Delhi Court February 2006 Judgments

Cce Vs. Jai Laxmi Finance Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(107)ECC81

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 22.11.2004 wherein the appellate authority allowed the refund claim of the respondent.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the respondent is a proprietorship concern and has been providing Hire Purchase Services. He obtained service tax registration and under the mistaken impression that he requires to pay the service tax under the category of Bank and other financial services, he paid the service tax for the period July, 2001 to June, 2002. Subsequently, he came to know form the Board's clarification F. No. B 11/1/2000 dated 9.7.2001 that the services under the category of banking and financial services provided by the individual, proprietorship concern, or partnership concern will not got covered under the service tax net. Relying upon this Circular the respondent filed a refund claim indicating that he has paid the service tax under the mistaken provision of law. The said refund claim was rejected by th...

Moser Baer India Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC511

1. The appellants, M/s Moser Baer India Ltd., are registered as a 100% EOU for the manufacture of compact disc. A show cause notice was issued to them on 23.07.2002 alleging that some duty free procured items, like Aluminium Sheets, Aluminium Pipes and Profiles, Toughened Glass and Steel Doors, claimed by them as capital goods, were used for the construction and decoration of the factory building. In the result, they were denied the exemption from duty in terms of Notification NO.53/97-Cus and 1/95-CE. The appellants, inter alia, contended before the Commissioner that : The term 'capital goods' is not defined in Notification No. 53/97-Cus and 1/95-CE, but as per the definition given in Exim Policy and also Rule 57-Q, the impugned items are covered in the category of 'capital goods.2. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida, in his order-in-original dated 15.11.2002 held that, the said notifications envisage exemption duty for those goods which are used in the manufacture of final pr...

Cce Vs. Beekay Engg. Corpn.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal of the department is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 25.2.2005 wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the Order-in-Original confirming the demand of service tax on the respondent.2. None appeared for the respondent despite notice but the respondents has sent written submissions. Heard learned D.R. and perused the record. I find from the record that the respondent is an engineering firm engaged in the manufacture of engineering goods as well as execution of contracts for various engineering works for their clients.The respondent were issued a show cause notice based upon bills raised by them for the period from 7.7.97 to 31.3.2000 demanding service tax.On adjudication the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and on appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) came to the conclusion that the appellants are not liable to pay service tax. I find from the Order-in-Appeal that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has given a very detailed finding in Para 5 whic...

Kanoria Chemical Inds. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(107)ECC87

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 31.3.2005 wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the Order-in-Original imposing penalty and interest on the appellants.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants were recipient of service from goods transport operators for the period 15.11.97 to 2.6.98. The said provision was challenged in different forums and finally by retrospective amendment of Finance Act, 2003 all the persons who were availing GTO services during the period 16.11.97 to 2.6.98 were made liable to pay the service tax. The said Finance Act, 2003 got assent of the President on 17.5.2003 and the appellants were required to submit the service tax return by 13.11.2003. The appellants deposited the service tax with the Government on 3.2.2004 and filed the return on 13.2.2004. Show cause notice was issued to the appellants seeking imposition of penalty under various sections and also to impose interest under Section 75 of the F...

Dewal Tours and Travels Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(107)ECC90

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 16.12.2004 which upholds the confirmation of demand and penalties imposed on the appellants in the Order-in-Original.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants are engaged in the business of renting Cab since June, 2000 and got themselves registered as Rent Cab Operator from 6.12.2000. The appellants however, did not file any return for the period June, 2000 to March, 2003 and show cause notice was issued to them, after a visit of the officers to their premises, asking them to show cause as to why demand of service tax of Rs. 1,00,161/- be not demanded from them and why penalty be not imposed on them under Section 76, 77, & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for the violation of the provisions of Finance Act in respect of collection of service tax and not remitting the same to the Government. The appellants deposited part of the amount of service tax on 31.3.2004 and contested show cause notice. ...

