Delhi Court May 2006 Judgments

Mayur Inorganics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant has challenged the order of the Commissioner confirming the liability of the assessee to pay service tax amounting to Rs. 89,426/- as per Item No. 97 of Table under para 21 of the impugned order. The only contention that the Learned Authorised Representative for the appellant has raised is that the Commissioner has overlooked the amendment in the Notification No. 43/97-S.T., dated 5-11-97 by Finance Act of 2003, by substituting clauses (i) or (ii) of the Notification No. 5-11-97 w.e.f 6-11-97. It is clear from the substituted Clause (i) that the benefit of the Notification would apply to a factory registered as Small Scale Industry with the State Government. The applicant was admittedly registered as a Small Scale Industry. The fact that it was a company did not preclude it from the benefit of SSI under Clause (i).2. Therefore, the applicant has made out a prima facie case for total waiver of pre-deposit. Interim stay of the impugned order is granted without any condi...

Universal Traders, Mehmood Gulam Vs. Cc (Exports)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(112)ECC357

1. All these appeals are directed against the same adjudication order.They were heard together and are disposed of under this common order.2. Material facts leading to the passing of the impugned order are that first appellant M/s Universal Traders, Mumbai filed shipping Bill No.5137775 dated 25.09.2003 for exporting a consignment. The goods in ten drums was declared as 'Perfume Attar-Raat Rani'. The export price was declared around Rs. 1.4 lakhs.3. Based on information that the consignment actually is Sandalwood Oil, the Customs authorities started investigation. The testing of sample in the customs laboratory confirmed the presence of Sandalwood Oil in the consignment. But purity could not be ascertained. Indian Institute of Technology of Mumbai stated as under about the samples: The samples are analysed by Gas chromatography method on GC-MS. The above results are based on area percent of Santalol (Sandalwood Oil) in the volatile matter that can be analyzed on GC". The percentage of...

Harish Kumar Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC524

1. The applicants seek restoration of their respective appeals which were dismissed on the ground that the pre-deposits were not made by them, contending that there were no orders against them to make such pre-deposits, and because their appeals were grouped along with other appeals in which the manufacturers and Technocrat Marketing Pvt. Ltd. were ordered to make deposits, and since they failed to make such deposits, this group of appeals also came to be dismissed along with the appeals of those defaulters.2. There is no dispute over the fact that only the appellants, M/s.Hindustan Machines, Asiatic Engineers (P) Ltd., M/s. Dynamic Engineers, M/s. Konark Industries, who were manufacturers were directed to deposit 50% of the duties payable by them as stated in paragraph-7 of the order granting stay. The other appellant, M/s. Technocrat Marketing Pvt. Ltd. was ordered to deposit Rs. 25 Lac against the penalty of Rs. 50 Lac which was imposed on that appellants. There was no separate ord...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Punjab Exports

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise whereby proceeding initiated under show-cause were dropped.3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are a 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of polyester grey fabric etc. On 27-2-02 the officers of Revenue visited the premises of respondent and it was found that 100 bales of foreign made fabric were found lying unaccounted in the compounded warehouse of the respondent. During investigation, Managing Director of respondent disclosed to the Revenue that the said 100 bales belonged to another concern i.e. M/s. Fashion World International, situated in the same building. A show-cause notice was issued to the respondents for confiscation of these bales and for imposition of penalties.4. The adjudicating authority after going through the evidence on record which shows that the bales in question were duly entered in the statutory record of M/s. Fashion World Internation...

Sundek India (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal relates to two imports made by M/s. Sundek India Pvt.Ltd. Therefore, at the outset, we make it clear that this order applies only to the two imports made by the present appellant and not to other imports also covered by the order impugned in these appeals.2. Facts of the case are that the appellant imported two consignments [4.5 metric ton each] of Overlay Tissue Paper from Japan. Bills of entries dated 18-11-88 and 9-3-89 were filed for the clearance of these consignments before Bombay Customs. The unit price for the imports was 360 Yen per Kg. CIF, Bombay. Customs Authorities rejected the transaction value for the purpose of valuation on the ground that another party namely JAY, Bombay had imported from the same party Overlay Tissue Paper @ 530 Yen per kg. under invoice dated September 13, 1988. Under the impugned order, the consignments remain assessed on the basis of 530 Yen per Kg, and duty demand raised. The present appeals are directed against that enhancement of...

