Delhi Court August 2006 Judgments

Techaids Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(109)ECC451

2. Appellant filed this Appeal against the Order-in-appeal whereby the refund claim of the appellant was rejected on the ground that the appellant filed the refund in respect of service tax paid by them on the ground that process undertaken by them does not amount to maintenance or repair.3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are receiving old and used cylinders and replenished the paper/cotton felt/rubber required in them for specified quantity and in a specified manner for bringing the cylinders to its original workable/usable condition and thereafter the cylinders can be put to use by the textile/paper industry. The appellant deposited the service tax treating the process undertaken by them as maintenance or repair and thereafter filed refund claim on the ground that the processes undertaken by them are not covered under the maintenance or repair service. The contention of the appellants is that they are doing something more than the repair and it does not amount t...

Ekam Plasto-chem Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Appellant deposited service tax in regard to certain services rendered by them to M/s. Haldia Petrochemicals Limited and subsequently claimed refund of the same.3. It is seen that the matter can be disposed of on the issue of unjust enrichment alone. Therefore, we are not going into merit of the dispute.4. The service is rendered in terms of a written agreements. Those agreements have the following clauses: HPL shall deduct service tax or any other statutory deduction applicable from the amount payable to Ekam Plasto-Chem Pvt. Ltd. Consignment Stockist shall raise the bills for service charges on monthly basis and the COMPANY would pay the bills within ten days. The COMPANY shall deduct service tax and any other applicable statutory deduction from the amount payable to Consignment Stockist.5. It is not in dispute that the appellant received the entire amount of commission, that is to say, no deduction of service tax element was made from the commission (and paid to Revenue) by Hald...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Indore Wire Company Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal dated 18th May, 2004 which allowed the appeal filed by the Respondent against Order-in-Original dated 31-3-2003 which confirmed the demand and also imposed penalty on the respondent.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration that the respondents availed Modvat credit on the inputs. They cleared their finished product on payment of duty to the processors which were rejected by their processors and cleared back to the respondent on payment of duty.The respondent having received the finished goods on payment of duty from their processors took the credit in their Modvat account. The lower authorities objected to such credit and directed the respondents to reverse the Modvat credit availed by them. The respondents did so subsequently on clear understanding of law recredited the amount debited by them, suo motu. In addition to this, the appellant also reversed the credit of excess sanctioned rebate claim. Subsequently, o...

Baljeet Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(2)SLJ30CAT

1. By this O.A. the applicant (Baljeet Singh) has assailed his supersession for appointment by promotion to the Indian Police Service (IPS) from the Haryana Police Service during the year 2004. He has made this application against the illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and mala fide action of the respondents and contended that persons with much inferior ACRs have been recommended for appointment to the IPS even during the pendency of criminal cases against one of them in violation of the statutory regulations.2. Briefly, the factual status of the case is that the applicant is one of the senior-most Deputy Superintendent of Haryana Police and his name figures at Serial No. 3 of the gradation/seniority list of Deputy Superintendents of Haryana Police whereas the names of respondent Nos.5 and 6 appear at Serial Nos. 5 and 8 respectively. There were two vacancies for the year 2004. The applicant has the last chance of consideration for appointment to the post of IPS for the year 2004 only...

V.K. JaIn Vs. Sharad Jagtiani

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2007)BC285; (2007)145PLR29

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The respondent herein had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the averments made in this complaint he had advanced a loan of Rs. 4.75 lakh to the accused (petitioner herein). For the repayment of the said loan, petitioner acting on behalf of petitioner company had issued a cheque No. 786356 dated 31.7.1998 drawn on the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd., Panchsheel Park, New Delhi. This cheque was presented by the respondent for encashment. However, the same was returned back with memo dated 15.1.1999 of the Bank giving reasons 'insufficient funds'. Thereafter, notice by U.P.C. was sent by the respondent to the petitioners and according to the respondent since payment was not made even thereafter, the aforesaid complaint was filed. As there is dispute about the service of notice, paras 6 and 7 of the complaint, touching this aspect, are reproduced below:6. That thereafter the complainant through his Counsel sent a legal notice dated ...

