Delhi Court May 2006 Judgments

Hind Polymers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides and perused the record. The stay application is directed against an order of Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal for the reason that the appellant failed to make pre-deposit as ordered.2. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the requirement for pre-deposit was unjust since the show cause notice had been issued six years after the period and also that the appellant was financially in great difficulties. It has also been pointed out that the demand would not be sustainable in view of this Tribunal's decision in the case of L.H. Sugar Mills .3. The appellant's application for waiving the requirement for pre-deposit merited acceptance. The rejection of the same and subsequent rejection of the appeal for failure to make the pre-deposit were not justified. The Commissioner should consider the appeal on merit and pass an order.4. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is remanded to the C...

L.G. Hotline (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC534

1. The issue raised in both the appeals is the same. Accordingly, they are heard together and are being disposed of under this common order.2. The appellants are a manufacturer of Colour Picture Tubes. Such tubes are sold as original equipment to colour television manufacturers. In the present proceedings, certain picture tubes found in the appellant's factory (384 Nos.) and certain picture tubes in transit (208 Nos.) have been confiscated on the ground that they were clandestinely manufactured.3. The appellants' contention was that these Colour Picture Tubes had been returned by T.V. manufacturers for repair and they had been subjected to process of repair and no duty is attracted on repair. The appellants also produced return D-3 declarations filed before the Central Excise Authorities at the time of receipt of these from the T.V. manufacturers. They also rely on their register relating to repair of such items. The explanation of the appellants was rejected with the observation that...

Anil JaIn Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 131(2006)DLT573; 2006(89)DRJ364; 2007(207)ELT215(Del)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J 1. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case against the petitioner is that he knowingly purchased dry fruits from one Arun Gupta with the express knowledge that Arun Gupta had imported the same without payment of appropriate customs duty. thereforee, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the case that is being set up is under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). He submitted that the petitioner was first interrogated on 30.3.2006 when the petitioner gave the statement that he had purchased 30 MTs of dry fruits from the said Arun Gupta. He further had clearly stated that he had no knowledge that the goods which had been sold to him were non-duty paid goods. The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that even today the petitioner's stands by the statement recorded on 30.3.2006. He further submitted that on 4.4.2006 the petitioner was picked up from his residence by the officers of t...

NitIn Developers and Const Vs. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Del)497; [2006]284ITR605(Delhi)

In this petition for a writ of certiorari, the petitioner has assailed the correctness of an order dated 5-8-2005, as amended by a corrigendum dated 17-8-2005, passed by the respondent in terms of section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, transferring the income-tax assessment proceedings from Delhi to Meerut. It is not in dispute that no notice of the proposed transfer order was ever issued to the petitioner nor any objections invited from it. The order does not even enumerate the reasons which made it necessary to transfer the assessment proceedings from Delhi to Meerut. That a notice ought to go to the assessed and the order of transfer ought to disclose proper application of mind to the objections which the assessed may have raised is fairly well-settled. Inasmuch as both these requirements have failed in the instant case, the transfer of proceedings from Delhi to Meerut is rendered unsustainable.Mr. Sabharwal, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that while the order may...

Krishna Construction Co. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT612; 2006(90)DRJ531

Manju Goel, J.1. The petitioner, Krishna Construction Company, has filed the present petition under Section 14 & 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') for notice to respondent No. 2 (Shri S.S. Kaimal, Sole Arbitrator) to file his award dated 24.11.1992. The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business of building contractor. On tenders invited by respondent No. 1, Delhi Development Authority, the petitioner submitted his tender for the work styled as '1200 MIG Houses Pkt. GH-14 in the Zone G-17 at Paschim Vihar including water supply, sanitary installation & internal development of land SH: C/O 192 MIG Houses Group IV'. The tender was accepted by respondent No. 1 at 56% above the estimated cost together with rebates offered. The agreement included an arbitration clause as clause No. 25. On account of certain differences arising between the parties, the petitioner sought a reference to the Arbitrator. The petitioner moved a petition under Sectio...

