Delhi Court May 2006 Judgments

Cce Vs. Raghunath Prasad Agarwal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The notice issued to the respondent was received back with the postal remarks left without any address. In these circumstances, the appeal is being taken up in absence of the respondent.3. The Revenue challenged the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the demand of duty was reduced from Rs. 1,75,616/- to Rs. 69,246.37.4. The contention of the Revenue is that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn out of cotton waste. The cotton yarn manufactured from cotton waste was exempted from payment of Central Excise duty prior to 1.3.94. The exemption was withdrawn from 1.3.94.From 1.3.94 only yarn in hank form was exempted from payment of duty.The respondents were clearing the yarn in hank form as well as on cones. The yarn cleared on cones is liable for Central Excise duty. On the basis of figures submitted by the present respondent, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. However, in the appeal filed before Commissioner (Appeals), t...

Granada Footwear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs. Vide impugned order, the Commissioner of Customs held that the appellants are liable to pay supervision charges in respect of in-bond manufacturing facility.3. The brief fats of the case are that the appellant is a 100% Export Oriented Unit established under letter of permission dated 27.3.2000.On 30.3.2000, the appellants were allowed to manufacture other parts in warehouse as per sanction letter whereby in-bond manufacturing was allowed. The appellants are to pay establishment charges i.e. pay and allowance, overtime allowances (if any) and other supervision charges of the staff member that may be posted or deputed to the unit. Vide impugned order (sic) charges were confirmed.4. The contention of the appellant is that the Commissioner of Customs in the impugned order admitted that no custom officer/official was posted at the warehouse. The demand of supervisory charges are being mad...

VipIn Enterprises and Shri Dinesh Vs. C.C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant imported 3 consignments of Zinc and filed 3 bills of entry dated 25.11.1998 before the Bombay Customs House. The goods were declared as 'Re-melted Zinc Ingots'. Invoice from American Trade Link, Inc., Houston was produced in support of the declared price f 600 U.S.$ per M.T.2. Consignments were assessed provisionally and cleared against bond.Samples taken were sent to the Customs House Laboratory for testing.Upon test, they were found to be of 99.4, 99.5, and 99.6% zinc. The chemical examiner opined as under: Sample is in the form of cut piece of rectangular ingot. It is mainly compound of zinc. The percentage of zinc in the sample as received 99.6. In the light Chapter heading 79.02/72.04 of H.S.N. It does not appear to be re-melted zinc ingot.Show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 11.1.2000 alleging mis-declaration of value and proposing to enhance the value to 1500 U.S.$ per M.T. Basis for this enhancement of value was that Electrolytic High Grade Zinc ha...

B.G. Goswami Vs. Cc, Icd

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This stay application has been filed by Shri B.G. Goswami, Prop. of M/s Neelam Exports and M/s Neelam Exports for staying recovery of penalty of Rs. 2 lacs each imposed on them.2. Although the stay application is filed for staying the recovery of penalty of Rs. 2 lacs and the appeal is also filed for the same, however, in the prayer made in the appeal petition besides setting aside the penalties, it is also prayed that the recovery of duty drawback amounting to Rs. 20,60,348/- and redemption fine of Rs. 2 lacs on M/s Neelam Exports may set aside. Since the stay application has been filed only for staying the recovery of Rs. 2 lacs. The applicant will have to pre-deposit the entire amount of duty drawback for hearing the appeal.3. For staying the recovery of penalty, it was argued for the applicants that M/s Neelam Exports have exported the goods under the four shipping bill and out of the four, they have already received the export proceeds amounting to US$ 1,71,700/- from the buye...

Karnal Milk Foods Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC543

1. None has appeared for the Appellant. The notice issued to the Appellant is being returned by postal authorities. Accordingly, we are proceeding to dispose of the appeal after hearing of the Learned SDR and perusing the record.2. Appellant manufactured Dairy Whitener. It is made out of partially skimmed milk powder, sugar and other items. It sought classification of the item under Excise Tariff heading 0401.19. Revenue Authority took a view that the correct classification would be under sub-heading 0401.13. The appeal filed against that order was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeal). Now, the matter is before us. The competing headings may be read:Heading No.Sub heading Description Rate of duty0401 Milk and Cream, Concentrated or containing added sugar or other401.13 Milk powder other than powder 8% specially prepared for feeding 3. The finding of the Commissioner is that ISI and other standards authorities treat full cream, partly skimmed and skimmed milk powder all as falling und...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Prestige Coating Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(106)ECC442

