Delhi Court June 2006 Judgments

Bbc World (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The learned Counsel for the applicant states that there was a delay of 12 days in filing the appeal. The delay was attributable to the fact that the concerned employee had left the firm without handing over the papers he was handling for the appellants. As sufficient ground is shown, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.2. The application has been filed alongwith the appeal No. 122/06-ST challenging the order of the Commissioner, Service Tax, New Delhi made on 31-1-2006. In the impugned order, the learned Commissioner had stated that the appellant cannot claim adjustment in the service tax payable for the subsequent period as a matter of right. He therefore, held that the appellant's claim was not justified confirming the demand of Rs. 1,09,628/- Under Section 73 read with Sections 68 and 66 of the Act.3. The learned Commissioner of Service tax vide his order dated 31-1-2006, has identified the following three issues:- He has found that the facts are self-evident and a matter...

Birla Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(209)ELT48TriDel

1. These 2 appeals are directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 29-7-2004. Since the issue involved in this case is regarding dismissal of the appeal for delay, both the appeals are taken up together and disposed of by a single order.2. When the matter was called out, none appeared for the appellant despite notice, northere is any request for adjournment.3. Considered the submissions made by learned D.R. and perused the record. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has disposed of the appeals on the ground of delay in filing the appeals by 1 day and 2 days. It is also seen that the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeals for no application being filed by the appellant for condonation of delay. On perusal of the record I find that the appellants have, in fact, dispatched the appeals through registered post addressed to the Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal well within the time limit of 60 days as provided under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Further, the delay may be ...

Prima Pick N. Pack Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the refund claim of the appellant was rejected on the ground that the goods were cleared as per the approved price list. Therefore, the refund is not maintainable.3. The contention of the appellants is that they are engaged in the manufacture of HDPE bags and were supplying to Food Corporation of India (FCI). The appellants filed price list in Part-II, which was approved by the proper officer w.e.f. 30.11.90. Subsequent to this approval, the FCI revised the prices of the bags downward and the appellants filed revised price list dated 25.3.91 giving effect from 30.11.90. The same was also approved by the Revenue. During the month of December, 1990, the appellants cleared HDPE bags to the FCI raising the invoice at the rate prevalent at that time. However, the FCI after revision of the rates, made payment at the revised rates. The contention is that as the appellants cleared the ...

Cce Vs. Varadhman Spg. and General Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC238

1. This application for rectification of mistake is filed by the Reveagainst Final Order No. 1994/05-SM(BR) dated 22.11.2005.2. Learned D.R. submits that the mistake apparent on record is that the question of time bar was raised before the first appellate authority in support of which he relies upon the grounds of appeal taken in EA-2.3. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. I find from the application for rectification of mistake that the department wants the Tribunal to re-consider the order dated 22.11.2005 on the ground that the department had, in fact, agitated the time bar aspect before the first appellate authority and there is a mistake in the Tribunal's order, as much that it has noted "though the reason best known to them, the revenue authorities did not prefer an appeal against the point of time-bar before the Commissioner, but they preferred an appeal on merits." On plain reading of the Order-in-Appeal dated 16.10.2003 it is very clear that ...

Shyam Sunder Fatehpuria and Sons Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC213

1. This appeal is directed against order in appeal dated 25/10/2004, wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order, that confiscated the foreign marked gold biscuits and also imposed penalty on the appellants.2. The relevant facts that arise for my consideration are that the appellant's residence was searched by the officers of the Customs and recovered 15 (fifteen) foreign marked gold biscuits. The said gold biscuits were found wrapped in a newspaper and kept in a steel almirah in the residence of the appellants. Since the appellant could not produce any bill or voucher or any other document at the time of recovery as an evidence to show legal possession, the said 15 (fifteen) foreign marked gold biscuits were seized. Show cause notice was issued for confiscation of the said goods and also for imposition of penalty.In the first round of litigation, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) order was set aside by the Tribunal and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeal) to...

inani Carriers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC306

2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants were issued a show cause notice for short/delayed payment of service tax for the quarter ending September, December, 2000, March, June, September, and December, 2001 and quarter ending March, 2002. The said show cause notice was adjudicated by the adjudicating authority and vide his Order-in-Original dated 16-10-2003 confirmed the demand of service tax and imposed penalty Under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by the said order the appellants preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide his Order-in-Appeal dated 13-10-2004 upheld the order-in-original. The appellants discharged service tax liability and also deposited the amount of penalty. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II, in exercise of powers vested in him Under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 issued a show cause notice to the appellants on 12-8-2005 indicating that, he would like to review imposition of penal...

Cce Vs. Raj Creators

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC196

1. These two appeals arise out of order in appeal dated 30^th July, 2003 which set aside the order in original confirming the demand and imposing penalty. The revenue is in appeal against this order.2. The issue involved in this case is the respondents have been denied modvat credit on the input GP Sheets which were allegedly not used in or relation to the manufacture of final product and were removed clandestinely and to make up the loss in production it was alleged that the respondent brought HR-CR sheets in the manufacture of final products. The learned Commissioner (Appeal) in his order in appeal has held that the statements of the supplier clearly indicate that the invoices which were issued to the respondents were indicating wrong description of the goods. Learned DR submits that in this case it was a clear issue where the respondent do not manufacture tractor parts with the GP sheets but could have manufactured the same only with HR-CR sheets. It is his contention that the appe...

Benara Auto (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This application for Restoration of appeal is directed against the final order dated 28.12.2005, which dismissed the appeal of the appellant for non-prosecution. It is the submission of the advocate for the applicant that he could not be present on that day as the hearing was not intimated and he had to go out of station. The reason given by the applicant is a justifiable and hence the order-dated 28.12.2005 is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number. The appeal itself is taken up for disposal.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration is that the officers of the Central Excise visited the factory of the appellant and conducted stock taking. It was found by the officers that there was a stock of 1171 pcs of finished goods unaccounted in the RG 1 register.The said goods were seized and the officers conducted further investigation. On conclusion of the investigation a show cause notice was issued demanding duty on the allegation that the appellant had remov...

Akash Optifibres Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)6STT489

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 19-9-2005 which upheld the Order-in-Original imposing penalty and recovery of interest.2. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. The appellants are recipient of services of Goods Transport Operators during the period 16-11-97 to 1-6-98. As per the retrospective amendment made to the Finance Act, 1994, the appellant were required to pay service tax due on such services received by them from G.T.O. The appellants deposited the service tax due on 25-2-2004.The department issued the show cause notice to the appellants for recovery as well as imposition of penalty and demand interest on 25-5-2004. The ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Greenply Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur-1 [Final Order No. 626/2006-SM, dated 22-2-2006] squarely applies in this case. This Tribunal has been taking consistent view that the interest, if any at all has to be recovered from the appellants, it will be fro...

Hind Spinners Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC523

1. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner(Appeals). The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Polyester Yarn, Polyester Blended Yarn. Modvat scheme made applicable in respect of the goods manufactured by the appellant w.e.f. 1.3.94. The appellant filed the necessary declaration under Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules for claiming duty credit on inputs on 4.3.94. The revenue denied the credit in respect of the inputs which were received from 1.3.94 to 3.3.94 on the ground that the credit was availed without filing any declaration. Another credit was also denied under Rule 57H of Central Excise Rules on the ground that the credit is available in respect of the inputs which were in stock and which contained in the final product as the amount in dispute is in respect of inputs contained in the process loss, therefore, the benefit has been denied.2. The contention of the appellant is that they had filed necessary declaration for availin...