2169/97 and 638/96. 2. The respondent Shri S.S.Ahluwalia served the Army as well as Central Reserve Police Force for 25 years, 2 months and 7 days. On 15.3.93 he applied for voluntary retirement and in this regard gave notice under Rule 43(d) of CRPF Rules, 1955. His request for voluntary retirement was not acceded to and consequently the same was rejected by the appellant on 13.7.93. The respondent made representations dated 30.7.1993 and 10.8.1993 for reconsideration of his request for voluntary retirement. His request for reconsideration did find favor with the appellant on 23.2.94 but it was not without pre-condition, in as much as, he was informed that proceedings for major penalty would be initiated against him notwithstanding acceptance of his request for voluntary retirement. At this stage it will be relevant to notice that i...

Motilal Nehru National Institute Vs. C.C.E.

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 demand of Service Tax was confirmed.3. The demand of Service Tax was confirmed treating the appellant has consulting engineer as they are providing to various departments design consultancy, consultancy cum testing and testing of materials.4. The contention of the appellant is that the demand was confirmed after taking into consideration the consolidated entry in their balance sheet where income from technical consultancy service was shown. The contention is that the appellant during the period in dispute i.e.1988-99, 2002-03 had not provided any consultancy service during this period they are simply tested and analyzed various materials. The test undertaken were such as soil testing of road under construction, soil investigation for building, testing of TMT bars, testing of reinforcement steel etc. Mere testing of a material to find out their physical properties does not amount...

Deepak Fertilizers and Petrochem Vs. the Designated Authority Dg of La ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT140; 2006(88)DRJ70; 2006(203)ELT370(Del)

Markandeya Katju, C.J. 1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 23rd November, 2005. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.2. By way of a writ petition, the appellant challenged the recommendation of the Designated Authority dated 19th March, 2004 made under the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995.3. The learned Single Judge held that an appeal is provided against the said order to the CESTAT under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.4. In our opinion, this view is not correct. An appeal under Section 9C of the Act lies only against the final order and not against a mere recommendation. The final order is an order under Section 9A of the Act by the Central Government imposing or not imposing Anti Dumping Duty. The Designated Authority under Rule 3 only assists the Central Government in making ...

Rakesh @ Kake Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi (State)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006CriLJ844; 127(2006)DLT363; 2006(86)DRJ762

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Appellant-Rakesh @ Kake by this appeal assails the impugned judgment dated 20th January, 2004 and order of sentence dated 29th January, 2004. The appellant was convicted for the offences under section 376(2)(g) IPC, 452 IPC and 506(2) IPC. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, SI for three months for the offence under section 376(2)(g) IPC. For the offence under section 452 IPC, appellant was sentenced to RI for three years and a fine of Rs.500/- and in default, SI for one month. For the offence under section 506(2) IPC, appellant was sentenced to three years RI and a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, SI for one month. The above sentences are to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case, in brief, before the trial court was that the appellant carrying a screw driver along with his companion one Sunil, trespassed into the house of the prosecutrix-`R', at about 10 AM on 15th January, 1999...

Vardhman Spg. and Gen Mills Unit-i Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)10STR109

1. All these appeals and stay applications raised the same question.Even though the matter is posted today before us for consideration of the stay applications, we have heard both sides at length and are of the opinion that appeals themselves are required to be disposed of.Accordingly, after dispensing with the requirements of pre-deposit, we are taking up the appeals themselves for consideration.2. The appellants are manufacturing yarn, both from cotton and polyester. They are entitled to and take, MODVAT credit in respect of inputs and capital goods. The appellants were treating their MODVAT account as one and using credit in that account for discharging duty liability for cotton and polyester verie-ties of yarn, irrespective from which source the MODVAT credit was obtained. Under the impugned order, Commissioner has held that input credit accruing in regard to inputs for cotton yarn could be utilized only for discharge duty on the cotton yarn. Similar view has been taken in regard ...

