Delhi Court June 2006 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Handa Disc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the demand of differential amount of Service Tax was dropped.3. The respondent is a cable operator and liable to pay Service Tax under Section 63 of the Finance Act.4. The respondent admitted that they were charging Rs. 135/- p.m. per connection from their customers and this amount includes Rs. 10/- per connection with entertainment tax. The respondents were paying Service Tax after taking into consideration the monthly charges collected from their customers.5. The Revenue raised a demand of differential duty on the ground that some enquiries were conducted which shows that respondent is charging @ Rs. 150/- p.m. from their customers.6. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that there is no evidence on record produced by the Revenue which shows that respondents were charging @ Rs. 150/- p.m. from their customers.7. In the present appeal also Revenue has not produce...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Deepti Chemicals (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)8STR219

1. This appeal is filed by the revenue against order-in-appeal dated.15-3-04.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are the respondent in this case filed refund claim with the authority. The adjudicating authority allowed the refund claim but ordered the same to be recredited in R.G. 23A Part II account. During the pendency of the refund claim/the respondent surrendered the Central Excise Registeration licence. The respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) asking for the direction to refund the amount in cash instead of being R.G, 23A Part II as their factory has closed and they have surrendered the Central Excise Registration. Commissioner (Appeals) after considering arguments, allowed the appeal and directed the lower authorities to grant the refund in cash. The revenue is in appeal against these orders.3. None appeared for the respondent despite notice. Heard Id. DR. Ld.DR submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in sanctioning the refund in ...

Laxmi Color (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC520

3. The claim of the appellant is that cost of photographic paper and other materials consumed while providing photographic service is eligible for deduction while valuing the service. This claim is based on Notification No. 12/2003 which exempts "value of goods and materials sold by the service provider". The ld. Consultant appearing for the appellant also relies on clarification of the board dated 7.4.2004. It is being pointed out that in terms of this clarification "cost of input material consumed/sold by the service provider" is eligible for deduction. The ld. Consultant also relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Adlabs v. CCE 2006 (2) STR 121 (Tri.-Bang.) and submitted that Tribunal has held that, in regard to photographic services, deduction is available for photographic paper and material.4. The contention of the ld. SDR is that the claim is contrary to the legal provisions as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.K. Jidheesh v. Unio...

Mrs. Pratima Sharma W/O Shri Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Through this OA, applicant seeks implementation of directions dated 13.11.1992 issued in OA-2398/90 entitled Smt. Renu Dar v. Union of India and Ors. who was the predecessor of the applicant and was accorded the higher pay scale retrospectively from 1975 and duly revised on the recommendations of 4th Central Pay Commission (CPC).2. Learned Counsel contends that once the post held by the predecessor had been held to be equivalent to the post of a Teacher where the higher pay scale had been accorded, the grant of pay scale attached to the post would mutatis mutandis applies in the case of the applicant as well, who had been appointed in 1994 on the same post, which is an isolated one.3. Learned Counsel would contend that in the matter of higher pay scale, respondent No. 2 had recommended the case of the applicant for grant of higher pay scale but no decision, has, however, been taken thereof.4. Learned Counsel further contended that the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex ...

C.C. Vs. G.E. Lighting India Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(114)ECC216

1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) where the goods imported by the respondents were held to be classified under Heading 8607 of Custom Tariff.2. The contention of the Revenue is that goods are classifiable under Heading 90.32 of Custom Tariff.3. The Respondent made import of Locomotive Control System for 3300 HP with Locomotive Build (parts for Railway Diesel Locomotive) and claimed the classification under Chapter Heading 86.07 of Customs Tariff as parts of Railway or Tramway Locomotives. The Revenue re-classified the goods and assessed the same under Heading 90.32 of the Tariff as Automatic regulating or controlling instruments and apparatus. The Commissioner (Appeals) held in favour of importer. The Respondents filed Cross-objection alongwith the product literature.4. The contention of the Revenue is that the goods in question are a control system for Diesel/Electric locomotive which continuously monitor which regulates loc...

