Delhi Court March 2006 Judgments

Cce Vs. Shri Mukesh Sharma and Shri Rajeev

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These 2 appeals arise out of Orders-in-appeal dated 10.8.2005, and since the issue involved in both the appeals are identical the same are being disposed of by one common order.2. The department is in appeal against Order-in-Appeal which has directed the lower authorities to ascertain the amount of Service Tax payable by the appellants based upon the random checking of 5% of the payments received by the appellants and setting aside of the penalty imposed on the appellants under Section 76.3. Considered the submissions made by learned D.R. None appeared for the respondents despite notice. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his Order-in-Appeal has directed the Asst. Commissioner to re-determine the amount of tax in an open inquiry, and after verifying the evidences that may be produced by the appellants. Since it is the open inquiry to be conducted by the Asst. Commissioner to re-determine the amount of Service Tax payable by the respondents, to my mind, restricting the adjudicating autho...

Radhey Shyam Ratanlal and Shri Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(104)ECC495

1. These appeals are directed against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) made on 3.12.2003 rejecting the value declared by the appellant in respect of the goods in question (cloves), covered by various bills of entry, and assessing the value at US$ 5500 PMT (CIF) for the goods covered by bills of entry Nos. 171814 dated 23.2.2001, 171815 dated 23.2.2002, 165289 dated 9.1.2001 and 165287 dated 9.1.2001, and for bills of entry Nos. 171956 dated 24.2.2002, 171954 dated 24.2.2001, 171092 dated 19.2.2001, 171957 dated 24..2.2001, 171955 dated 24.2.2001 and 169069 dated 5.2.2001 at US$ 5600 PMT (CIF), and ordering the deposit of Rs. 88,95,393/-(Rupees Eighty Eight Lakhs Ninety Five Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety Three only) paid by the appellant M/s. Radhey Shyam Ratanlal to be adjusted against their customs duty liabilities, and further holding that the goods imported vide bills of entry Nos. 171956 dated 24.2.2001, 17184 dated 23.2.2001, 171954 dated 24.2.2001, 171...

Rajasthan Electronics and Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Appellant is a manufacturer of static energy meters. On 11.2.02 it filed a refund application in regard to excess duty (excise) paid. The ground taken was that meters in question had been sold to Rajasthan State Electricity Board and upon finalisation of the price, the electricity board paid the appellant at a lower price than the originally invoiced price, at the time of supply. It was submitted that central excise duty payment by the electricity board was also at the amount worked out on the revised sale price and not at the original price. That claim was rejected under the impugned order on the ground that refund would lead to unjust enrichment. The impugned order has relied on the decision of Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Grasim Industries v. C.C.E., Bhopal 2. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that decision in the case of Grasim Industries is not applicable to the present case at all, inasmuch as, the price was provisional at the time of ...

Tube Investments of India Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 26-5-2005 which upheld the Order-in-Original wherein refund claim of the appellants was rejected.2. None appeared for the appellants, but there is a request for waiver of personal appearance and to decide the matter on merits. Heard the learned D.R. and perused the records.3. The issue involved in this case is in a very narrow compass. The appellants paid an amount of service tax of Rs. 15,663/- for the period 16-11-97 to 2-6-98. After the amendment of the notification they claimed the refund of the same. The appellants' contention is that they have paid the amount of service tax and since there is retrospective amendment by Section 117 of Finance Act, they are eligible for the refund.4. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) in his Order-in-Appeal at Para 5 has held as under: - I have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case and various submissions made by the appellant. I find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Indi...

Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. Blood Care Collection Centre

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 16.6.2005 wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the penalty imposed under Section 76 to Rs. 1,500/- from Rs. 5,000/- but upheld the other penalties.2. None appeared for the respondents despite notice. Learned D.R.submits that the imposition of penalty under Section 76 is minimum penalty of Rs. 100/- per day and as per the calculation the penalty amount should have been Rs. 21,153/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) could not have reduced the penalty than the imposed one.3. Considered the submissions made by learned D.R. and perused the records. I find from the record that the adjudicating authority has imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 76 on the respondents. The department has not filed any appeal against this amount of penalty imposed before the Commissioner (Appeals). In the absence of any appeal against the adjudication order the penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed by the adjudicating authority under Section 76 h...

