Delhi Court May 2006 Judgments

Jayaswal Neco Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides and perused record. The appeals themselves are required to be disposed of. Accordingly, we proceed with the appeals after dispensing with requirement for pre-deposit of duty.2. The appellant is a manufacturer of Pig Iron. It also has a captive power generation plant which generates electricity for use in pig iron production. Part of the electricity also comes to be disposed of as the same is surplus.3. The duty demand has arisen on the finding that since part of the electricity is cleared without payment of duty, the appellant is required to pay 8% of the value and such electricity in terms of Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules.4. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that an identical issue had come up before the Tribunal in the case of Ballarpur Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E., Nagpur 2005 (129) ECR 268 and the Tribunal held that such a demand under Rule 57CC is not sustainable.5. It is seen that the issue remains covered in favour of the assess...

Chennai Marine Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The issue involved in this case is regarding the confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposition of the penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant imported a consignment of Freon 22 (Ship stores) from Dubai, UAE and filed ex-bond bill of entry for clearance of the said goods without payment of duty. The customs authorities felt that the said imports fall under the category of restricted items and on obtaining the analysis report of the said product the authorities issued a show cause notice for confiscation of the said goods and for imposition of penalty. The adjudicating authority confiscated the imported goods and also imposed a penalty on the appellant. On an appeal the appellate authority concurred with the views of the adjudicating authority and upheld the order-in-original. Hence this appeal.3. The learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the ...

Solanki Marbles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These appeals are directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 15-7-2005 which disposed of all appeals of the appellants before me. Since the issue involved in all these cases are same and arise out of common impugned order, I take up the appeals and decide the matter by one common order.2. The issue involved in this case is regarding service tax on all the appellants during the period 16-7-97 to 16-10-98 on the services received by them from goods transport operators.3. Learned Advocate for the appellants submits that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of L.H. Sugar Factory, as reported at 2006 (3) S.T.R. 715 (S.C.): 2005 (187) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.).4. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. It is not in dispute that the show cause notice has been issued to all the appellants for recovery of service tax under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. The said recovery under Section 73 was adjudicated and demands conf...

Cce Vs. Aureola Chemicals Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner (Appeals).2. The respondents M/s Aureola Chemicals Ltd are engaged in the manufacture of Sulphonic Acid on job work basis for M/s Hindustan Lever Limited. They are availing modvat credit in respect of the inputs used for manufacture of Sulphonic Acid. The respondents are getting LAB from M/s Hindustan Lever Ltd and they are producing sulphonic acid with the help of this raw materials. For manufacture of one MT of sulphonic acid, 1.1 MT of sulphuric acid is required. During this process, 0.8 MT of spent sulphuric acid emerges. While working out the cost of sulphonic acid, the respondents have reduced the cost to Rs. 380/- MT for the spent sulphonic acid retained by them. This reduction in the net cost of sulphonic acid by reducing the price of spent sulphonic acid has reduced the assessable value of sulphonic acid. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed this reduction of Rs. 380/- per MT which is being contested by th...

Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs. C.C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These two appeals are directed against the order in appeal-dated 7.4.2005 wherein the revenue's appeal has been allowed setting aside the orders in original that allowed refund to the appellants. Since the issues involved in both the cases are same both the appeals are disposed of by a common order.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant imported consignments of shots and grits and filed Bills of entries for home clearance, which were assessed as requested by the appellant. Subsequently a refund claim was filed by the appellant stating that they had paid excess duty. The said refund claim was scrutinized by the lower authorities and allowed. Revenue preferred appeals against the said orders, which were allowed by the appellate authority on the ground that once the Bill of Entries has been finally assessed then the route of the refund claim cannot be taken for the reassessment of the Bill of entries. Hence these appeals by the appellants.3. The lear...

