Delhi Court December 2006 Judgments

Modern Steels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(212)ELT531TriDel

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the demand was confirmed after denying credit. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of steel ingots and billets and they are working under the Modvat scheme. The appellants were availing credit in respect of the duty paid on liquid gas which is used as input in the manufacture of finished goods. The supplier of the goods i.e. M/s. Inox Air Products Ltd. installed storage tank in appellants place and appellants were paying rent of those tanks as fixed facility charges. M/s. Inox Air Products were raising invoices regarding fixed facility on monthly basis and showing payment of duty. The appellants were taking credit of the duty paid on the basis of such invoices.2. The Revenue is of the view that the appellants are entitled for credit in respect of the inputs or manufactured goods. The fixed facility charges is only rental charge on storage tank. Therefo...

G.N. Rubber Tech. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The stay applications are in relation to penalties imposed on the appellants.3. The facts leading to the imposition of penalties are that Customs Duty free imports of raw materials were made for export production, in the name of Adarsh Industries. The fabrics made from the same were shown as supplied (deemed export) to appellant M/s. G.N. Rubber Tech Pvt. Ltd. These supplies were without payment of duty against CT-3 Certificate issued by M/s. G.N. Rubber Tech Pvt. Ltd. M/s. G.N. Rubber Tech Pvt. Ltd. also made payments for the fabrics so received. The receipt of the goods in M/s. G.N. Rubber Tech Pvt. Ltd. were also entered in the statutory records. While this was the position according to records, investigations revealed that the materials received duty free by Adarsh Industries were actually sold in the market without using them for production. M/s. G.N. Rubber Tech Pvt. Ltd. and the other appellants in the present proceedings played an important role in committing the fraud by i...

Mini Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby credit of Rs. 1,10,104/- was denied and penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed. The contention of the appellant is that in the show cause notice, the allegation is that the inputs on which the appellant availed credit, was not received by the appellants. The case of the Revenue is based on the report of RTO that shows that the vehicle numbers mentioned in the invoices were in respect of two wheelers or of Auto. It is also the case of the Revenue that the inputs which were cleared by M/s. Rajdeep Rolling Mills has no facility to manufacture the goods. The contention of the appellant is that the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand on the ground that inputs were not received by the appellants. The Commissioner (Appeals) further held that the inputs MS ingots are of no use to the appellants as appellants were undertaking the manufacture of capital goods like wiredrawing mill, etc. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirm...

Rice Auto Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is before us on a remand made by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana High Court by order dated 13.11.2006 made in Central Excise Appeal No. 55 of 2003, directing de novo consideration of the matter/contentions made by the party, while observing that the counsel appearing for both the sides were ad idem that the matter between the parties required re-consideration and that the Tribunal had not examined the matter in the right prospective.2. By the remand order of the Tribunal made on 12.12.2001, which has been set aside by the High Court, the Tribunal in paragraph 3 of the order upheld the contention of the assessee that under the provisions of Rule 57(1)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the inputs in respect of which the modvat credit had been allowed may be removed from factory "as such" for home consumption or export, subject to the condition that the duty of excise shall not be less than the amount of credit that was allowed in respect of such inputs. ...

Seagram India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus., Icd

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant seeks interim stay of the order made by the Commissioner on 20-6-06 confirming the demand of total sum of Rs. 40.37 crores being the amount of differential duty of customs in respect of goods of concentrates of alcoholic beverages (CAB) imported during the period from January 1995 to June, 2000 and July 2000 to May, 2001.2. This is the third round of litigation after the earlier two remands made by the Tribunal. The impugned order has been made pursuant to the remand order dated 29-6-05 2006 (197) E.L.T. 351 (Tribunal) by which this Tribunal decided the appeal on the basis of the applicability of Rule 6 of the Customs Rules for determination of transaction value and issued the following directions in paragraph 20 of the order: 20. From the above, it is clear that the valuation of the items in question should be re-done by using lowest transaction value of Findlaters for determining the price of 100 Pipers. Further, due adjustments towards quantity difference and retai...