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Mohinder Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(1)SLJ131(Delhi)

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule DB. With the consent of the parties the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.2. This writ petition challenges the judgment/order dated 11th August, 2004 passed in O.A. No. 350/2004 by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Principal Bench), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'CAT') allowing the O.A. filed by the respondents.3. The respondents who were blue printer/ferro printers claimed that they were working with Central Electricity Authority (CEA) and that they were entitled to parity with the pay scale available to the tracers in the Central Water Commission, (CWC) w.e.f. 1.1.1986 both of which CWC and CEA were earlier part of Central Water and Power Commission (CWPC) where tracers and ferro printers/blue printers were being treated alike. Their qualifications and pay scales were also identical. Later on CWPC was bifurcated in 1974 bringing into existence the CWC and the CEA.4. The Tribunal has noticed and in our view rightly that no satisfactory ...

Shiv Shakti Steel Tubes Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Appellant filed this appeal against the Adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise whereby demand of Rs. 59,79,963/- was confirmed and penalty of the equal amount was imposed on the ground that appellant manufactured and cleared ERW Pipes without payment of duty.3. Brief facts of the case are that in the manufacture of 1st November, 1999, it was found that appellants were clearing the goods to Jagdamba Steel Traders which is proprietary concern of Shivji Ram who is also partner in appellant's Firm. During the search of premises of Jagdamba Steel Traders, Note Book was recovered which was written by one Ram Kumar in charge of the Godown. Shri Ram Kumar in his statement specifically mentioned that he made entries in the Note Book relating receipt of pipes from Shiv Shakti Steel Tubes factory and other manufacturer and made entries in details, the material received, Vehicle number and weight and the details, such as from whom the goods were received. He also discl...

Next Generation Business Power Vs. Cc, Icd

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(109)ECC209

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 4.8.2004 which upheld the Order-in-Original that rejected the refund claim of the appellant.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant filed a refund claim for an amount of Rs. 2,59,912/- as being paid in excess by them.3. The appellant imported goods namely U.P.S. and filed bill of entry under Chapter Heading 8504.40 which attracted customs duty of 25% basic, 10% surcharge, 16% C.V.D., and 4% SAD. The assessing officer assessed the goods under Chapter Heading 8543.89 attracting duty 35% basic, 10% surcharge, 16% CVD, and 4% SAD. The appellant did not file any appeal against this assessment, nor did he pay the customs duty 'under protest'. The appellant filed refund claim subsequently after the decision of the Tribunal on the classification of the said goods under Chapter Heading 8504 in some other case. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim and on appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) a...

Shri Faiyaz Shamim Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(109)ECC206

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original dated 6.7.2004 against imposition of penalty of Rs. 1 lakh.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that on 19.9.2003 the Customs officers posted at Chennai International airport intercepted the appellant and inquired from him the contents of his baggage. He replied that he was carrying U.S.$ 25,000/- in his checked-in baggage. Not satisfied with his answer he was taken to the AIU room along with baggage. On the checking of baggage it was found that the appellant was carrying U.S.$ 50,000 in travelers' cheques, and Rs. 10,000/- Indian currency in cash. The appellant was not able to produce any permission granted by the Reserve Bank of India for carrying such a huge amount of foreign exchange in form of traveler's cheques. Show cause notice was issued to the appellant, the directors and Finance Manager of M/s. Dinmay Exim Avenue (P) Ltd., Kolkata. The adjudicating authority in his Order-in-Original came to the conclusio...

Karan Singh Vs. the State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT114; 2006(89)DRJ665

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 13.07.2005 in connection with an alleged recovery said to have been made from the co-accused (Naresh Kumar). The alleged recovery from the co-accused (Naresh Kumar) is of two polythene bags of 1 k.g. each. One of the bags was said to contain 1.4% of diacetylmorphine and the other bag was said to contain paracetamol and caffeine. In any event, the learned Counsel for the petitioner does not advance any arguments with regard to the recovered substance and / or content of diacetylmorphine therein. His argument is that the alleged recovery from the co-accused (Naresh Kumar) cannot be linked with the present petitioner. He has submitted that only the secret information is pressed into service by the prosecution to link the present petitioner with the recovery from the co-accused (Naresh Kumar). Apart from this, there is no other evidence.2. He referred to the decision of the...