Delhi Court January 2006 Judgments

Ranjan Polyesters Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(107)ECC450

1. This stay application is filed for staying recovery of duty of Rs. 3,45,198/- and penalty of Rs. 10,000/ 2. It was argued for the applicants that with effect from 1.4.2003, tariff structure for textile was changed and Rule 9A was introduced in CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002. The applicants were manufacturing polyester texturized yarn out 6 of POY received by them as inputs. They have taken credit of duty paid on POY lying in stock or contained in texturized yarn lying in their factory as on 31.3.03. The department has objected that they are not eligible for credit of duty paid on POY in case of dyed and twisted yarn manufactured from duty paid texturized yarn. Therefore, they have taken excess credit which has been demanded by the lower authorities. It was argued that they are eligible for taking credit of duty paid on POY. They have already pre-deposited Rs. 85,000/- under PLA Entry No. 2 dated 25.8.2005. This may be treated as sufficient compliance of Section 35-F of the Central Excis...

indica Chemicals (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The issue in this appeal is in respect of assessable value of 'Perlite Powder' manufactured by the appellants in terms of Section 4(1) of the Central Excise Act.3. Appellants claimed the abatement in respect of the cost of packing in durable and returnable bags at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per M.T.Revenue while determining the value of assessable value of the goods allowed only the abatement at the rate of Rs. 5/- per bag in view of the terms of the contract between the appellant and its customer regarding durable and returnable bags. Customer has to pay Rs. 5/- per bag in case the bag is not returned. Further the Revenue allowed deduction in actual transportation charge which was incurred by the appellants and the differential amount of transportation charge paid and received from the customer was added the assessable value of the goods.4. In respect of abatement of packing in durable and re...

Jubilant Organosys Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(106)ECC136

1. M/s Jubilant Organosys Ltd., formerly M/s Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd., have factories manufacturing chemicals located at different places including one at Gajraula. The dispute relates to confirmation w liability of service tax, between April 1999 and August 2002 (16.08.2002), as in Commissioner (Appeals)'s order dated 28.04.2005 which has confirmed the liability of service.2. On 16.08,2002, Service Tax Rules 1994 underwent certain far-reaching amendments, A new Clause (iv) came to occupy in the Service Tax Rules 1994 in Clause (d) Sub rule 1 of Rule 2 : (iv) In relation to any taxable service provided by a person who is a non resident or he is from outside India, does not have any office in India, the person receiving taxable service in India.This charge heralded a novel concept in fiscal procedures by shifting the conventional burden of tax liability from the shoulders of a (foreign) service-provider to the (local) service recipient.3. The show cause notice dated 04.05.2004, which...

Sheel Chand Agroils Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides. Appellant filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Noida.Appellant made import of the Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil (Vanaspati). A sample was drawn from the vegetable oil imported by the appellant as the vegetable oil is meant for human consumption. The sample was sent to Central Food Laboratory (CFL), Ghaziabad and as per the test report, the melting point of the vegetable oil in question was 42.5C which is beyond the limit prescribed under the procedure of Food Adulteration Act. As the imported vegetable oil sent to CFL, was found adulterated, the adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and imposed penalty on the appellant. Appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal on 13.7.2005 remanded back to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh after re-testing of the sample. As per the remand order, the same was sent for retesting to CFL, Ghaziabad and according to the report of the CFL, the melting...

Gail Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appeal is directed against the denial of refund claim of about Rs. 1.3 lakhs, on the ground of unjust enrichment. Commissioner (Appeals) has noted in the order that the duty liability has been passed on by the appellant in the invoice issued at the time of sale to buyer and therefore, the amount is not refundable.2. Appellant is a Public Sector Undertaking, manufacturing LPG and distributing the same through other Public Sector Undertakings namely, IOC and BPCL. Duty in question is in regard to LPG cleared by the appellant on 22nd and 23rd November 2000. The claim is on the ground that, price of LPG had been reduced by the Govt. w.e.f. 22.11.2000; but the appellant came to know of the reduction only on 24.11.2000. In the meantime, the LPG was cleared after discharging duty at the earlier (higher) price. On the question of passing on, the submission is that invoices were raised at the higher amount (including duty) at the time of removal of the goods to the oil companies, but pa...

