Delhi Court February 2006 Judgments

New Industrial Security Force Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(106)ECC408

2. Appellant filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant is a Security Agency and liable to pay Service Tax in respect of the services provided by them.In the impugned order the Service Tax of Rs. 1,12,856/- was confirmed after taking into consideration the gross amount charged by the agency from the clients for services rendered with the security. The contention of the appellant is that they are liable to pay the service tax on the amount received by them as commission for providing security services. The appellant also pleaded that they started their business as security agency on October, 1998 and being new in the field, they are under the impression, that they were to pay only in respect of commission charged by them and they had already paid on the service tax on the account of commission charged by them. Therefore, the penalty is excessive.3. The contention of the Revenue is that as per the provisions of Section 67 of the Fin...

Texcomash Export Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Applicant filed this Misc. application for implementation of the order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 23.1.2006 directed the Revenue to implement the order immediately and also summoned the Assistant Commissioner (Refund). Shri OM Prakash, the Assistant Commissioner (Refund) is present today. The order sanctioning the refund of Rs. 88,81,082/- is passed on 7.2.2006.2. The applicant submitted that while sanctioning the refund there is no finding on the interest on the amount of refund. We have gone through the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner sanctioning the refund where it has been specifically mentioned that regarding payment of interest on delayed refund, this issue will be taken up separately.3. As the amount of refund has been sanctioned and Revenue is considering the issue in respect of payment of interest on delayed amount, therefore, we find no further action is required on this application. Therefore, the application is dismissed as infructu...

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

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicant has prayed for condonation of delay of 23 days in filing the appeal. It has been stated on oath in the affidavit accompanying the application that the deponent had fallen ill on 10-11-2005 and the Order-in-Appeal remained with him from 8-11-2005 till 29-11-2005 and that he could not contact the learned Counsel. On 30-11-2005, he handed over the case file to the Advocate and the appeal was thereafter prepared and filed on 5-12-2005.2. As sufficient cause is made out for condonation of the delay in the filing of the appeal, the delay is condoned. This COD application stands disposed of accordingly....

P.N. Gupta and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is preferred against the Order-in-appeal dated 24.12.2003 which upheld appellants rejection of refund claim by original authority.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants are manufacturer of readymade garments falling under Chapter 62 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants manufactured and cleared readymade garments discharging the duty liability @ 16% i.e.Rs. 91,964/- on the said readymade garments. The purchaser of the appellants goods being Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India, deducted an amount of Rs. 18,593/- from the duty, being the deemed credit on the fabric used in the manufacture of readymade garments and paid the balance duty, referring to provisions of the notification No.54/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 29.6.2001. The appellants preferred refund claim of Rs. 18,593/- on the ground that they have paid the excess duty by mistake. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants seeking to reject the refund claim on vari...

Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)9STT289

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 31-3-2005 wherein the appellate authority has upheld the Order-in-Original which rejected the refund claim of the appellants.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants are issued show cause notice dated 4-11-2004 demanding service tax from them for the period 16-11-1997 to 1-6-1998. Before issuance of show cause notice, the appellants were directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- against the service tax liability. The said show cause notice dated 4-11-2004 was adjudicated by the adjudicating authority and the demand was confirmed. On appeal, the appellate authority vide its Order-in-Appeal No. 8/ST/ALLD/2005, dated 31-3-2005 has upheld the Order-in-original dated 14-12-2004. Against the said Order-in-Appeal dated 31-3-2005, the appellants preferred an appeal to the Hon'ble Tribunal and the Hon'ble Tribunal vide its Final Order No.1893/05-SM (BR), dated 27-10-2005 allowed the appeal of t...

Surya Food and Agro Limited Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC363

1. There are two appeals before us one filed by the Revenue and the other by the assessee M/s. Surya Food & Agro Limited against one and the same order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Noida, dated 10.6.2005.In the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeal) has directed the assessee to pay Rs. 2,03,360/- as confirmed demand, while reducing penalty imposed by the authority below to Rs. 10,000/-. The issue raised here is whether services rendered by the assessee by authorizing use of their trademark and design for manufacture of biscuits vide their trade mark use agreement entered into by them with M/s. Devika Foods and M/s. I.K. Food Products would amount to services rendered by the Consulting Engineering Firm. In consideration of the use of the trade mark and design the appellant was entitled to re-imbursement by way of royalty, of a sum of Rs. 38/- per carton on the total quantity of the product sold. No other consideration was fixed under the agreement in respect of any service. The...

Jugal Kishore Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal dated 28-10-2003 wherein the penalty on the appellant has been upheld.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration that on 1-7-91, the Officers of Enforcement Directorate intercepted and took personal search of one Dili Prasad Sharma and Kamal Sharma and recovered US $ 19,500/- from them. The statements were recorded of these two persons and led residential premises of Devki Nandan and Shiv Shankar who were purported to be the purchasers of the gold from these people. The statement of Shiv Shankar was recorded who in his statement stated that they were dealing in smuggled gold and also stated that the recovered foreign currency were proceeds of the sale of gold biscuits. The current appellant was also implicated on the ground that Shiv Shankar in his statement has stated that he used to procure foreign currency from the current appellant. The show cause notice was issued to all the persons including the current appellant, wh...

M.C. JaIn and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)14STT22

1. The learned Authorised Representative for the appellant points out from 2004 (172) E.L.T. A34, the declaration made by the Finance Minister that no penal action will be taken on those service providers who get themselves registered before 31st October, 2004 and pay their service tax. The source of this information is cited as the government website. It is also pointed out from 2004 (173) E.L.T. A104 that the service tax payment deadline was extended by the Union Finance Ministry upto November, 30. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any finding on the contention of the appellant that the department had provided immunity for earlier lapses upto 30.11.2004. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is stayed without any requirement of pre-deposit. This application stands disposed of accordingly. The appeal will come up for final hearing in its due course....

Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides. It appears from the impugned order of the Commissioner that while observing various items of plant and machinery falling under Chapter 72 are not covered within the ambit of Rule 57AA(a)(ii) and that the appellants have not mentioned the exact use or place where these products were used, the Commissioner has overlooked the reply to the show cause notice given by the appellant on November 1, 2002 in which the appellants stated that parts and components of the machine mentioned therein were used in the machines which fell under Chapter Heading 84. Prima facie even if the part itself does not fall under Chapter 84 but is used as a component, spare or accessory of the goods falling under that chapter, it would nonetheless come within the definition of capital goods. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is stayed without any condition of pre-deposit. This application stands disposed of accordingly. The appeal will come up for final hearing in its due course....

Prestress India Corporation Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(104)ECC326

1. Heard both the sides. According to learned Authorised Representative for the applicant the duty amount determined was paid by the applicant one year prior to making of the Order and therefore under the proviso to Section 11AC, no penalty in excess of 25% of the duty determined could have been imposed. Having regard to the facts and circuosvances of the case, it is directed that there will be interim stay of the impugned order, on M/s. Prgstress India Corporation depositing Rs. 1.75 lakhs within eight weeks from today, failing which the appeal will stand dismissed. On the amount being so deposited, there will be waiver of the rest of the amount payable under the impugned Order during the pendency of the appeal. No separate Order of deposit is made in the Partner's Appeal No. E/3866/05-NB-S in view of the above order.However, it is made clear that if the aforesaid deposit is not made by the applicant firm both the appeals shall dismissed. Both these applications are disposed of accor...