Delhi Court June 2006 Judgments

Rallis India Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC218

1. These appeals are directed against Order in Originals dated 06/10/05.2. The relevant facts are arise for consideration are that the appellant had exported their goods i.e. Metribuzin 70% WP (Pesticide) under claim for duty draw back. The appellant filed the duty draw back application for the exports made by them for fixation of brand rate with the Bhopal Commissionerate. The said applications were made by the appeals beyond the period of 60 (sixty) days but within the period of 90 (ninety) days from the date of export. They also filed an application for condonation of delay in not filing the draw back claim within 60 (sixty) days. The said application of condonation of delay were rejected by the Commissioner vide his orders dated 06/10/05. Hence this appeal.4. Heard the learned DR and perused the records. I find from the records that the Commissioner has dismissed the application of the appellant for condonation of delay by observing as under: On careful examination of proviso to R...

Radiant Synthetic Industries, Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These are the three appeals filed by; (i) M/s Radiant Synthetic Industries; (ii) Shri R.K. Goyal, Proprietor of M/s Radiant Synthetic Industries; and (iii) M/s Shri Ram Fibres all challenging the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai, dated 24.06.2004.It has been held in the impugned order that M/s Shri Ram Fibres in collusion with M/s Radiant Synthetic Industries attempted to import acrylic fibre by mis-declaring its description and value. The impugned order also held that the goods were liable to confiscation and the importers were liable to penal action. Accordingly, the goods were confiscated and redemption fine of Rs. 5 lacs was imposed, CIF value was enhanced to US $ 1.75 per kg., penalty under Section 112 was imposed on all the three appellants and a bank guarantee was ordered to be appropriated to recover the duty and penalty leviable on M/s Shri Ram Fibres.2. Briefly stated, three Bills of Entry were filed by M/s Shri Ram Fibres, declaring the goods a...

UnigraIn Leather Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC562

1. The applicant challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the order-in -original by which a demand of Rs. 3,09,783/- was confirmed under Rule 12 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act 1944 with the direction to adjust Rs. 13,347/-, which was the amount lying in the Cenvat Account on 31.3.2004, and imposing penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under Rule 13 of Cenvat Credit Rules.2. During the scrutiny of ER-3 Return for the quarter ending 30^th June, 2004 filed by the appellant, it was observed that the appellant had opted to work under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 1.3.2003 after filing the requisite option. However, the cenvat credit on the inputs lying as such, contained in the work in process (semi-finished) and in the final products, and in lying in stock as on 31.3.2004 was not reversed. The appellant was, therefore, called upon to deposit the cenvat amount, which was required to be reversed by letter dated 30.12.2004. On failure t...

Ginni International Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)6STT491

1. This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal dated 06-10-05 which upheld the Order-in-Original imposing penalty and demanding interest from the appellant.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are appellant were receiving services from goods transport operators during the period 16-11-97 to 2-6-1998 and did not discharge the Service Tax payable. The appellant discharged the Service Tax liability on 5-2-2004 and 12-2-2004. The revenue issue show cause notice to the appellant on 16-11-04 demanding interest on the Service Tax due and sought to impose penalty on the appellants. On adjudication, the adjudicating authority confirmed the interest payable and also imposed penalty on the appellant. Hence, this appeal.4. Heard the learned DR and perused records. I find from the record that the appellants have discharged the Service Tax liability before the issuance of show-cause notice. The Service Tax liability has arisen for the receipt of services by the appellant from good...

Fiit Jee Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)6STT334

1. This stay application is directed against Order-in-Original dated 2-2-2006. Since the issue involved in this case is in narrow compass I grant waiver of pre-deposit of penalty and take up the appeal itself for disposal with the consent of both sides.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants were holding service tax registration and were registered as commercial Training and coaching Centre and were discharging service tax liability. During the period July, 2003 to September, 2003, it appears that the appellants short paid service tax. Show cause notice was issued to the appellants demanding the short payment and also irregular availment of service tax credit. The appellants during the pendency of the proceedings deposited the entire amount of service tax and the entire amount of credit which was wrongly availed by the appellants. They also deposited the interest due on the wrongly availed credit and on the service tax short paid by them. The adjudic...

Bhagawati Security Services Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)7STT129

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 30th July, 2003 which upheld the Order-in-Original that confirmed the demand of Service tax, sought interest and imposed penalty.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant are registered under Service tax provisions as security service provider and got the registration on 20.12.2000. The appellant failed to submit ST-3 return and also failed to deposit the service tax due. Show cause notice was issued to the appellants demanding Service tax for the period June, 2000 to 31st August, 2001. The said demand was confirmed by the adjudicating authority on the ground that the appellants had deposited the amount and also imposed penalty, sought interest on the outstand Service tax not paid by the appellant. On an appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) concurred with the views of the adjudicating authority but reduced the penalty which had been imposed on the appellants. Hence, this appeal.3. Learned Advocate su...

Bharat Dholpur Purva Sainik Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC242

1. The applicants filed this application to waive the service tax of Rs. 4,78,080/-. The contention of the applicant is that they are registered under a Co-operative Society Act and is a Government organization for the purpose of rehabilitating the ex-servicemen and widows of servicemen. They arrange various kinds of employment to the ex-servicemen and they are charging only 5% service charge. Their contention is that they are not performing on commercial basis. The applicant also cited the case of Kerala State Ex-service League v. CCE, Thiruvananthapuram to submit that such organizations are not working on profit basis and are not commercial basis.2. In view of the above decision, the appellants have a strong case.The whole of the service tax is waived. The stay petition is allowed....

Just Marble Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Merely because the applicant is having registered office and residence of the partner at Mumbai, it is not a good ground for transferring the appeal to CESTAT, Mumbai. The appeal is required to be heard by the concerned Zonal Bench of the CESTAT under whose jurisdiction the Commissionerate passing the Order is located....

Merck Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant - importer has challenged the final findings dated 22nd December 2004 by the Designated Authority and the impugned notification issued on 21st March 2005 under Sub-section (1) read with Sub-section (5) of Section 9A of Customs Tariff Act imposing anti-dumping duty and has prayed for annulling the final findings and the notification imposing duties and seeking modification of the notification to the extent of products manufactured by the domestic industry.2. On 23rd December 2003, the designated authority initiated investigation on the basis of the petition filed by M/s. Sudarshan Chemicals Industries Limited with regard to imposition of anti-dumping duty on the alleged dumping of 'Mica Pearl Pigment' originating in or exported from China PR, Japan, USA and EU. The designated authority notified the embassies and representatives of the subject countries and also forwarded a copy of the public notice of initiation to all known exporters and importers and industry/user as...

Shri R.C. Sehgal, (Mes-169111), Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant has sought a direction from the Tribunal to the respondents to issue the necessary order of promotion of the applicant to the grade of Additional Director General in terms of the panel of promotion issued vide Letter No. B/41020/ADG/2005-2006/E1(DPC-1) dated 31.03.2005/01.04.2005(Annexure A-1) with effect from the appropriate date with all consequential benefits.2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was recruited to the Military Engineering Service (MES) through the Union Public Service Commission in 1967. Since 31.10.2003, he has been working as Joint Director (Utilities) in the grade of the Chief Engineer. In March, 2005, he was approved for promotion to the grade of Additional Director General of Works in the MES and placed at serial No. 4 in a panel of four officers (vide MES letter dated 31.03.2005/01.04.2005) (supra).The said letter also mentioned that actual appointment of officers included in the panel will be made in the order shown therein su...