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Dharam Chand Gupta

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(I)CTLJ318(Del)

Vijender Jain, A.C.J.1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant has filed the present appeal. Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that it is well settled that in contractual sphere where the action was taken in accordance with provisions of the mutually agreed stipulations, the court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not interdict it with the action. It was contended before us that the learned Single Judge has not followed the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Radhakrishna Agarwal v. State of Bihar : [1977]3SCR249 . It was also contended that in terms of Stockist Agreement between the parties and in terms of Clause 1.3 of the said agreement three months' notice in writing was given to the respondent and the clause itself has inbuilt mechanism of principle of natural justice. Clause 1.3 of the agreement is referred below:1.3. Termination of Agreement-The a...

Cce Vs. New Holland Tractors

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(113)ECC244

1. This appeal is filed by the revenue against order in appeal dated 26/05/2004 which allowed the appeal of the respondents.2. The relevant fact that arise for consideration are the respondent availed modvat credit on lubricating oil which is used by them in their DG set. After sufficiently using the DG set, the used lubricating oil is drained out and cleared from the factory as waste oil. The lower authorities issued show cause notice to the respondent demanding duty on such waste oil on the ground that this waste oil fall under Chapter subheading No. 34.03. The respondent resisted the show cause notice on the ground that these waste oil were not produced out of any manufacturing process. Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. On an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeal) set aside the order in original on the ground that the waste oil is not produced by any process of manufacturing. Hence this appeal by the revenue.3. Learned DR submits that the waste oil, which is drained out of DG...

Forum of Acrylic Fibre Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority/Ministry

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC13

1. Both the appeals though against different final findings and notifications have been preferred by the same domestic industry and are argued together in view of common legal issues involved.2. Customs Appeal. No. 848 of 2005-AD has been preferred by the domestic industry under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 against the impugned notification dated 19th May, 2005 rescinding the earlier notification dated 9.10.2002 by which anti-dumping duty was imposed on the subject goods, accepting the final findings of the designated authority in its mid-term dated 7th April, 2005, recommending withdrawal of anti-dumping duty on imports of acrylic fibre originating in or exported from the subject countries, namely, U.K., Germany, Bulgaria and Brazil.2.1 On the basis of a written application from the International Rayon and Synthetic Fibres Committee (CIRFS), Brussels on behalf of the exporters from U.K. and Germany for review of anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of the subject goods ...

Kalyani Steel Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority/Ministry

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC676

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant domestic industry under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 challenging the Customs Notification No. 69/2005-Cus.dated 19.7.2005 issued by respondent No. 1, Ministry of Finance withdrawing anti-dumping duties in terms of the recommendation of the respondent designated authority by its final findings dated 20.5.2005.2. Earlier, anti-dumping duties were imposed by notification dated 25.6.2001 on the basis of the final findings of the designated authority notified on 1.6.2001 on the imports of subject goods i.e.seamless grade alloys and non alloys, steel billets, bars and rounds originating in or exported from Russia and China. Following the request made by the importer M/s Maharashtra Ceramics Ltd. the designated authority initiated a mid term review investigation under Rule 23 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty) Rules, 1995, in order to determine whether the continued imposition...

Raipur Bright Steel and Wire Weld Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(112)ECC637

1. This appeal is filed against order in appeal dated 19/05/2004 which upheld the order in original denying the modvat credit to the appellant.2. The relevant fact that arise for consideration are the appellants had availed the modvat credit in the month of April, 1997. They could not produce the 'duplicate copy for transporter' to the authorities in respect of 9 (nine) invoices on which credit availed by them in the month of April, 1997. The authorities issued a show cause notice on 29/10/1997 proposing to deny the modvat credit on these invoices to the appellant. The appellant contested the show cause notice on the ground that they had received the consignment with duplicate copy of invoices but the same were misplaced in their factory or during the photocopying of invoices for submission to the authorities. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and also imposed penalty on the appellants. On an appeal, Commissioner (Appeal) also concurred to the views of the adjudicating a...