1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the appellant in spite of notice. The Revenue filed Misc. application brought on record the statement of one Shri Rajesh Kumar Trivedi, which was recorded in relation to the copy of affidavit filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the Misc. application is allowed. The appellant also filed reply to the application.2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of paints, primer and Oil bound distemper. On 4-11-96, the premises of the respondents was visited by the Revenue and on the basis of documents recovered from the premises, a show-cause notice was issued demanding duty of Rs. 2,75,763/- on the ground that the respondent manufactured and cleared the goods without payment of duty.In the show-cause notice, it was also proposed penalty on the firm as well as on Shri G.K. Agarwal, Director. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand on the ground that private records recove...

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. C.E.M.E.S. Association and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 131(2006)DLT636

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition challenges the order dated 17th December, 2003 delivered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'CAT'). The writ petition was occasioned by the challenge raised by the respondents seeking a quashing of the Office Order dated 1st August, 2002 and the subsequent Office Order dated 11th March, 2003 merging the two cadres of Civil and Electric Streams of C.P.W.D., leading to the post of promotion to the post of Additional Director General.2. The case of the respondents/applicants before the CAT, was as follows:A. The Central Public Works Department ( in short 'CPWD') was formed in 1930 for design, construction and maintenance of Central Government buildings. Right from the inception the civil stream and the electrical stream were made distinct and separate and were governed by separate 1954 Rules drawn under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. There were separate sub-divisions head by the Chief Engineers (Ci...

American Express Bank Ltd. Vs. Ms. Priya Puri

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006(110)FLR1061]; (2006)IIILLJ540Del

Anil Kumar, J.1. This order shall dispose of Plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the defendant's application under Order 39 Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure to vacate the interim order dated 15th October, 2005 whereby by the defendant was restrained from using the information and data regarding the wealth of the customers of the plaintiff bank and customers' wealth management operations and wealth View program/operations of the plaintiff's bank.2. Brief facts to comprehend the controversies between the parties are that the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendant seeking inter-alia a restrain against the defendant from using or disclosing any information and trade secrets relating to the business and operations of the plaintiff and to solicit or induce any of the customers of the plaintiff especially those who are part of the wealth management operation and/or wealth View programme and fro...

Uttam Agencies Vs. Govt of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT672

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J 1. Tea was liable for sales tax as part of kiryana goods from 1986 onwards. Vide notification dated 28.11.2000, Kiryana goods which had remained unspecified till then, were specified by introducing entry No. 16 in the Second Schedule. So after 28.11.2000, kiryana goods stood specified and tea did not form part of 'kiryana goods'. By implication tea came out of kiryana goods. By another notification of the same date kiryana goods were made liable for sales tax at first point. Since tea was not part of entry No. 16 of the Second Schedule, by implication tea was not liable for sales tax at first point and was liable for sales tax at last point. However, the petitioner who was distributor of Tata Tea Limited, continued collecting sales tax from the dealers at first point under the impression that tea continued to be taxable at first point as there was no separate entry for Tea. Petitioner filed sales tax returns for years 2000-2001, 2001-2002 and the Department acce...

Kasturi and Sons Limited Vs. Ultimate Advertising and Marketng and ors ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(90)DRJ26

Manju Goel, J.1. This suit is for recovery of Rs. 85,37,947.50 towards charges due from the defendants on account of advertisements published by the plaintiff on behalf of the defendants The plaintiff is the proprietor of 'The Hindu'. The defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm of which the defendant Nos. 2, 3 & 4 are the partners. The facts alleged by the plaintiff are as under:2. The defendant firm is an advertising concern and had been dealing with the plaintiff for advertising in the newspaper The Hindu. The defendants have been sending advertisements of their clients and also of their own to the plaintiff for publication on a clear understanding that the defendants would be making the payment of the advertisements at the then prevailing rate. The dealings between the plaintiff and the defendants were of principal to principal basis. As per the bills raised by the plaintiff for the advertisements carried by the plaintiff's newspaper a sum of Rs. 85,38,119.50 became due over the perio...