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Amritsar Swadeshi Woollen Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. It was argued that the respondent had taken a credit of Rs. 11,631/- on the basis of original invoice. It was pleaded that since the appellants had not approached the Asstt. Commissioner, regarding loss of duplicate copy of the invoice, therefore, they are not entitled for Modvat credit and penalty has been correctly imposed on them. The order of the Commissioner is, therefore, allowing the credit is not in order.3. It was argued for the respondent that their credit relates to October, 1999. On 1-3-97 by Notification No. 6/97-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-3-97, Sub-rule (6) of Rule 57G was amended to the effect that "if duplicate copy of the invoice has been lost in transit, subject to satisfaction of the Asstt. Commissioner, that the inputs have been received in his factory and duty was paid on such inputs, then a manufacturer may take credit on inputs received". The only requirement for satisfaction of the Asstt. Commissioner was that the goods have been received in the factory and duty w...

J.K. Transport Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the demand of service tax has been confirmed as appellants were providing Cargo Handling Services. The definition of Cargo Handling Services provided under Section 65(23) of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 is as under : Cargo Handling Service" means loading, unloading, packing or unpacking of cargo including cargo handling services provided for freight in special containers or for non-containerised freight service provided by a container freight terminal or any other freight terminal for all modes of transport and cargo handling services incidental to freight but does not included handling of export cargo or passenger baggage or mere transportation of goods.2. The only contention is of the appellants is that they are not covered under the definition of Cargo Handling Services in view of the Central Board of Excise and Customs Circular F. No. B/1/2002-TRU, dated 1-8-2002. We have...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Spiced Communication (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the appeal filed by the respondents in respect of the amount of Service tax adjustment under Rule 6(3) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 allowed on merits as well as on limitation.3. The respondents are provider of cellular phone services and were charging Service tax from their customers. The respondents are also paying charges along with the Service tax to DOT junction links provided by the DOT. On coming to know that respondents are not liable to pay any Service tax in respect of junction links to DOT. The respondent filed necessary return on 24-10-2002 for the period April, 2002 to September, 2002 whereby an amount of Rs. 6,60,720/- was shown to be adjusted in terms of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, 1994. The respondents filed another return dated 22-10-99 for the period April 1999 to September, 1999 showing adjustment of the Service tax paid to the DOT. Revenue issued two ...

Sgb Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. SGB Engineering Pvt. Ltd. against the Order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 4-3-2004. In this case which deals with non-accountal of finished goods, the Commissioner (Appeals) made the following observations : 5.1 I have considered the matter. The plea made by the appellant that the goods seized were in unfinished stage is not supported by any evidence. The stock taking was conducted by the Officers before the panchas as well as the representative of the appellant Shri Rajesh Kaushik. None of them have taken any plea at the time of stock taking that these goods were in unfinished stage. The appellant has placed reliance on their letter dated 17-5-2001 supposedly written to the Director General, Central Excise Intelligence, New Delhi, retracting the statement of Sh. Rajesh Kaushik and also mentioning that the goods seized were in semi-finished condition. On perusal of photocopy of the letter submitted by the appellant, 1 find that the same is undated ...

Gates India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against the duty demand at the rate of 15% in regard to imports earned out by the appellants under Biil of Entries No. 112858 and 112806 both dated 11.11.1997 Both the Bill of Entries were filed under the EPCG Scheme and were provisionally assessed, at the rate of 10%. However, in the subsequent; orders it has been held that correct rate of duty would be 15%.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that, even though the inputs were imported under the EPCG issued under policy for the period 1992-97 (when the rate of duty was 15%, since the clearance of the goods from. Customs took place subsequent to DGFT's Notification. No. 3/1997-2002 dated 11.4.1997 and Notification NO.6/1997 dated 9.6.1997, rate of -: Custom duty applicable would be 10%.The learned Counsel of the appellant as contended that Notification No.3/1997-2002 dated 11.4.. 1997 specifically mentioned EPCG licenses issued on or before 31.3.1997 (cases like appellant) with conce...