Delhi Court February 2006 Judgments

Pratibha Syntex Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant Tratibha Syntex Ltd. (Unit No. II) are engaged in the manufacture of Grey Knitted Cotton Fabrics (unprocessed), Grey Knitted Cotton Fabrics (Processed) and Readymade Garments of knitted processed cotton fabrics. They are also engaged in the manufacture of yarn and paying appropriate duty of Excise in Unit No. I. They claimed exemption under Notification No. 14/02-C.E., dated 1-3-2002 as amended and 15/02-C.E., dated 1-3-2002 as amended relying on the conditions specified therein. In this appeal, the appellants are challenging the order of the Commissioner dated 11-2-2004 which has held as follows : Thus, in the light of above classifications the benefit under the said Notification No. 14/02-C.E., dated 1-3-2002 (S. No. 10 to 13) and 15/02-C.E., dated 1-3-2002 (S. No. 14 and 15) would be available w.e.f. 26-9-2002 only when appropriate duty of Excise has been paid on the specified raw material/inputs.2. It has been pleaded before us that the appellants are rightly elig...

Jasch Industries Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

3. The material facts may be noted. On 9.9.96, the Assistant Commissioner held that appellant was not eligible for certain amount which had been taken as Modvat credit. In compliance to that order, the appellant reversed the credit on 10.3.97 and filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). That appeal was decided in favour of the appellant on 25.8.99, by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant filed a refund claim for refund of the Modvat credit already reversed.That claim was allowed on 30.3.01 by the Deputy Commissioner.Subsequently, on 9.5.01, an appeal was filed by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals), claiming interest. This claim of the appellant was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 19.9.03. The department challenged that order before the Tribunal in appeal. The Tribunal remanded the case with certain observations on 26.2.04. In the remand proceedings, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claim for interest vide Order dated 31.5.04. The present appeal...

Good Year India Ltd. Vs. C.C., Icd

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2004 wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Original rejecting the refund claim of the appellants.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants filed Bill of Entry for the clearance of the goods imported by him and discharged the duty liability as assessed on the bill of entry. Subsequently they came to understand that S.A.D. was not payable on the goods imported by them and hence they filed the refund claim before the authorities. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim on the ground that the appellants did not challenge the assessment of bill of entry, and hence, refund claim cannot per se challenge the assessment and assessment has become final. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) also concurred with the findings of the adjudicating authority. Hence, this appeal.3. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that this case is covered by the decision of the Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v.C.C. (Appeals), Chennai...

Mount Shivalik Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce and C

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 27.9.2005 wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the Order-in-Original imposing penalty and seeking to recover interest from the appellants.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants were receiving services of GTO for the period from 16.11.97 to 2.6.98. Validity of these services were challenged in the Supreme Court and a retrospective amendment was carried out to the Finance Act and the appellants were required to pay their service tax as recipient of services of GTO. The appellants discharged the service tax liability on 9.2.04, 16.2.04 and 1.3.2004. Show cause notice was issued to the appellants in November, 2004 directing them to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed and interest should not recovered from them for depositing the service tax liability late. The appellants contested the show cause notice and the adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original dated 14.6.2005 im...

Cce Vs. Sikar Ex-serviceman Welfare

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC382

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 23.9.2005 wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the respondents against imposition of penalty.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the respondents are a Cooperative Society, registered with the authorities for providing security services. They did not apply for their registration under the category of security services and on pursuance by the department opted for registration and produced the documents like balance sheet to the department. On scrutiny of such documents the department came to the conclusion that service tax to the tune of Rs. 4,23,857/- escaped the assessment. A show cause notice was issued for recovery of the said service tax and for imposition of penalty and also for recovery of the interest. On adjudication, the adjudicating authority, confirmed the demand and also imposed penalty and directed the respondents to pay the interest on the amount so confirmed. On appeal th...

