Delhi Court February 2006 Judgments

C.C.E. Vs. Cnc Commercial Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Revenue is in appeal challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) whereunder he quashed the demand of Rs. 56,427/-. The said demand had arisen under Rule 12 of the CENVAT Credit Rules.2. The facts are that the respondent is a small scale unit availing itself of the annual value of clearance based exemption from duty for such units. As a result, first clearances of the respondent in the early part of any financial year remains exempt. And no modvat credit on inputs is available for such exempt clearances. Subsequently, upon changeover to payment of duty, modvat credit is taken in respect of inputs. This cycle repeats annually.3. Rule 9(2) of Cenvat Rules relates to changeover from duty paid clearances to exempt clearances. That Rule may be extracted: 9(2). A manufacturer who opts for exemption from whole of the duty of excise leviable on goods manufactured by him under a notification based on the value or quantity of clearances in a financial year, and who has been taking Cen...

Surat Municipal Corpn. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise whereby the demand of Service Tax is confirmed and penalty Under Section 76 of the Finance Act has been imposed.2. The appellants are a Municipal Corporation. During the period 1997 to 2002, the appellants provided service of 'Mandap Keeper' which is chargeable to service tax and had not paid the service tax in respect of the services provided by them. Show cause notice was issued to the appellants and the demand was confirmed and penalty imposed.3. The contention of the appellants is that, they are maintaining certain air-conditioned halls and stadium for organizing various functions, such as, sports, Garbas, educational programme, cultural and religious programmes and official programmes were also organized. The contention is that, they are not running these stadiums and halls for profitable purposes. Being a municipal corporation, they are running the same out of amount rece...

Garima Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appellant is a manufacturer of ferro silicon. Under the impugned order, 117 MTs. of material remain confiscated and penalty imposed on the Director of the company. The ground for imposition of penalty is that aforesaid quantities of ferro silicon were found not entered in RG-1 register when Central Excise officers visited on 19th November, 1997.3. The explanation of the appellant all through was that said quantity (in powder form) was not marketable as only ferro silicon in lump form can be marketed. The appellant also requested that either sample may be drawn or tested and expert opinion obtained. Both were not done. Goods were confiscated on the ground that irrespective of quality, manufactured goods are required to be entered in the statutory production record (RG-1).4. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the reason for non-entry of the goods is that production process was not complete and goods can be entered in the production register only after...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Data Infosys Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Department's appeal in this case against order-in-appeal dt.28-10-2004 which set aside the order-in-original denying the Modvat credit of the service tax taken by the respondent.2. Brief facts that arise for consideration are that respondents are registered with the authorities for providing online information and database-access and /or retrieval services. The respondent availed the credit on input services for service tax paid by them to BSNL. The respondents were issued a SCN for reversal of such credit availed by them on the ground that input service and out put service do not fall under the same category of services and hence Modvat credit of input service is not eligible to them. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and also imposed penalty on the respondent. The Commissioner (Appeals) on an appeal, set aside the order-in-original and allowed the appeal. Hence this appeal by the revenue.3. Ld. DR submits that the Service Tax Credit Rules specifically provide th...

Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appeal is directed against rejection of remission of duty applications filed by the appellant.3. Under 17 applications ranging from May 1998 to March 2002, the appellant informed the Central Excise Commissioner about breakage of aerated water bottles manufactured by them and sought remission of duty. Commissioner decided all those applications under single Order dated 23-3-2003. The submission of the assessee was that certain breakage takes place of bottles on account of many reasons and no duty is payable on the goods lost on account of such breakage. It was also contended that breakage remains recognised by Circular No. ID/3/70-CX.dated 8-9-1971 of the Board, and the Board had advised a condonation of bpeakage within 0.5%. It was the appellant's submission that breakage in their case is 0.07% and since the breakage was within norm, duty payable on the same may be remitted. Commissioner observed that breakage was intimated late by the assessee, therefore, the matter cannot be ...

