Delhi Court June 2006 Judgments

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Rgr Pharmaceuticals

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(107)ECC459

1. The revenue filed Misc. application raising additional grounds, the same is allowed.2. Heard both sides. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) held that there is no provision under the Central Excise Act which may restrict any assessee to surrender his registration certificate in case he stops manufacture of goods. The Commissioner Appeals) also held that recovery of pending duty demand is entirely a different issue and the same can be recovered under the existing provisions of law.3. Revenue filed this appeal on the ground that the order passed by the lower authority was not appealable order, therefore, no appeal lies for Commissioner (Appeals). The contention of the Revenue is also that registration certificate can be surrendered subject to compliance of statutory obligations under Excise Law, particularly, the payment of all dues to Govt. including the duty on any finished excisable goods...

Medpro Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC652

1. In this appeal before the Larger Bench, the following questions stand referred to us by the Division Bench vide its Misc. Order No.M/32/06-ST dated 24.04.2006: 1. Whether services provided by a person engaged in either clearing, or forwarding operations, or both, will all fall within the ambit of the definition of "clearing and forwarding agent" under Section 65(23) of the Finance Act, 1994, so as to attract the levy of service tax? 2. Whether only when the clearing and forwarding agent carries out both clearing and forwarding operations, the levy of service tax will be attracted and not otherwise, as held by the Tribunal in Kulcip Medicines P. Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi-III (Final Order No. 752/2005-Cus dated 29.06.2005) and Vaman Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Bangalore (23) Clearing and forwarding agent" means any person who is engaged in providing any service, either directly or indirectly, connected with the clearing and forwarding operations in any manner to any other person and includes a ...

Larson and Toubro Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC634

1. In all these appeals the question involved before the authorities below was whether the assessees were clearing and forwarding agents under their respective agreements, and liable to pay service tax for providing services connected with the forwarding and clearing operations.2. When Appeal No. Service Tax/81/05 came up for hearing before a Division Bench, the Division found it difficult to agree with the proposition laid down by the earlier Division Bench decision in Prabhat Zarda Factory v. CCE Patna Whether mere procuring/booking orders for the principal by an agent on payment of commission basis would amount to providing services as 'clearing and forwarding agent' within the meaning of the definition of the expression 'clearing and forwarding agent' under Section 65(25) of the Finance Act, 1994, as held in the decision of the Tribunal in Prabhat Zarda Factory (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CCE Patna, Since in the other three appeals similar question regarding applicability of the ratio of Prabh...

Sri Rama Travels Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against order in appeal dated 27/12/2005 which upheld of Service Tax liability. The relevant fact that arise for consideration are, the appellant and another assessee were registered under the category of air travel agent and were required to plying with the conditions of service tax provisions. Appellants filed their returns with the authorities and their returns were assessed in 1998.The Deputy Commissioner issue a show cause notice on 25/02/2000 to the appellant for enhancement of the value in the returns filed by the appellant. The Deputy Commissioner vide his order in original dated 26/12/2000 enhanced the value and confirmed the demand of service tax on the appellant. On an appeal, Commissioner (Appeal) also upheld the order. Hence this appeal.2. The learned Chartered Accountant appearing for the appellant submits that in respect of the same order in appeal, appeal of the another assessee was allowed by the Tribunal in the case of Onkar Travels (Pvt.) ...

Nahar Industrial Enterprises Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In this case the benefit of Cenvat credit was denied to the appellant on the ground that the supplier of the inputs are liable to pay duty at the time of clearance of the input at the rate of 8% whereas supplier has paid duty at the rate of 9.2% and the appellant availed the credit on the duty paid by the supplier. As the supplier of the inputs are liable to pay duty at the rate of 8%, therefore, appellants are eligible to take credit only at the rate of 8% and not at the rate of 9.2%.2. The contention of the appellant is that the revenue is not objecting to payment of higher duty by their manufacturer and supplier of the inputs. The revenue is accepting 9.2% duty in respect of the inputs received by them. Therefore, at the time of taking credit, the quantum of duty cannot be reduced on the ground that supplier of inputs are required to pay less duty. The appellant re...

U.P. State Irrigation Workshop Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicant challenges the order of the Commisioner (Appeals), rejecting the application for condonation of delay after re-examining it pursuant to the directions given by the learned Single Judge of the High Court and finding that the Commisioner (Appeals) had no power under the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to condone the delay beyond three months in filing of the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected the appeal as time barred on the ground that it was filed after a lapse of 15 months beyond the prescribed maximum limit of six months which he was not empowered under the Act to condone.2. The learned Counsel for the applicant strongly contended that the Commissioner was bound to consider the application for condonation of delay on merits in view of the directions given by the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 600 of 2003 on 29.7.05, and, that he could not have again rejected the application fo...

Garden Silk Mills Ltd. and Special Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)9STR585

1. These two applications have been made praying for transferring the respective appeals and also other appear arising out of common order to the West Zonal Bench, Mumbai. The learned authorised representative for the applicants, submits that these applications are made in view of Central Excise Public Notice No. 2 of 2005 date 5.8.05, by which it was ordered that the cases arising within the jurisdition of the Zonal Benches will be filed and heard before the respective zonal benches. He submits that this is the only ground on which he seeks answer of the appeal Nos. 3611-3617/2006 from Principal Bench, New Delhi to West Zonal Bench. Mumbai.2. These appeals are already listed on the final hearing Board along with the other appeals pursuant to the remand made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court by its order dated November 30th 2005, made in Civil Appeal Nos. 775-781 of 2004. The learned Counsel for the appellants in the other appeals did not seek any such transfer.3. Admittedly the present ap...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Kapil Steel Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the demand in respect of finished goods found short, was set aside.3. The case of the Revenue is that on the date of visit, there was shortage of finished goods and the demand was made in respect of the goods found short. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand.4. The contention of the Revenue is that physical verification was conducted in the presence of the authorized signatory of the respondents and he admitted the shortage. A Panchnama was drawn in the presence of the authorized signatory of the respondents who duly signed the same. In these circumstances, as there was shortage of the finished goods, duty was rightly demanded.5. The respondent's contention is that weightment was done on average basis. The respondent submitted that in the panchnama, it was specifically mentioned that physical verification ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ruchi Strips and Alloys Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The respondents also filed Cross-objections in support of the impugned order.2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of cold rolled sheets. The dispute is in respect of the scrap cleared by the respondents. The respondents were clearing cut length, end cuttings etc. as scrap and paying appropriate duty on the scrap. The case of the Revenue is that in fact these are sheets, therefore, liable to duty as C.R. and H.R. sheets. Revenue relied upon the statements of their customers. In their statements, the customers explained that the goods which they were received as waste and scrap were further used in the manufacture of trunk and almirahs etc.3. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand treating the goods cleared by the respondents as C.R. and H.R. sheets. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order after relying upon the decision of th...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ambuja Cement Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Revenue filed this application for condoning the delay of approximately four months. The initial appeal was filed through Speed Post. Thereafter Revenue enquired from the registry and it was informed that no appeal was received in the registry. Subsequently, the present appeal is filed. In these circumstances, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.2. The Revenue also filed the application for condoning the delay vide which the refund amount of Rs. 42,582/- was sanctioned. The contention of the respondent is that they had paid the service tax whereas the liability to pay service tax lies on foreign company who provided the services and whose office is in India. As the applicant had wrongly paid the service tax, therefore, they are entitled for the refund.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the registry is directed to list this appeal in the week starting from 3-7-2006. In the meantime, operation of the impugned order is stayed....