S.P. Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(3)SLJ294CAT

1. By virtue of the present Original Application a challenge has been made to an order passed on 30.08.2005 placing the applicant under suspension on a contemplated disciplinary proceeding. An order passed on 16.09.2005 is also assailed whereby the applicant, for the purposes of withdrawal of salary/subsistence allowance from 13.06.2005, is posted as Commissioner Central Excise, Bhopal and thereafter showing him against the post of Commissioner, Central Excise (A), Aurangabad.2. Applicant has also sought release of retiral benefits as calculated on 1.9.2005 as well as salary due from June, 2005.3. Brief factual matrix, relevant to be highlighted as an intricate part of adjudication, transpires that the applicants, who is an officer of 1973 batch of Indian Revenue Services, was lastly posted as Commissioner (Appeal) Central Excise, Bhopal in May, 2005, by an application dated 10.05.2005. having completed 30 years of qualifying service, sought voluntary retirement w.e.f. 01.09.2005 i.e....

Punjab and Sind Bank and anr. Vs. Arun Kumar Arora and anr.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: II(2006)BC232

1. This appeal is directed against an order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal(DRT), Chandigarh on 20.1.2006 in Interim Appeal No.927/2005 and also the consequential order passed on 23.1.2006 in SA No.69/2005.2. Heard Mr. I .P. Singh. learned Counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. N.C. Sahni, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent. In order to appreciate the contentions raised, few facts which are necessary are recorded hereunder. The respondents mortgaged certain properties towards the loan facilities obtained by M/s. Partap Trading Company and M/s. Prabhat Trading Company owned by the respondents herein with their better halfs. As there was default, the appellant Bank involved provisions under the Securitisation and Reconstructions of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Securitisation Act) and took possession of the property offered as security on behalf of M/s. Pratap Trading Company of which both the respondents are...

Bpdl Investments (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Maple Leaf Trading International (Pvt ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2006)BC482; 129(2006)DLT94; 2006(87)DRJ761

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is an application under Order 37 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 151 thereof on behalf of the defendant for grant of leave to defend the summary suit instituted by the plaintiff. The case against the defendant is that the defendant had engaged the services of the plaintiff for conducting market research surveys in India with respect to the business interest of the defendant pertaining, inter alia, to the sale of Canadian Gold Coins. It is alleged in the plaint that the defendant had engaged the services of the plaintiff and the plaintiff had carried out surveys etc and had rendered such services but the defendant had not paid for the same.2. The learned counsel for the defendant/applicant submitted that the entire plaint is based upon the four cheques which are mentioned in paragraph 14 of the plaint which amount to a sum of Rs. 1,34,32,500/-. The details of the cheques which were all drawn on ABN AMRO Bank are as under:Cheque...

Sanjay Khanna Vs. Director General Foreign Trade and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT100; 2006(87)DRJ700

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. By this writ petition, petitioner Mr.Sanjay Khanna, seeks a direction to the respondents to release the consignment of white Goose and duck feathers, imported by his customers for manufacture of shuttle cocks for the game of badminton. Petitioner is an indenting agent for his Chinese Principals and places orders on behalf of Indian Customers and importers. Petitioner had placed orders for M/s.Rajindra Sports International, M/s.South Indian Industries and M/s.Jagdish Sports Industries all from Jallandhar, Punjab. 2. The goods had been shipped on 15th January, 2004 and had arrived in India on 4th February, 2004. Vide notification No.33(RE-2003)/2002-2007 dated 6th February, 2004 issued in exercise of powers under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, the import of feathers from all countries in view of reported outbreak of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (Fowl Plague) was prohibited for a period of six months. Vide another notificat...

Puran Chand Nangia Vs. Dda

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(2)ARBLR456(Delhi); 2006(88)DRJ207

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.IA 2557/2002Learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant does not press this application in view of subsequent development of law and states that the objections of the respondent are liable to be considered under the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940.Dismissed as withdrawn.+ is No. 5029/2003 & is 4014/1999Dismissed as infructuous. + is No. 6388/1996 (under Sections 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940)1. The petitioner was awarded the work of construction of houses under SFS category II in Paschim Puri in pursuance to agreement No. 6/EE/DDVI/DDA/84-85. In terms of the contract, the date of commencement of the work was stipulated as 17.08.1984 and the stipulated date of completion was 16.08.1985. The respondent was granted extension of time for completion of work without imposition of penalty up to 09.05.1988. The work was actually completed on 30.06.1988 and the final bill was made on 30.05.1995.2. The petitioner had certain claims and in view of the disputes arising b...