Herbalife International India Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)101ITD450(Delhi)

1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dt. 25th Feb., 2005 of CIT(A)-XV, New Delhi, relating to the asst, yr. 2001-02.2. The first two grounds of appeal of the assessee are general in nature and do not call for any specific adjudication. The grievance projected by the assessee in ground Nos. 3 to 3.13 is with regard to action of the Revenue authorities in disallowing an expenditure of Rs. 5.83 crores being administrative fee paid by the assessee to M/s Herbalife International of America Inc. The facts in this regard are as follows. The assessee carries on business of trading and marketing of herbal products for use in weight management, to improve nutrition and enhance personal care. The assessee was incorporated as a company in India with 100 per cent foreign equity participation, pursuant to an approval granted by the Ministry of Industry, Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion, Secretariat for Industrial Assistance. M/s Herbalife International, USA, was the...

NavIn Verma Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)100ITD73(Delhi)

1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of Id.CIT(A) passed under Section 158BD/144 relating to block period 1-4-1988 to 16-4-1999.2. Shri Dinesh Verma, Id. Advocate appeared for the assessee whereas Smt. Sangeeta Gupta, Id. CIT DR represented the revenue. 1. The Id. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts as well as in law in holding that ACIT, Range-1, had jurisdiction to assess the assessee and consequently, the Block Assessment Order in dispute was valid. 2. The Id. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts as well as in law in holding that the mandatory provisions of law were complied with. 3. The Id. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts as well as in law in holding that investment of Rs. 11,000 in M/s. Nasa Systems was undisclosed income of the assessee being from unexplained sources. 4. The Id. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts as well as in law in holding that investment of Rs. 1 lakh in Agriculture...

R.A. Khemani Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT161; 2006(88)DRJ247

ORDERWHEREAS the President is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so; now thereforee, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (j)(1) of Rule 1956 of the fundamental rules, the President hereby retires Sh. R.A. Kehmani, Chief Engineer, Delhi Development Authority with immediate effect. He having already attained the age of 50 years on 14th January, 1984. The President also directs that Sh. R.A.Khemani shall be paid a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for a period of three months calculated at the same rate at which he was drawing them immediately before his retirement.10. The grounds urged in support of the petition are that the impugned order is without jurisdiction and contrary to Fundamental Rule 56(j); it is claimed that only the Lt. Governor, acting as Chairman DDA could have made the substantive appointment to the post of Chief Engineer and also issued the order of compulsory retirement. Since that was not done, the order was vitiated...

A.K. Sharma (Lt. Col.) Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Complainant is an army officer. He applied for allotment of a flat under Self Financing Scheme No. 5 in Vasant Kunj and deposited a sum of Rs. 15,000 on 7th July, 1982. On having been allotted flat he was required to deposit a total estimated cost of Rs. 2,55,000 by way of instalments. The last payment was payable by 15th February, 1986 wheras the complainant deposited half of the amount of instalment on 26th May, 1986 and thereafter balance amount of Rs. 26,000 deposited on 26th December 1986. On account of delay in the payment of last instalment name of the complainant was not included in the draw of lot for allocating particular number of flats. There was a mini draw and accordingly the O.P. informed him that a flat in Kishan Garh was available for allotment but complainant insisted for allotment at Vasant Kunj and accordingly allotment letter for flat in Visant Kunj was issued on 6th March 1991 and the balance amount towards cost of the flat was deposited...

interarch Building Products Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Applicants filed these applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty. The total demand of Rs. 1.6 crores and penalty of the equal amount. The applicants had already deposited an amount of Rs. 53 lakhs against this demand.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants on the ground of delay.4. There is delay of 16 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals on the ground that though Commissioner (Appeals) has power to condone the delay of 30 days of showing the sufficient cause for not filing the appeals within the period of limitation, in the present case, the present applicants failed to show sufficient cause. The applicants produced the medical certificate to show that Manager Excise of the Applicant Firm met with an accident and suffered head injury. In the circumstances, we find that applicants have shown sufficient case for not filing the appeals within the period of limitation. The...