Luminous Electronics Ltd., Sar Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(109)ECC477

1. All these three appeals are directed against the order in appeal dated 29.12.2003 wherein it was upheld that the appellants have violated the provisions of the Central Excise Rules. Since all the appeals arise out of common order in appeal, all the three appeals are disposed off by a common order.2. The relevant facts that arise for my consideration are appellant No.1 i.e. Luminous Electronics Pvt. Ltd. is a manufacturer of Inverters and UPS and appellant No. 2 i.e. SAR Silicon Pvt. Ltd., is a dealer of the goods manufactured by appellant No. 1, while appellant No. 3 i.e.Shri M.L. Malhotra is a Director of appellant No. 2. The allegations against appellant No. 1 are that during the visit of their premises the officers found excess finished goods and excess raw materials as against the recorded balances in the statutory records. Allegations against appellant No. 2 is that he had procured dutiable excise goods without the proper duty paying document and has indulged in the activity o...

Victor Aluminium Industries (P) Vs. Asstt. Cit, Company Circle 3(2),

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)9SOT197(Delhi)

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 29-8-2003 of the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-XVI, New Delhi, relating to the assessment year 1998-99.Ground Nos. 1 to 3 of the grounds of appeal of the assessee, read. as follows : "1. That the learned CIT (Appeals)-XVI, New Delhi, has erred in confirming an addition of Rs. 33,96,656 under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of a loan which had been obtained from O.B.S. Traders Private Limited. While making this addition he has ignored the relevant evidences which were placed on record and has erroneously taken into consideration evidence which had no connection or relevance to the assessment year in question. Furthermore, he has failed to appreciate that the addition which has been confirmed was based on mere surmises and conjectures; 2. That the learned CIT (Appeals) while making the above mentioned addition of Rs. 33,96,656 has at para 2.5 of the Appellate order ignored and disregarded the voluminous ...

Hughes Escorts Communications Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)106TTJ(Delhi)1065

1. ITA No. 184/Del/2003 is an appeal by the assessee while ITA No.191/Del/2000 is an appeal by the Revenue. Both these appeals are directed against the order dt. 16th Oct., 2002 of the learned CIT(A)-XV, New Delhi, relating to the asst. yr. 1995-96.2. First we shall take up for consideration the appeal of the assessee.Ground Nos. 1 and 1.1 of the grounds of appeal of the assessee, read as follow: 1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding that the appellant's business was set up on 6th Oct., 1994, when the first supply order from Bank of America was received, without appreciating that the business is regarded to be set up when the first of the series of commercial activity takes place; 1.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not holding that the business of the appellant was set up in the month of July, 1994, when a letter of intent was secured from a prospective customer, Bank of America, purchase orders for the equipment were placed and substantial commercial a...

Ge Capital Transportation Financial Services Ltd. Vs. South Asian Ente ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT500; 2006(90)DRJ46

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The Petitioner has filed this Application/Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (`the Act' for short) for setting aside the Arbitral Award of the Sole Arbitrator Justice K.S. Gupta (Retd.) passed on February 17, 2006. 2. Mr. Sanjay Karol, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner/Objector has particularly assailed the observations of the learned Arbitrator to the effect that 'for deciding this matter it is not necessary to examine the applicability/non-applicability of the concept of economic duress.' In the very next sentence the Arbitrator has held that - 'As the claimant was coerced/forced to pay the said amount as condition for release of the deposited amount of Rs. 3 crores with interest to VLS beyond the terms of lease agreement, the opposite party is liable to refund it with interest.' 3. On first reading these sentences appear to be mutually contradictory. However, a holistic reading would dispel all doubts. Mr. Karol has ...

Laxminarayan Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT490; 2006(90)DRJ543

R.C. Jain, J.1. The vexed question of law 'whether the police is under a statutory obligation to register FIR on the basis of a complaint made/information given by a citizen disclosing cognizable offence(s) and to take up the investigation or it has any discretion to make preliminary inquiry into the veracity and correctness of the allegations made in the complaint and not to register the FIR' has once again arisen in these two petitions.2. In both the petitions, the grievance of the petitioner is that no action was taken by the police on his complaints dated 3.1.2005 and 3.8.2005 addressed to SHO, P.S. Kotla Mubarakpur followed by reminders dated 6.1.2005 and 7.8.2005 issued to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (South). In the complaint dated 3.1.2005 the petitioner had alleged that Mr. Bajaj husband of Ms. Urvashi Bajaj, owner of House No. B-59, South Extension, Part-I forcibly entered into his (complainant's) residence at IInd floor of B-59, South Extension, Part-I occupied by him a...