Delhi Court December 2006 Judgments

Jai Beverages (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(213)ELT567TriDel

2. The appellant, M/s. Jai Beverages Pvt. Ltd. filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the goods in question were confiscated and allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine on the ground that these goods were found excess in the factory of production and personal penalties were also imposed.3. The contention of the appellant is that they are engaged in the manufacture of aerated waters and the main concentrate supplied by M/s.Pepsico Ltd. and they were manufacturing Pepsi Foods Ltd. the contention is that on 31- 7-2001 duty was paid through Invoice No. 2349 and 33975 crates are to be removed to duty paid godown due to non-availablity of transport, the duty paid goods could not be removed to their duty paid godown, therefore, the duty paid goods be kept in the factory at a separate place and this fact was disclosed to the Revenue by their General Manager Sh. M.K. Jha in his statement. He has specifically mentioned that in respect of goods in question the duty has...

R and B Falcon Drilling Co. Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal of the assessee arises out of the order of Commissioner (Appeals)-I, Dehradun, passed on 14-9-2004. The corresponding order of assessment was made by the Addl. CIT, Range-I, Dehradun (hereinafter called 'the assessing officer'), under the provisions of Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 27-2-2004.2. The assessing officer found that the assessee received an aggregate sum of Rs. 1,65,64,444 from Cairn Energy India Pvt. Ltd. comprising of two amounts, namely, - (i) mobilization charges amounting to Rs. 60,45,694; and (ii) de-mobilization charges amounting to Rs. 1,05,18,750. It appears that the assessee offered the aforesaid amount for taxation, but at the time of assessment contended that de-mobilization charges amounting to Rs. 1,05,18,750 were not taxable in India as the same pertained to demobilization of the drilling rig from Bombay High to Sharjahan. In this connection, it was pointed out that a major part of demobilization work was done outside Indian te...

Anthony Phillip Witek Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)110ITD148(Delhi)

1. This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 21.11.2003 passed by the CIT(A), New Delhi for the assessment year 2002-03. In substance, all the grounds of appeal relate to the order confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in not allowing exemption claimed by the assessee Under Section 10(5B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Briefly stated facts are that on perusal of the return of income filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee was an employee of M/s Birla Tata AT & T Ltd. and had received salary from the said concern. In the return of income the assessee had claimed status Under Section 10(5B) of the Act and accordingly tax borne by the employer for the assessee had not been grossed up and added to the income of the assessee as tax perquisites.According to the assessee he is a technician and was not a resident in India in any of the four financial years immediately preceding the financial year in which he arrived in India and ...

Dcm Data Systems Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) made on 6.10.2004, setting aside the order-in-original dated 17.5.2004 and directing the adjudicating authority to first finalize the provisional assessment in accordance with the earlier directions given on 22.5.2001 by the Appellate Commissioner and then to decide the fate of refundable amount in terms of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the proviso attached thereto. The appeal is directed mainly against the direction of the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the fate of refundable claim in terms of the provisions of Sub-section (2) and the proviso attached thereto, on the ground that the said provision was inapplicable where provisional assessment was finalized under Rule 9B.2. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of electronic goods (computers and parts thereof) and on 11.3.2003, it filed a refund claim of Rs. 5,84,606/-. Earlier, it had filed...

