Delhi Court August 2006 Judgments

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Sarjoo Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) made on 30-7-2004 reducing the penalty to Rs. 20,000/- imposed on the assessee by the Assistant Commissioner under Rule 173Q. The cross-objection has been preferred by the assessee against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals) with a prayer that the disallowance of Modvat credit of Rs. 46,631/- be set aside and the respondent be allowed to retake credit thereof along with interest amount of Rs. 3,648/- got deposited through TR-6 challan.2. The assessee was engaged in manufacture and clearance of sugar and molasses and availed the facility of Cenvat credit under Rule 57AB of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Rule 57AA thereof. On scrutiny of the Cenvat credit records for the month of April, 2001 to May, 2001, it was noticed by the revenue officer that the assessee had availed credit to the tune of Rs. 24,821/- wrongly, because the items mentioned at serial Nos. 1 to 4 of Annexure-1 to...

Vikas Industrial Gases Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC485

1. This appeal is directed against order in appeal dated 28-2-03 which upheld the order in original confirming the demand and imposing penalty.2. The relevant fact that arise for consideration are the appellants filed RT-12 return for the months of December, 1999 and on scrutiny of the same it was observed that appellant had availed a credit of Rs. 1,31,927/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty One Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty Seven only) in PLA and Rs. 36,265/- (Rupees Thirty Six Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Five only) in RG-23A Part II. On being asked to produce the proper document on which credit has been availed, the appellants revealed that the credit has been taken on the strength of supplementary invoices No. 31 to 48 of dated 30th November, 1999 issued by appellant to themselves. The lower authorities issued show cause notice proposing to demand the said credit wrongly availed by the appellant and impose penalty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty on...

The Asst. Commissioner of Vs. Shri Hiromi Hirose, Japan

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)111ITD9(Delhi)

1. These two appeals of the revenue in the case of the aforesaid assessees were argued in a consolidated manner by the learned DR and the learned Counsel for the assessees. Therefore, we find it convenient to pass a consolidated order.2. In this appeal, the revenue has taken only one ground to the effect that on the facts of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that salary and bonus received by the assessee outside India is not taxable in India Under Section 5(1)(c) of the IT Act, specially when as per terms of employment, his office was based in New Delhi and he was responsible to Delhi office even though, he rendered services outside India.3.1 On perusal of the order of the DCIT, Circle-46(1), New Delhi (herein after called the AO), passed on 6-01-2003, it is seen that the assessee's status during the relevant previous year was not ordinarily resident (NOR). The assessee received salary amounting to Rs. 45,29,212/- and bonus amounting to Rs. 9,83,246/- totaling t...

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Shri Balraj Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 133(2006)DLT273; [2006(111)FLR838]; (2007)ILLJ933Del

Manju Goel, J.1. The respondent was an employee of the petitioner Corporation as a Driver. He was charge-sheeted on 7.7.1988 for having been absent for 112 days' without sanctioned leave. He was charged with misconduct within the meaning of para 95(1) of D.M.C. Act read with para 19(h) and (m) of the Standing Orders governing the conduct of DTC employees. Thereafter an enquiry was ordered. The respondent admitted before the Enquiry Officer that he had availed of 112 days' leave without pay and asked for forgiveness. The Enquiry Officer returned a finding on 7.9.1988 that the charges have been proved. The respondent was eventually removed from the service of the petitioner Corporation under Clause 15(2)(vi) of the D.R.T.A. (Condition of Appointment and Service) Regulation, 1952. The respondent raised an industrial dispute about the illegality and unjustified abilityof the termination of his employment. The Tribunal passed an Award on 4.8.2004 It appears from the Labour Court's Award tha...

Dr. Lal Path Labs and Patient Vs. C.C.E., Ludhiana

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC616

1. The appellants herein run "SAMPLE COLLECTION CENTRES" for specialised laboratories like Dr. Lal PathLabs Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, M/s Speciality Ranbaxy Ltd. They maintain the collection centre, draw/collect samples, process the samples to the extent required and forward (through courier service etc.) the samples to the test laboratories. The relationship with the principal is covered by Agreement. The basic terms are that the collection centres would have facilities and trained employees for drawal of blood samples, will carry out the essential processing (serum separation) of blood and forward the samples to the principals through curriers. The collection centres are also responsible for the disposal of waste arising in the process. The test charges are collected by these Centres at the rates stipulated by the test laboratories. The collection centres are paid a percentage (25% etc.) for the service rendered by them.2. Under the impugned orders, it has been found that the services r...

