Delhi Court May 2006 Judgments

Raja Ram Maize Products Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(109)ECC662

1. The applicant seeks interim stay of the order of the Commissioner and waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 3,11,10,4257-, being the amount ordered to be recovered thereunder, and also of the penalty of Rs. 15,00,000/- imposed on the applicant.2. On facts, it has not been disputed that the applicant was required to maintain separate inventory and accounts of the receipt and use of inputs as contemplated by Sub-rule (9) of Rule 57-CC. Under Rule 57-CC, unless the provisions of Sub-rule (9) are complied with, the assessee was liable to pay an amount equal to 8% of the price (excluding sales tax and other taxes, if any, payable on such goods) of the category of final products which are exempt from the whole of the duty as contemplated by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 57-CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.3. The learned Counsel, appearing for the applicant, contended that the applicant had reversed the amount of credit, which was about Rs. 2 lacs, after the final products were removed. According to hi...

Saudi Basic Industries and ors. Vs. Designated Authority, Ministry

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC106

1. These appeals under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act are filed against the final findings in the mid term review issued on 26.2.2004, and the Notification dated 20.4.2004 by the rival parties to the extent that they have been aggrieved thereby.2. Appeal Nos. C/705/04 has been preferred by Saudi Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia the exporters of the subject goods into India seeking to set aside the impugned final findings and the notification by which the anti-dumping duty imposed on the appellant was continued, pursuant to the mid-term review, for a period of five years. Appeal No. C/706/04-AS and C/988/04-AD which have been filed by the Indian Plasticizers Manufacturers Association and Lubrizol India (P) Ltd. who are the importers of the subject goods into India also seek the same relief.2.1 The appellant of Appeal No. C/519/04-AD -Iran Petrochemicals Commercial Company also an exporter has challenged the imposition of the duty under the impugned notif...

D.S.M. Sugar Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides and perused the record. The appeal is directed against denial of remission of duty on 358.77 M.T. of molasses.2. The appellant is a manufacturer of sugar and molasses. Molasses is stored in tanks and delivery is through pipe line. On 23-4-03, a truck was called to transport lime from the appellants' factory. The truck caused an accident, damaging the delivery pipe line. This led to leakage of molasses. The appellant filed a case against the truck as well as a claim for remission of duty in regard to the molasses lost in the accident. That remission of duty claim was rejected.3. The ground taken by the Commissioner for rejecting the claim was that the loss is not on account of 'unavoidable' accident and that the appellant had shown a different time of accident in the remission application than in the FIR. Ld. Commissioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Golden Hills Estates v.CCE 4. The contention of the ld. Counsel is that the accid...

Hindustan Lever Ltd. and Nalco Vs. Designated Authority, Ministry

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC9

1. These appeals are filed by importers, M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd and M/s. National Aluminium Company Ltd. challenging recommendation of Designated Authority notified under Notification No. 14/39/2002 - DGAD dated 1.10.2003 and Notification No. 168/2003-Cus dated 14.1.2003 issued by the Government of India, imposing anti-dumping duty on Caustic Soda when imported from Chinese Taipei, Indonesia and European Union (excluding France).2. On the basis of written application received from M/s. Alkali Manufacturer Association of India (AMAI) on behalf of Domestic Industry alleging dumping of Sodium Hydroxide commonly known as Caustic Soda originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei, Indonesia and European Union (excluding France), investigations were initiated into the alleged dumping in terms of Section 9A of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 read with Customs Tariff (Identification Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping duty on dumped articles and for Determination of injury) Rules, 1995 (her...

Apar Industries Ltd. Vs. Ministry of Finance, the

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC153

1. The appellant - Domestic industry has challenged the final findings dated 27th July 2004 and the impugned notification issued on 28th September 2004 under Section 9A(1) & (5) of the Customs Tariff Act imposing anti dumping duty on sunset review and has prayed for the modification of the notification dated 28th September 2004 on the ground that the said impost is inadequate.2. Designated authority had initiated investigation against the imports of Styrene Butadiene Rubber (SBR) from Japan, Korea RP and United States of America and imposed definitive anti dumping duty on the SBR originating in or exported from the above said three countries. The designated authority conducted a mid-term review in July 2001 and it was concluded that the definitive anti dumping duty should be continued on SBR. The designated authority suo-moto by the powers granted under Proviso to Sub-section (5) of Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act notified the initiation of Sunset Review on 30th July 2003 wit...