K.K. Products, Shri Rameshwar Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal dated 31.03.2004 that upheld the order-in-original confirming the duty demand, confiscation of the goods and imposing penalty.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant K K Products (hereinafter referred to as appellant No. 1) is a manufacturer of Pan Masala and appellant Shri Rameshwar Prasad Keshwani (hereinafter referred to as appellant No. 2) is the purchaser and distributor of the said pan masala. The revenue authorities on suspicion seized 53 bags supposed to be containing scented supari at Hubli Railway station, as the consignment was not having any duty paying documents. On opening the bags the authorities found that the bags contained Ghutka and were having a brand name of 'Sangam' and manufactured by appellant No. 1. The authorities visited the factory of the appellant No. 1 and recorded statement of the proprietor and also carried the investigations further and recorded the statement of ap...

The Group Advertising Consultant Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC491

1. The issue involved in this appeal is regarding imposition of penalty on the appellant who is providing advertisement agency services.2. The matter has been listed for admission. I find from the provisions of Finance Act that there is no bar for filing appeal before the Tribunal in respect of service tax matters and the Tribunal can entertain any appeal for any amount confirmed. In view of the fact the appeal is admitted. Since the issue involved in this case is in very narrow compass the appeal itself is taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides after granting stay.3. I have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. I find from the record that the appellate authority upheld the order of the adjudicating authority without considering the correct provisions of law. It is the contention of the appellant that they are liable to deposit the service tax collected by them for the quarter after they receive payment from their clients. This specific pr...

Gold Craft Proprietor, Shri Vs. C.C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-original dated 17th March 2006 that confirmed the demand of the Customs duty and imposed penalty on the appellant company and two employees of the company.2. The relevant facts that arise consideration are that the appellant company is a jewellery-manufacturing unit in Noida SEZ and is approved by Ministry of Commerce. The appellant is availing all the benefits of a unit located in SEZ i.e. importing Gold without payment of customs duty for manufacture of jewellery for export. NSEZ customs officers on 16th February 2006 visited the appellant's unit in connection with verification of stock of gold and jewellery. The officers could conduct the stock taking of the goods in process and could not do the stock verification of the gold and jewellery items kept in the safe, as the keys of the safe were with proprietor of the firm. The officers then sealed the cupboard and safe in the office and recorded the statement of the Manager (Import &...

Dr. Dhruw Sharma, Senior Vs. the Lt. Governor of N.C.T. of Delhi

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. The applicant, after due selection by the Selection Committee, was appointed as Senior Scientific Officer (Biology) in the scale of pay of Rs. 8,000-13500 (Group `A) by the Lt. Governor of NCT of Delhi vide order No. F19/7/96-Hom-111/23-36 dated 5.1.1999 in the Forensic Science Laboratory (for short `FSL) of the Government of NCT, Delhi on deputation basis. He joined that post on 4.3.1999. The deputation was originally for one year which was extendable further as per the respondents Order No. F.104/FSL/Estt./98 dated 5.3.1999. Respondent No.1 virtually extended the applicants deputation period from time to time.3. The applicant claims to have qualified M. Sc in Biotechnology and B.Sc with Botany, Zoology and Chemistry. He has also obtained Ph. D degree and contributed so many articles to Science and Forensic Science Publications. He participated in Conferences relating to Forensic Science. The applicant applied for the post of Senior Scientific Officer (Biology) in response to Resp...

Shri Chatter Pal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In the order of this Tribunal in OA No. 1720/2004 dated 20.09.2005, the respondents were ordered to implement certain directions of this Tribunal within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order and pass a final order thereon within six weeks thereafter. The directions were made contingent upon cooperation of the applicant in the enquiry.2. In MA No. 583/2006, the respondents have sought extension of time for implementing the order of this Tribunal in OA No. 1720/2004 dated 20.09.2005 and in MA No. 584/2006, they have sought condonation of delay in filing MA No. 583/2006.3. The respondents case is that the certified copy of the order of this Tribunal in OA No. 1720/2004 dated 20.09.2005 was received by them on 30.09.2005. The respondents then filed MA No. 01/2006 on 20.12.2005 seeking four months' extension of time from 01.02.2006 upto 31.05.2006 for implementation of various directions given by this Tribunal, which was dismissed through order dat...