Tarlok Singh and Sons Vs. Cc (Prev.), Nch

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(109)ECC144

1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal dated 16.6.2005 that upheld the order wherein goods were confiscated and penalty imposed on the appellant.2. The issue involved in this case is that the authorities raided the appellant's Office and go down and they seized 104nos of Imported diesel engines on a belief that these engines were smuggled and were of foreign origin. The authorities below issued a show cause notice and by adjudication order dated 31.03,2005 confiscated the seized diesel engines with a option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine and also imposed a penalty on the appellant. Concurring with the views of the adjudicating authority the commissioner (appeals) rejected the appeal. Hence this appeal 3. The learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants produced before the authorities bill No. 834 dated 4.07.2003, and bill no 1039 dated 18.6.2003 on the date of visit of the officers to indicate that these diesel engines wer...

World Eye Communication Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)13STT302

1. This appeal is directed against the order in appeal-dated 06-09-2005, which upheld the order wherein penalty was imposed on the appellant.2. Relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant was registered as service provider. He did not pay the service tax nor did he file any returns within the due dates even after getting registered. He paid the service tax liability and interest thereon by 16-07-2004 and also filed the returns belatedly. The authorities issued show cause notice on 06-09-2004 for imposition of penalty on the appellants. The adjudicating authority imposed penalty of equivalent amount under different sections. On an appeal the appellate authority upheld the order. Hence this appeal.3. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. 1 find from records that the appellants discharged his service tax liability and interest thereon before the issue of Show Cause Notice. The appellants have pleaded that there being some family pro...

Bharosa Colour Lab Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. All these 4 appeals are arising out of Order-in-Review issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur which enhanced the penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act on the appellant.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant registered himself as a service provider under the category of photography service provider in 2001. After getting himself registered the appellants did not file return nor did he deposit the service tax. The appellants discharged the service tax liability for the whole period in dispute on their own on 9th May, 2003 and 13th May, 2003 along with interest. Show cause notices were issued on 13th May, and 14th May, 2003 for imposition of penalty on them under Section 76 and 77 of Finance Act, 1994. The said show cause notices were adjudicated by the Asst. Commissioner and he imposed penalty of Rs. 1000/- each against each show cause notice and also penalties as under:----------------------------------------------------...

Guru Nanak Vidya Bhandar Trust Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(88)DRJ567

ORDER VI PLEADINGS GENERALLYR.17. Amendment of pleadings.- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties :Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.4. It is not in dispute that trial had already commenced prior to the amendment being sought. In view of the proviso, the amendment cannot be allowed unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. The question sought to be raised is in view of the provisions of the Municipal Act and, thus, it cannot be said that...

Dr. Prem Bhatnagar Vs. Shri Ravi Mohan Bhatnagar and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(88)DRJ346

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The plaintiff has filed a suit for partition and rendition of accounts. Late L. Roop Narain was the perpetual lessee of plot measuring 212.5 sq.yds. bearing Plot No. 32 Block No. 205-C, New Capital of Delhi in pursuance to a perpetual lease deed dated 28.7.1939 (Ex.PW1/1). The said property is now known as 37, Todar Mal Lane, Bengali Market, New Delhi-110001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property'). Shri L. Roop Narain is stated to have passed away in 1957. 2. Late L. Roop Narain was survived by his son late Shri Amar Nath Bhatnagar who is stated to have inherited the various immovable properties of Late L. Roop Narain. Such properties are stated to have been situated in Panipat, Haryana apart from the properties in Delhi but the same are stated to have been sold, the details of which are not known to the plaintiff. The principal property subject matter of the suit is the suit property.3. The plaintiff is the son of late Shri Amar Nath Bhatnagar who als...