Eurafrica S.A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides and perused the records. Both the stay applications relate to impositon of Service Tax on the service rendered by the applicants in regard to recruitment of Chief Process Manager - LYOCELL for Grasim Inds. Ltd. In the case of Eurafrica France, service has been treated as Consulting Engineer Service and Service Tax demanded accordingly. In the case of M/s. Jenewin & Partners, the same service has been treated as Management Consulting Service.2. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the applicants is that the service rendered in connection with recruitment cannot come within Consulting Engineering Service or Management Consulting Service in terms of the definition of these services. It is being emphasized that there is neither Engineering service nor Management service in recruiting.3. Prima facie the appellant's contention is correct. Identifying and selecting a Manager for a particular technology cannot be called engineering consultancy service or management se...

Shri T. Kujur Vs. Union of India (Uoi), (Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. By virtue of the present OA, the transfer on promotion effected by an order dated 27.1.2006 is being assailed by the applicant.3. The applicant, a civilian officer, i.e. Store Officer working in the Directorate General, AFHQ, challenges the transfer on the ground that as per the posting and transfer policy promulgated by the Ministry of Defence, which is applicable not only to AFHQ, civil and clerical staff but also to Headquarters/Section/Branches under the cadre control of Ministry of Defence, postulates that those who are superannuating within three years, are not to be transferred normally under the policy.4. In the above backdrop, it is stated that the applicant has been transferred dehors the policy without application of mind by the respondents.5. Shri Duli Chand, learned Counsel for respondents vehemently opposed the contentions and stated that the guidelines issued by the cadre controlling authority of different organizations, which are relied upon by the applicant, are no...

Shri Devender S/O Shri Deep Chand, Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Four applicants, working as Clerk in the Grade of Rs. 3050-4590/- in this OA seek the following relief: 8.1 Allow this application and direct the respondents to produce the records of the Dutta Report and the original roster for the last selection held in 1999 and the selection held in October 2003 which was illegally cancelled. 8.2 Direct the respondents to produce the sealed covers containing the results of the applicants and open the same before this Honble Tribunal and in case the applicants are found successful then to issue promotion orders as Senior Clerks with antedate seniority and consequential benefits. 8.3 Without prejudice to the prayer 8.2 and in the alternative in case the applicants are not found successful in the test then hold fresh suitability test against year wise vacancies since 1999 in accordance with the Rules and procedures of non selections posts. 8.4 Declare the letter dated 31.3.04 as null and void since it illegally cancelled the suitability test held a...

Shri Devendra Kumar S/O Shri Budh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. Earlier the termination of the applicant effected by the respondents vide their order dated 19.7.2005 was challenged before this Tribunal in OA-1617/2005, which was disposed of on 29.11.2005 with the following directions: 4. On careful consideration of the rival contentions of the parties and having taken into consideration the decision of the Apex Court in Jaswant Singh and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors. wherein on selection process of appointment, non-accord of opportunity and not following the cardinal principle of audi alteram partem, the order has been set aside. 5. In the light that the applicant has been prejudiced though he has no indefeasible right before the due selection process which, in consonance thereof, entails cancellation of his appointment, denial of reasonable opportunity is not in consonance with the principles of natural justice. 6. In the result, O.A. is partly allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Respondents are directed to restore the status of the applica...

Delhi Tourism and T.D.C. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of I.T.-ii

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)205CTR(Del)471; 131(2006)DLT607; 2006(89)DRJ382

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The appellant filed return for the Assessment Year 1995-96 disclosing a total income of Rs. 3,43,09,480/-. The appellant had claimed a deduction of electricity charges of Rs. 2,10,845/- and claimed another deduction of an amount of Rs. 29,12,000/- under Section 80-M. The Assessing Officer had disallowed deduction of Rs. 2,10,845/- being expenditure of the period prior to the assessment year and also disallowed deduction under Section 80-M. Aggrieved by the assessment order of the Assessing Officer, an appeal was preferred by the appellant before the Commissioner of Income Tax, which was dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax. Further appeal was filed by the appellant before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which was also dismissed. An additional ground was raised before the Appellate Tribunal with regard to the charge of interest under Section 234-A of Income Tax Act. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for this purpose.2. A dividend o...