South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant is manufacturing excisable goods falling under Chapter 84 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. Show cause notices were issued to the appellant proposing denial of the benefit of exemption under notification No. 63/95 dated 16^thMarch, 1995 on the ground that the workshop was not situated within the precincts of the mines of the appellant.2. The Commissioner on the basis of the material on record held that the appellant was not eligible to the exemption from central excise duty under the said notification in respect of the goods manufactured and cleared from the workshop, which was registered under the Factories Act 1948. In the process, the Commissioner relied upon the decision rendered in the appellant's own case by the Tribunal and reported in 2001 (127) E.L.T. 554 (Tri. - Del.) in which the Tribunal, on the basis of the provisions of Section 2 (m) (ii) of the Factories Act which defined 'factory' by excluding a mine subject to the operation ...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. India Glycols Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. None appeared on behalf of the respondent in spite of notice. The Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the credit was allowed in respect of rupture disk, rubber sheet and aluminium sheet. The contention of the Revenue is that rupture disk is a safety device installed in the process vessels, therefore, is not entitled for the credit, in respect of rubber sheets and aluminium sheets also, the contention is that these are not used with machine and equipment for producing or processing of any goods, therefore, are not entitled for credit as capital goods.3. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) after going through the factual position held that rupture disk is a safety device installed in the process vessels of their plant to prevent explosions, therefore, it is used as component of the plant without which the manufacturing process could not be undertaken. In respect of the rubber sheet and aluminium sheet also held that aluminium sheet is used in the pipeline ...

Cce Vs. Kirpal Castings Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 18.10.2004 whereby the adjudication order was set aside and the appeal of the respondents was allowed.2. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots classifiable under sub-heading 7206.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. A Show Cause Notice dated 26/27.10.1994 was issued alleging that the respondents clandestinely removed more than one consignment of the finished goods from their factory on one GP-I without discharging duty liability. Vide adjudication order dated 17.06.2006. The demand of duty of Rs. 67,385 /- was confirmed and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order and observed that only the entries of trucks in the movement register by another department i.e Sales Tax Department of Haryana Government without the name of the consignor and the consignee and other corroborative evidences, cannot be considered as the clandestine removal o...

Speedways Rubber Company Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appellant filed this appeal whereby credit of Rs. 2,01,305/- and credit of Rs. 25,766/- and credit of Rs. 5,328/- was denied to the appellant and imposition of penalty of Rs. 50,000/-.3. The contention of the appellant is that Cenvat credit of Rs. 2,01,305/- was denied on the ground that this credit is in respect of Additional Excise duty which can be utilized for the payment of AED(GSI). During the period in dispute, i.e. 1st April 2001 to Sep.2001, the appellant availed the credit of AED(GSI) and utilized the same towards payment of Special Excise Duty. The contention of the appellant is that the Central Excise Credit Rules, 2004 (sic) (Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004) provides that credit of Additional Duty of Excise leviable under Section 3 of Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 paid on 1st April 2000 may be utilized towards payment of duty of excise leviable under First Schedule or Second Schedule of Excise Tariff Act. The contention is that in vi...

M.L. Kararwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(2)SLJ261CAT

1. In this O.A. the applicant has ought quashing and setting aside of the impugned orders of the respondents dated 16.01.2006 and 06.07.2006 whereby he has been compulsorily retired. The applicant has also requested for interim relief to continue to occupy the Government accommodation on normal licence fee till the final disposal of the O.A.2. This Tribunal, in its order dated 31.08.2006, disposed of the applicant's request for interim relief by directing the authorities to consider sympathetically the prayer of the prayer of the applicant.3. The bare facts of the case, comprising several rounds of litigation, are that the applicant joined the then Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Police Service as Grade-II Officer in 1982. On 26.10.1990, applicant, while posted as Assistant Commissioner of Police, was issued with Charge-Memo under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The Commissioner of Departmental Inquiries, in his Enquiry Report dated 08.01.1992, gave a finding that no charge ...

Cce Vs. Bombay Snuff Co. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(211)ELT423TriDel

1. The instant appeals were filed by the Revenue against the impugned order wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order sanctioning refunds and the appeals filed by the Department were rejected.2. In this case, the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of snuff. They filed four refund claims on the ground that the Government of Maharashtra imposed Luxury Tax; the Luxury Tax is admissible deduction under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944; and the Luxury Tax was paid by the respondents subsequent to the clearance of goods as the State Government did not consider their representation.They have also paid the duty on the amount of Luxury Tax. The respondents did not recover the Luxury Tax from their customers. Hence, the respondents filed the refund claims of the duty paid on Luxury Tax as admissible deduction under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund claims and allowed the credit of the said in its C...