Delhi Court May 2006 Judgments

Control and Switchgear Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Upon hearing the stay application, we find that the appeal itself is required to be disposed of. Accordingly, after dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit, we take up the appeal.2. The issue relates to the valuation of contactors overload relays, electrical timers and accessories thereof and motor starters manufactured by the appellant. The impugned order has held that valuation of these items was to be under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, despite the fact that no MRP is written on the packages.3. The submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that this issue had come up before the Tribunal between the parties and the Tribunal had held in that valuation is to be done under Section 4. It is being pointed out that this order was followed by the Tribunal in a subsequent order being final order No.354/05-NB(A) . The learned Counsel also points out that these orders were placed before the Commissioner but the Commissioner has passed the impugned ord...

Eicher Motors Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Main issue in this appeal is the duty liability of about Rs. 7 crores (Rupees Seven Crores only) on appellant M/s Bhagirath Coach and Metal Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. That demand has been made on the basis that assessable value adopted was low, while discharging duty on motor vehicles manufactured by it.3. Facts of the case are that the applicant M/s Bhagirath Coach and Metal Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. receives duty paid chassis from M/s Asha Motors, builds body on the chassis and clears the same on payment of duty. The duty payment on the body built vehicle is on the basis of cost of production (assessable value). The appellant adopted the commercial cost of chassis for working out cost of production. But revenue seeks to adopt the excise assessable value of chassis in place of its commercial cost. Revenue's contention is that Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules provides for adopting 110% of the cost of production as assessable value of captively consumed goods and the assessable value of chassi...

Kanchan Vs. G.P. Srivastava

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT653; 2006(90)DRJ71

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. Admit.2. At the request of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal at this stage.3. The petitioner is the owner / landlord of an L.IG. flat in the Co-operative Group Housing Society bearing No. B4/69, Paryatan Vihar, Vasundhra Enclave, Delhi. The petitioner is a widow and is presently residing in Gurgaon.4. Late husband of the petitioner, Shri Radhey Krishan had booked the said flat and possession of the said flat was taken over in November, 1989. The flat consists of one bed room, one drawing room, one kitchen and one bath room. The flat was let out to the respondent who is an Advocate by profession, in 1994 and the tenancy is oral.5. The husband of the petitioner unfortunately passed away on 11.12.2003 on account of Cancer and the petitioner, thus, became the landlady. The petitioner has been making payment of house-tax and the respondent has been paying rent to the petitioner after the demise of her husband.6. It is alleged that late Shri Radh...

Shivali Udyog (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC407

1. Heard both sides. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 50,45,263/-. The revenue confirmed the demand after denying the credit on the ground that processes undertaken by the appellant does not amount to manufacture. Therefore, the applicants are not entitled for the credit.2. The applicants are manufacturing H.B. Wire and availing the credit in respect of duty paid on the raw-material i.e. wire rods. After converting the wire rods into wire, the applicants are clearing the same on payment of appropriate duty. The payment of duty is not disputed by the revenue, therefore, pre-deposit of whole of the duty is waived for hearing of the appeal.3. We find that this issue is already settled by the Tribunal in the case of Sri Venkateswara Co. v. CCE, Coimbatore reported in 2006 (195) E.L.T. 304 whereby such demand was set aside after taking into consideration that manufacturer has paid more duty than the credit and the Tribunal in the case of CCE, In...

India Glycols Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC554

1. These appeals are directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 30.4.2004.Appeal No. E/3504/04 is filed by the assessee, while appeal No.E/4096/04 is filed by the department.2. The assessee has filed appeal against denial of Modvat Credit on the following items: While the department is challenging the impugned order for allowing credit on cement, bitumen and M.S.Angles.3. Heard both sides and perused the record. Let me first take up the assessee appeal for disposal. The assessee is challenging the denial of Modvat Credit on above items. From the perusal of the record I find that the Modvat Credit on Inerts & Springs, Ceramic Fibre, Enklon N.68, and Cable Glands are permissible to the appellants/assessee. These items are used by the appellant in their factory in relation to the manufacture of their final product. I find from the record that without Inerts & Springs, catalysts which are added by the appellants during the manufacture, would not be possible.. Ceramic Fibre is used for...