Cce Vs. Amar Coach Builders

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC486

1. The respondent has been building bodies on motor vehicle chassis.Disputes arose with the Revenue as to whether duty was payable by the appellant in regard to vehicle made as well as scrap arising in the body building. Show-cause notices were issued.2. In adjudication, the Commissioner held in favour of the assessee in regard to both vehicles built as well as scrap. Finding was that vehicle remains exempt under Notification No. 27/02 dated 23/07/2002.In regard to scrap, it was held that such scrap remained exempt under Notification No. 89/95 dated 18/5/95.3. In the present appeal, the contention of the Revenue is that the exemption for scrap under Notification No. 18/9 of 1985 was in regard to scrap arising in the manufacture of exempted goods or goods which were liable to nil rate of Duty. The contention of the Revenue is that there was no such exemption notification in regard to the body built.It is being pointed out that exemption No. 27 dated 23/07/2002 was an order issued under...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sedco Forex Intt. Drilling Inc.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)103TTJ(Delhi)99

1. These are Departmental appeals for the asst. yrs. 1999-2000 and 2000-01. The common grounds raised (ground No. 1 has not been raised in ITA No. 2920/Del/2003) are: (1) That the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the off-period salary is not taxable in India. (2) That the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of boarding perquisite.2. The first issue is with regard to the off-period salary. The assessees are technician employees of M/s Sedco Forex International Drilling Incorporation. The AO charged salary of the assessees for the entire year, including that of the off-period, earned by the assessees in the UK as residents of the UK, to tax.3. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessees contended that the salary for the off-period was neither for rest period, nor for off-period, because during the 28 days outside India, the employees were available to the employer-company for various purposes like training, obtaining visas, etc., as enumerated in the work s...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Essjay Enterprises (P) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. ITA 1818/Delhi/00 ITA 1744/Delhi/01 : These are appeals by the revenue against two orders of Commissioner (Appeals)-XXIX, New Delhi dated 12-1-2000 and 7-2-2002 for assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98 respectively.2. The only common issue for consideration in these two appeals is as to whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in directing the assessing officer to assess the income arising from sale and purchase of shares under the head capital gains" as against the action of the assessing officer in treating the same as Business Income.3. The facts as far as assessment year 1996-97 is concerned are as follows. The assessee is a company. The main objects of the assessee-company as per its MOU is to carry on the business of hotel, restaurant, cafe, beer house, restaurant room, etc. During the previous year the assessee sold shares and earned a profit of Rs. 65,32,100 which was offered to tax under the head 'Capital gains'. The assessing officer noticed that the assessee was ...

thermospares India Vs. B.H.E.L. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(2)ARBLR404(Delhi); 130(2006)DLT382; 2006(89)DRJ702

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.IA No. 4562/2001 (Under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940)1. The respondent BHEL invited tenders for erection, testing and commissioning of pressure parts of Boiler Units I and II at Panipat Thermal Power Project, Panipat in 1976. The petitioner submitted its tender, which was the lowest and was thus accepted. A letter of intent was issued by the respondent. The respondent issued the work order No. 60049 dated 3.11.1976 to the petitioner for Unit I for a total value of Rs. 12,34,200/- and during the execution of the said work on 10.5.1977 also awarded pressure parts work of Unit II to the petitioner as per the work order dated 10.5.1977.2. The respondent further invited tenders for erection of external pipelines and auxiliaries of Units I and II and the tender of the petitioner was found to be the lowest, which was accepted and the letter of intent issued on 13.6.1977. The work order No. 60060 dated 17/22.08.1977 was placed on the petitioner for a to...

Htil Corporation, B.V. and ors. Vs. Mr. Ajay Kohli and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT629; 2006(90)DRJ410

Manju Goel, J. 1. is No. 3014/06 is an application under Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short `CPC') for striking off the defense of the defendants and for pronouncing the judgment against the defendants. Reply to the application has been filed. is No. 5506/06 is an application by defendants 1 & 2, hereinafter referred to as `defendants', under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC for condoning the delay in filing the written statement. Both the applications are disposed of by this order.2. The facts leading to the filing of the present application are as under:The suit was presented on 19.7.2005. On 20.7.2005 this Court, inter alia, passed an order for issue of summons through ordinary process as well as through Regd. A.D. The defendants were served with summons on 2.8.2005. On 18.8.2005 Mr. S.K.Tiwari and Mr. Y.R.Sharma put in appearance for the defendants. The summons required the defendants to file their written statement within 30 days from the date of the service. The written s...