Mothersons Sumi Systems Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(113)ECC179

2. The appellant filed these appeals against the common impugned order whereby the claim of the appellant in respect of refund of interest paid by them was rejected on the ground that there is no provision under the Central Excise Act or Rules for refund of the interest.3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods and were working under the Modvat scheme. Certain inputs on which credit has been taken were transferred to their another unit and the duty was paid on the basis of valuation arrived at under Rule 8 and 9 of Central Excise Valuation Rules 2000.The amount was paid along with interest under protest. Subsequently, in pursuance to the Board's Circular dated 1.7.02 which clarifies the position regarding the credit in respect of the inputs transferred to the other unit on stock transfer basis. The appellant filed refund claims in respect of the excess duty paid and the interest. The adjudicating authority as well as Commi...

Bhopal Transmission Controls Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against order in appeal dated 19th April, 2004 which upheld the order in original that denied Modvat credit to the appellant. None appeared for the appellant but there is an intimation to decide the matter on merit.2. Heard the learned DR and perused the records. I find that the issue involved in this case is in a very narrow compass. The appellant availed Modvat credit on the invoices raised by the branch sales office of Steel Authority of India Limited. The credit is sought to be denied to the appellant on the ground that the invoices did not bear the indication "duplicate copy", or "consignee copy" or "transporter copy".I find that it is not disputed that the inputs covered under the disputed invoices were received and consumed by the appellant. Further it is also seen from the record that the invoices were issued by a public sector undertaking i.e. Steel Authority of India Limited, if that be so, the denial of Modvat credit to the appellant only on the p...

Baij Nath Verma Vs. Commissioner of Customs

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 (Appeals). The appellants are only challenging the confiscation of the scrap and imposition of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- each. The brief facts of the case are that on 12-11-03, a truck was intercepted by the Custom officials which was carrying 205 packages of betel nuts. The goods were confiscated and penalties were imposed on the ground that copper scrap in question was of third country origin which was smuggled through Nepal and penalties were imposed.3. The contention of the appellant is that at the time of recovery of the goods the driver of the truck produced bilty along with invoice issued by the appellant under which the copper scrap was in question are being transported to M/s. Jageshwar Prasad and sons. On investigation from the transporter, it was revealed that the copper scrap was booked by the appellant. The contention of the appellant is that they are dealers in the copper scrap and th...

Hfcl (Wireless Division) Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC492

2. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the refund claim of the appellant under Rule 173L of Central Excise Rules was rejected on the ground that the appellant had not complied with the condition of the Rule.3. The contention of the appellant is that earlier the goods were cleared to M/s Tata Cellular Hyderabad on payment of duty, some of the goods were received back in the factory. As the goods were not up to the mark, the appellant filed necessary D-3 intimation on the receipt of the duty paid goods in the factory. The goods were received in the factory on 2-6-01 and were undergone re-testing and realignment and the same was completed on 14-6-01 and thereafter the goods were cleared on payment of duty to some other customers. The contention is that in the show cause notice, the allegation is that the appellant had not complied with the provision of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 173L of Central Excise Rules. The goods were ce...

Next Generation Business Power Vs. C.C., Icd, Tkd

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This miscellaneous application is filed by the applicant asking for the review of the order of the Tribunal dated 17th May, 2006 and recalling the same.2. In Customs Appeal No. 808 of 2004, the Tribunal vide its final order No. 760/06, dated 17th May, 2006 decided the appeal finally. The appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal after considering the grounds of appeal as filed by the appellant/applicant. The applicant vide this miscellaneous application seeks to recall said order on the following grounds: 5. It is respectfully submitted that the Order dated 17th May, 2006 passed by this Hon'ble is otherwise requires review/reconsideration is so far as this Hon'ble Tribunal vide the said Order has held in para 3 and para 5 which states that the "Appellant did not file any Appeal against this assessment, nor did he pay the customs duty under protest." It is submitted that the said finding of facts from the record are contrary to the record. 6. It is submitted that the Applicant/Appellant ...