Delhi Court February 2006 Judgments

Translam Ltd. and Dinesh Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These two appeals are directed against the same order. They were heard together and are disposed of under this common order.2. The appellant is a dealer registered with central excise for the purpose of issuing modvat invoices. The subject of this appeal is the confiscation of eight coils of copper rods weighing 18,466 kgs and valued at Rs. 23, 08,250/-. The same has been confiscated under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules read with Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.3. The contention of the learned Counsel is that the action is entirely unwarranted inasmuch as there was no violation of central excise rules.It is being pointed out that the copper coils in question were purchased by the appellant dealer from M/s. Birla Copper and this position is confirmed by the statutory record maintained by the appellanat The learned Counsel submits that there is no dispute raised about the duty paid character of these copper coils. It is the appellant's contention that these copper c...

Bcl Forgings Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4352 of 2000 under their order dated 10.11.2005 has remitted this appeal to the Tribunal for deciding on merits in view of the fact that decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Cotspun Limited is no longer a good law.2. The appeal was posted for hearing on Board for week starting from 20.2.2006. Necessary intimation was also sent to the appellants.However, under their letter dated 20.2.2006, they informed that they have received hearing memo only 2-3 days before and requested for an adjournment. The case was not taken for hearing on 20.2.2006 but continued on Board for the week starting from 27.2.2006 and today, it was taken up for hearing. Nobody appeared for the appellants nor any request for further adjournment was received. There was sufficient time of more than 10 days before the appellants to appear today while the matter remained on Board for final hearing. Since the appellants have not appeared for hearing, we have heard the De...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Sigma Electronics

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(109)ECC53

1. This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal dt. 3.2.05 wherein respondent's appeal against rejection of refund claim was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the respondent filed refund claim in respect of seven Bills of Entries and the same were sanctioned and credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund, as the respondent could not produce the evidence of non-passing over of the incidence of duty. The matter was contested and Tribunal in its earlier order dt.25.9.03 remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority to consider the evidences that may be produced by the respondent. The adjudicating authority second time did not accept the Chartered Accountant's certificate which was produced by the respondent and credited the amount again to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The Commissioner(Appeals) on an appeal allowed the appeal of the appellant and set aside the order-in-original. Hence this appeal by the Revenue.3. None a...

Northern India Steel Rolling Vs. Commissioner of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-original dated 21-2-2005 wherein the Commissioner of Customs has confiscated the imported goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine and also imposed penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are the appellants herein imported Heavy Melting Scarp from Mozambique vide Bill of Lading No. MZMDELNCN 0341, dated 22-10-04. The Bill of Entry was filed by the appellants and the authorities found that the Bill of Entry was not accompanied by documents like Sales Contract and Pre-shipment Inspection Certificate as stipulated in Para 2.32 of Handbook of Procedures of EXIM Policy 2004-09. The appellants waived the issue of the SCN and personal hearing. Ld. Commissioner in his adjudication order came to the conclusion that the appellants have failed to observe the conditions as svipulated under EXIM Policy and have made the consignment liable for confiscation and s...

Swatch Group (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. (i and G)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal dated 10-6-05 wherein the appellant's appeal against the order-in-original rejecting the refund claim has been dismissed.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant filed for refund claim for Rs. 7,65,129/- on 18-10-04 on the ground that the duty for the goods covered under Invoice No. 1025263, dated 15-10-03 was paid twice by the appellant. The refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority on the ground that the duty was paid on 14-11-03 and on 23-10-05 and refund claim having been filed on 18-10-04 i.e. after the expiry of six months, hence refund claim is time barred. On an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) also upheld the same view and dismissed the appeal on the question of time barred.Hence this appeal.3. Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that it is an admitted fact that the duty paid second time i.e. on 14-11-03 was a mistake and not liable to be paid by them. He subm...