Rivona Industries Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The first appellant M/s. Rivona Industries Ltd., Jaipur is a 100% EOU. It imported Stainless Steel Sheets without payment of Customs duty, upon an undertaking that the steel consignments so imported would be used for export production (cutlery). The duty involved is about Rs. 1.17 crores. It also received local materials, excise duty free, again for use in export production.3. Subsequent investigations by the Customs Authorities revealed that the consignments received duty free were disposed of in the market. It was also ascertained that some of the export consignments (cutlery) were lying uncleared at destination for long period. During investigation, the appellant's officers admitted to the disposal of the items in the market.4. The impugned order has demanded the duty evaded and imposed penalties on the appellant EOU as well as company officials namely Shri Y.K. Agarwal, M.D. (Rs. 25 lakhs) and Shri Ravindra Kachhava, Manager (Rs. 5 lakhs).5. The present stay applications seek w...

Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)108TTJ(Delhi)297

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 9th June, 2003 for the asst. yr. 2001-02, in the matter of order passed under Section 201 and Section 201(1A) of the IT Act, 1961, wherein following two grounds have been raised by the assessee: (1) That the CIT(A) without appreciating the facts of the case and on incorrect interpretation of law applicable has erred in confirming that tax at source should have been deducted on the initial exemption of Rs. 2,500 and cost of winning ticket while calculating TDS under Section 194BB. (2) That the CIT(A) was wrong to confirm the demand of Rs. 4,25,775 under Section 201(1) and interest of Rs. 40,085 under Section 201(1A). The same may be deleted.2. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, the Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. is engaged in development, promotion and conducting of horse races in Delhi. Its activities include inter alia the arranging of wagering...

Nivedita Sharma Vs. Bharti Tele Ventures and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. It is very sad and disheartening that in spite of there being lacs of consumers of mobile telephone services being rendered by Cellular Operators, there is hardly anyone who knows that he can take the service providers to task for breach of right to privacy and right to be not disturbed and those indulging in unsolicited commercial communications, SMSs, or telemarketing, with whom they have neither any acquaintance nor intimacy nor any business or official dealings, for creating nuisance and disturbance in their day-to-day work. 2. In our view, these consumers are either ignorant or indifferent or insensitive to their rights or are non-chalant as they prefer to suffer in silence, fume and fret and curse the service providers or the persons who indulge in such activities and send tremors of tension and bouts of blood pressure. 3. On the aforesaid premise, we treat this complaint as a complaint filed by the complainant on her behalf and on behalf of numerous ot...

Delhi Tourism and Transportation Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(112)ECC613

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant in respect of imposition of penalty of Rs. 31,367/- for default in payment of service tax during the month of May, 2003 to September, 2003.2. The relevant facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the business/profession of Air Travel Agent. It has been alleged that the appellant short paid the service tax amounting to Rs. 31,367/- which was paid on 5.11.2004 after receipt of the show cause notice dated 12.10.2004.3. Shri Y.K. Maghan, Manager (Finance) appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant is Public Sector Undertaking fully owned by the State Government of NCT of Delhi, They had been paying service tax towards services of tourism and air ticketing as well as outdoor catering etc. They were not aware about upward change in the service tax rates from 0.5% to 0.8% and 0.25% to 0.4% on tour operator and air ticketing services and the differential amount of tax of Rs. 31,367/- could not be deposited in time. ...

indus. Technical and Financial Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)7STR171

1. None appeared on behalf of the appellant. By letter dated 2.12.2006, the appellant requested to decide the appeal on merits in their absence on the basis of the available record. Heard the learned D.R.2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that "Scientific & Technical Consultancy services: were made taxable with effect from 16.7.2001. The appellant obtained registration from the department on 10.8.2001 for rendering the said services. On 22.1.2002, they deposited the service tax for the period August, 2001 to November, 2001 and for the month of August, 2002 it was paid on 26.9.2002. Show cause notice dated 29.1.2003 was issued proposing to impose penalty for default payment of tax. The adjudicating authority condoned delay of one day in respect of payment of service tax for the month of August, 2002 but he imposed penalty of Rs. 2,000/- for delayed payment for the period August, 2001 to November, 2001. The Commissioner of Central Excise reviewed the said adjudication ...