Super Electronics Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Appellant is a manufacturer of CD music player. The present appeal is directed against a differential duty demand of about Rs. 1.4 lakhs in regard to 206 pieces of model 'TMC-400' cleared by the appellant during the period December 1994 and January 1995. The differential duty demand has been made on the ground that, according to the price declaration filed by the appellant before excise authorities, the normal price of a set was Rs. 8,333/-while the 206 pieces in question were cleared after payment of duty on a price of Rs. 5,000/- per set.2. The explanation of the appellant all along was that the 206 pieces were accumulated stock and had some defects and were therefore sold to M/s Alpine Industries, a dealer, at the agreed price of Rs. 5,000/-.This explanation of the appellant was not accepted by the revenue partly for the reason that in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, value is the "normal price" at which "such goods" were sold and also that proof was not produced ab...

Shri Y. Jung Mohil Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Initially OA No. 2786/1997 was dismissed on merits vide order dated 13.08.1998 against which Writ Petition No. 5914 of 1998 was preferred by the applicant. The said Writ Petition was heard along with two other connected Writ Petitions No. 5152 and 5461 of 1998 and since the question of facts and law involved therein had been similar, the same was disposed of by a common order dated 09.04.2002 with the following observations: xxxxx. Keeping in view the fact that neither the factual aspect nor the effect of non-compliance of Rule 19(2)(a) of CCS (Pension) Rules, if any, had not been taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the matter requires afresh consideration by the learned Tribunal. Before the learned Tribunal, if the parties so desire, may also file an application for amendment questioning the order passed by the Central Government which may be considered by it on its own merits. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we wou...

Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. Vijay Hosiery Co. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2006)BC515; 129(2006)DLT50

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This application has been moved by the defendant No.4 (Gulf Air), under Order VII Rule 11 for rejection of the Plaint on two grounds:-(1) The plaint does not disclose any cause of action as against the defendant No.4.(2) The suit as against defendant No.4 is not maintainable as being time barred.The Back ground:2. The plaint was originally filed at Ludhiana on 1.10.1993. It was numbered as S. No. 458/1993. The defendant No.4 (Gulf Air) had filed an application, inter alia, objecting to the plaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and there being no cause of action disclosed against it. That application was dismissed by the Court at Ludhiana. The defendant No.4 preferred a Civil Revision before the Punjab and Haryana High Court which decided the same in favor of the Defendant No.4 on 7.9.1999. In other words, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the Court at Ludhiana did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Being aggrieved thereby, the pla...

Pt. Munshi Ram and Associates (P) Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(1)ARBLR137(Delhi); 128(2006)DLT619

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.IA No. 1919/1996 (Under Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940)1. The petitioner contractor was awarded the work of construction of 590 dwelling units under the SFS Scheme of DDA in Sector C Pocket V, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi in pursuance to Agreement No. 7/EE/SWD-6/87-88. Some disputes arose between the parties in respect of execution of the work under the agreement and in terms of clause 25 of the General Conditions of Contract, the Engineer Member of the DDA vide letter dated 13.4.1993 appointed Mr. C. Rama Rao as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. The Sole Arbitrator entered upon reference and made and published the award dated 30.9.1995. The respondent DDA aggrieved by the same has filed these objections.2. Learned counsel for the respondent initially sought to argue the various grounds in the objections but could not seriously dispute the proposition that it is not within the jurisdiction of this court under Sectio...

Hans Construction Company Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(1)ARBLR151(Delhi); 127(2006)DLT224; 2006(86)DRJ767

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The award in this case was made on 06.12.1999. Under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 a notice is required to be given to the parties with regard to the filing of the award in the court. After the making of the award, the same was filed in court and a notice was issued by this court in the usual manner in which such notices go. A copy of that notice is annexed as Annexure-A-1 filed with the objections filed by the respondent/objector. It is an admitted position that the notice which was sent by this court was served on the respondent / objector on 21.02.2000. The notice was addressed to the very same person who was a party in the arbitration proceedings which culminated in the impugned award. The objections, however, have been filed on 20.04.2000. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the objections cannot be looked into as the same are beyond time, i.e., beyond the period of 30 days prescribed under Article 119 (b) of the Schedule to th...