Security and Protection Services Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs. 10,29,657/- and penalty of Rs. 21,40,657/-. The applicants were providing Security Agency Services to M/s. BSNL and they received an amount of Rs. 2,05,08,553/- for the period 1998-2004.Applicants are not disputing regarding Services provided by them. The contention is that some portion of the demand is pertains to the period 1998 and show cause notice was issued on 8-4-2004 and the demand for the period 1998 is beyond five years. As per provisions of 73 of the Financial Act, the demand can be raised for five years only. The applicant also pleaded financial hardship on the ground that the pre-deposit of the amount will cause undue hardship.3. We find the applicant is not disputing that they had provided Security Agency Services to M/s. BSNL during the relevant period. The Security Agency Services is liable to pay Service Tax w.e.f.16-10-1998. In these circumstances, Prima facie, it is not a fit case fo...

J.S. Khalsa Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against the order in original dated 03.03.2005 vide which HM scrap is confiscated and penalty is also imposed.2. The issue involved in this case is that the appellant imported Heavy melting scrap in December 2004 and filed bill of entry for clearance of the same. In the documents filed by the appellant there was a certificate issued by the supplier of the said scrap that the consignment does not contain any war related materials like arms, ammunitions, mines etc either used or otherwise. A certificate indicating non-presence of arms, ammunitions, mines etc used or otherwise issued by SGS, Mozambique was also produced before the authorities. Since the certificate by a recognized agency was not produced the container was subjected to 100% examination and it was found to contain 1665 kgs of war related materials. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant for confiscation of the war related materials and also for the confiscation of the other Heavy melting...

Econ Puri Consortium Vs. Delhi Metro Railway Corporation and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(1)ARBLR500(Delhi); 130(2006)DLT743; 2006(87)DRJ682

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J 1. These petitions under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) raise common issues and, thereforee, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. It is the case for the petitioner that certain disputes had arisen between the petitioner and the respondents with regard to the contract and / or performance of the contract between the parties. The details of the arrangement between the parties need not be gone into. All that is relevant for the purposes of the present applications is the interpretation of clause 85.5 of the general conditions of contract which deals with the nomination of arbitrators/sole arbitrator. The said clause 85.5 which is identical in both the cases, reads as under:-85.5. Nomination of Arbitrators/Sole ArbitratorMatters to be arbitrated upon shall be referred to a sole Arbitrator where the total value of claims does not exceed Rs.1.50 millions. Beyond the cla...

Lloyd Insulations (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cement Corporation of India Lt ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(1)ARBLR470(Delhi); 2006(88)DRJ118

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.IA 3690/1995 (Objections under Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940)1. A Letter of Intent dated 01.09.1984 was placed on the petitioner by the respondent Corporation for supply of insulating material for the Tandur project (AI) in view of the offer of the petitioner in response to a tender enquiry of the respondent dated 4.6.1984. The detailed order was thereafter placed by the respondent vide the purchase order dated 5.9.1984. Disputes arose between the parties in respect of the said contract and in view of the arbitration clause 18 of the General Terms and Conditions of Contract, the petitioner filed proceedings under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). However, the court was informed by the respondents that the Arbitrator was already appointed in pursuance to the letter dated 15.3.1990. Shri B.K. Madan, the Sole Arbitrator made and published his award dated 15.12.1994 awarding a sum of Rs.1,46,308.08 al...

G.V.K. Industries Limited and anr. Vs. Central Electricity Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(88)DRJ377

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The Petitioner has prayed for the issuance of an appropriate writ, Order or direction to the Central Electricity Authority (CEA) to take a decision on the approval of the completed cost of the subject power project established and commissioned by the Petitioner in Andhra Pradesh. The CEA had commenced proceedings earlier, but with the enforcement of the Electricity Act, 2003 has now adopted the view that its jurisdiction has been taken away. A host of preliminary or technical objections have been raised. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS2. By way of prefatory remarks, generally speaking, the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be circumscribed, and the fetters and frontiers are almost entirely judicially self imposed. One of the question that had arisen before the Constitutional Bench comprising seven learned Judges of the Supreme Court in landmark precedent titled L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India : [1997]228ITR725(SC) was whethe...