Avery Cycles Indus. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. I heard both sides and perused the record. The dispute is about refund of Central Excise duty.2. The facts leading to filing of the refund application are that the appellant is a manufacturer of bicycles and parts and had been selling those parts, inter alia, for use as original equipment. It filed refund application in respect of sales made to M/s. Rockman Cycle Industries Limited, during the period from 14-2-2000 to 26-3-2001. The ground for claim of refund was that the buyer did not accept the enhanced price mentioned in the invoices, therefore, the price was reduced by the appellant and credit notes were issued to effectuate lower the price.It was the appellant's contention that for payment of goods as well as duty was made by the buyer only at the revised (lower) price and thus higher duty had not been passed on to the buyer. The impugned order rejected the appellant's claim on the ground that it is settled law (in the case of CCE, Madras v. Addison & Co., Madras that the ...

Noida Packaging Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appellants filed this appeal against the Orders-in-Appeal whereby the demand of Rs. 1,75,864/- was confirmed and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed on the appellants.3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of flexible laminated sheets. On 6-8-1997, the factory premises was visited by the Excise Officers and during verification, it was found that the appellants were maintaining two sets of invoices having the same serial number showing the clearance of goods on payment of duty. However, the duty was debited in their statutory records only once. These invoices were duly authenticated by the authorized signatory of the unit. Show cause notice was issued for demanding duty and imposition of penalty on the ground that the appellants cleared goods twice on the same number or invoices without payment of duty and duty has been paid only once.4. The contention of the appellants is that, due to some problem regarding payment of sales tax, they are preparing the second invoice.T...

Pfizer Products Inc. Vs. Rajesh Chopra and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 127(2006)DLT783; 2006(32)PTC301(Del)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. Although this application is styled as an application under Order 7 Rule 11 for rejection of the plaint for want of territorial jurisdiction, it is actually an application under Order 7 Rule 10 for return of the plaint. The learned counsel for the parties have argued this application on the understanding that this is an application under Order 7 Rule 10 and it is with this understanding that the present application is being disposed of.2. The learned counsel for the defendants/applicants submitted that this court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. The suit filed by the plaintiff is one for injunction and damages for passing off and unfair competition. The learned counsel for the defendants referred to paragraph 48 of the plaint to show that the plaintiff has approached this court on account of two factors. The first factor being that the defendants had applied for registration of the trademark GEODON and ZOLOFT in Delhi in...

Indian Airlines Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT735; 2006(88)DRJ316; (2006)IIILLJ156Del; 2006(3)SLJ377(Delhi)

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. These writ appeals arise out of the common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 21.5.2004 in four writ petitions, three filed by employees working under the Indian Airlines since beginning of their service, and one filed by the employees working under Vayudoot Limited which has been since taken over by Indian Airlines.2. The facts in detail have been set out in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same except where necessary.3. The facts of the case are that Vayudoot Limited was incorporated as a private limited company in the year 1981. It was converted into a public limited company in the year 1983 with shares jointly owned by Indian Airlines and Air India. On account of mounting losses and outstanding liabilities it was decided by the Government of India to merge Vayudoot Limited with Indian Airlines by its letter dated 25.5.93 addressed to Indian Airlines, Air India, Vayudoot Limited, International Airpo...

Satish Narang and Co. Vs. Pasupati Fabrics Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)2CompLJ452(Del)

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner is engaged in the business of stock, shares and finance brokers and is stated to be a Member of Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. The petitioner was approached in the second half of 1995 by the respondent to act as one of the under-writers/brokers in relation to public issue of the respondent. The agreement in this behalf was entered on 11.03.1996 for the petitioner to under-write two lakh shares of the respondent. The public issue opened in June, 1996 but was not fully subscribed. In terms of the agreement, a devolvement notice was sent to the petitioner on 01.07.1996, but the petitioner is stated to have failed to discharge its obligations in terms of the under- writing agreement. The respondent thus, made arrangements for certain companies to subscribe to the shares, who were stated to be holding the shares in trust for and on behalf of the under-writers including the petitioner.2. In view of the disputes between the parties and on a petit...