Shri Lal Chand Vs. Commr. of Cus. (General)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This application for restoration of appeal is directed against the Order of this Tribunal dated 7th June, 2002 which dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant for non-compliance of the direction of the Tribunal.2. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. I find from the record that the Tribunal had extended the time period of depositing the amount of Rs. 30,000/- from 30th April, 2002 to 7th June, 2002 and the Counsel was instructed accordingly. Despite this the appellant did not deposit the amount as was directed. I find from the record that the appellant is a Head Constable in police and he was apprehended by the officers of D.R.I, for illegal activity of carrying 35 gold biscuits. Normally I would not have consid-ered matter, but since, the appellant is an Head Constable and his family is suffering the application for restoration of appeal is being considered sympathetically. I consider his request and keeping in view the facts and circumstances I ...

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. O.P. Chawla

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)116TTJ(Delhi)755

1. This appeal, preferred by the Revenue, is directed against CIT(A)'s order dt. 9th Feb., 2001 relating to asst. yr. 1995-96. The only ground taken in this appeal by the Revenue is as under: Based on facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding the assessment order dt. 30th March, 2000 to be bad in law and ab initio null and void and annulling the same without going into the merits of the addition of Rs. 28,90,000 made by the AO under Section 68 on account of unexplained NRE gifts.2. Shri B.D. Kharab, CIT-Departmental Representative along with Shri R.P. Meena, senior Departmental Representative appeared for the Revenue whereas Shri Rahul Khare, advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee. 3.1. The assessee derived income from house property, from salaries, short-term capital gains and other sources. He filed return of income for the assessment year in question on 30th March, 1996 showing income at Rs. 4,42,350. The return was processed under Section 1...

Ajay Bajaj Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 131(2006)DLT531; 2006(89)DRJ457; 2007(207)ELT50(Del)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The petitioner has been in custody since 05.05.2006 on the allegation of having committed offences under Sections 132/135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out straightway that an application for bail had been moved before the Sessions Court and by an order dated 22.05.2006, the Sessions Court had granted bail to the petitioner, but had imposed a condition of requiring the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.1 crore. He referred to the said order and said that such a condition cannot be imposed. In support of this proposition, he referred to the following decisions:-i) M.R. Narayanan v. State 103 (2003) DLT 534 ;ii) M. Sreenivasulu Reddy v. State of Tamil Nadu 2001 (2) Crimes 230 (SC);iii) Sumitra Chauhan (Ms.) v. State and Anr 2005 VI AD (Delhi) 821; andiv) Sandeep Jain v. National Capital Territory of Delhi, Rep. By Secretary, Home Dept...

Mr. M.S. Rohilla S/O. Sh. Deep Chand Rohilla Vs. High Court of Delhi T ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT737; 2006(89)DRJ283; 2007(1)SLJ432(Delhi)

Vijender Jain, Acting C.J.1. Mr. M.S. Rohilla, an erstwhile Officer of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service has filed this writ petition and has challenged an order dated 15.2.1995 passed by this Court on Administrative Side whereby it was decided not to place him on probation and to revert him back to the substantive post in Delhi Judicial Service. Earlier this writ petition was heard by a Bench of two Judges of this Court, but on 10.5.2002, when the matter came up for hearing before the then Chief Justice and A.K. Sikri, J, the Bench was pleased to pass the following order:-This Writ Petition raises interesting question of interpretation of Article 235 vis.a.vis Rule 7 and 16 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Services Rules. According to the petitioner, he had been appointed by the Administrator in terms of Rule 7 of the Rules. The High Court could not have passed the impugned order dated 15th February, 1995 whereby and whereunder, having not been selected, he was reverted to the substantive...

Swaraj Mazda Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)10STR533

3. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In this case, the credit of Rs. 18,380/- was disallowed on the ground that the appellant received less inputs than mentioned in the invoices, however, taken the credit on the quantity mentioned in the invoices. A penalty of Rs. 5000/- is imposed on the appellant.4. The contention of the appellant in the appeal memo is that no credit can be denied in respect of shortage, which was negligible as the shortage may be occurred during shifting of the material one transport to another.5. In this case, the appellant admitted the fact that they received less inputs than mentioned in the invoices, the inputs are like frame complete, lid Assay, regulator window these are parts of motor vehicles and it cannot be said that short receipt and quantity can be misplaced during the transit. The adjudicating authority in the impugned order held that the appellant has taken the plea that the inputs initia...