Delhi Court August 2006 Judgments

Nagesh Knitwears (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC466

2. There is a short levy demand of above Rs. 47 lakhs. Out of this, an amount of about Rs. 25.5 lakhs is arising from a dispute in regard to the valuation of captively consumed yarn. The yarn in question was used in the manufacture of hosiery items in the applicant's factory. The yarn was valued at 115% of its cost of production and duty discharged.This method of valuation is specifically laid down in Rules 8 and 9 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. The submission of the learned Counsel of the applicant is that valuation done in terms of a specific provision of law cannot be faulted and there is no short levy. It is also being pointed out that Central Board has issued clarification approving such valuation.3. The second ground for demand is that part of the yarn cleared for captive consumption was later on sold at higher prices. The contention of the Revenue is that such yarn should have been assessed duty at the sale prices. The learn...

Jitendra Nath and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(107)ECC455

1. Applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 7,99,373/- Service tax and penalty by treading the appellant as Clearing and Forwarding Agent. In the impugned order Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Prabhat Zarda Factory (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna 2. The contention of the applicant is that they are only selling agent as per the agreement entered with Raymond Ltd. The contention is also that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Prabhat Zarda Factory (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna (Supra) is overruled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai reported in 2006 (3) S.T.R. 321 (Tri.-LB).3. In these circumstances, as the decision of the Tribunal relied upon in the impugned order is over ruled and the agreement with Raymond Ltd. shows that applicants are selling agent and working on commission b...

Vikram Overseas Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(114)ECC287

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) made on 10.08.2004 by which the demand of the central excise duty of Rs. 5,97,534/- was confirmed while reducing penalty to Rs. 1,50,000/-.2. The appellant was manufacturing mini re-chargeable lights, cassette players, and radio cassette players as a registered manufacturer.However, the assessee surrendered the central excise registration certificate to the department on 20.11.97. According to the revenue, despite such surrender the assessee continued to manufacture the excisable goods and clandestinely removed them without payment of duty till October 1998. It was alleged that the plea taken by the assessee that after surrendering of central excise registration certificate in November, 1997, no manufacturing activities were undertaken in the unit was not tenable in view of the fact that concessional rate of trade tax had been paid by the party as applicable to the goods manufactured by the unit.3. It appears f...

Varanasi Fan Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner (Appeals) Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(114)ECC14

1. This appeal challenges the order dated 23.8.2004 made by the Commissioner (Appeals), Gwalior holding that the modvat credit of Rs. 24,752/- was correctly denied to the appellant by the adjudicating authority which made the order on 21.2.2003. The modvat credit was denied in respect of goods on the ground that it was taken by the assessee after expiry of six months from the date of issue of invoice.The invoice was issued on 28.9.97 and admittedly on that date the goods were seized during transit and they were not received in the factory.The goods admittedly came to be released on 9.4.98 and they were received in the factory on 10.4.98. The period of six months contemplated by Rule 57G(5) had expired on 28.3.98. The authorities have, therefore, held that modvat credit could not have been taken.2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the provisions of Sub-rule (5) of Rule 57G should be harmoniously construed with the provision of Sub-rule (3) thereof which provided tha...

Godrej Foods Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against order in appeal dated 5th March, 2004 which upheld the order which denied the modvat credit to the appellant.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are appellant received some packing material vide invoice dated 11/02/99. Appellant availed modvat credit on the original invoice since duplicate copy of the invoice was lost in transit. On being pointed out by the range authorities appellant reversed the modvat credit taken on original invoice on 13/07/99. Appellant applied to the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner on 10/08/99 for granting them permission to avail modvat credit and on the same date availed the credit in RG 23 A Part II. Show cause notice was issued to the appellant on the ground that their application for availing credit on original invoice has been rejected by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, also imposed penalty and sought the recovery the interest on such modvat...

Ajai Kumar Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of demand of service tax of Rs. 1,92,218/- and penalty.2. The demand was confirmed on the ground that applicants were providing the service of Rent-a-cab. As per the provisions of Section 65 Sub-Section 91 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 Rent-a-cab Scheme operator means any person engaged in the business renting of cabs and taxable service has been defined under Clause 105(o) of Section 65 of Finance Act, 1994 as amended "Any service provided to a person, by a Rent-a-cab Scheme operator in relation to the renting of cabs.3. Before lower Authorities the applicants had not raised any plea that they are not rendering any taxable service as provided under the Finance Act. Before us, the applicant pleaded that Tribunal in the case of Kuldip Singh Gill v. Commissioner of Central Excise, jalandhar (Tri.-Del.) held that where the cab is 4. The Revenue pointed out that as per the agreement between the appellant and M/s. GAIL (...

Pratap Singh (Pensioner) Vs. Director, Subsidiary

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(2)SLJ185CAT

1. By virtue of this O.A, a retiree from Government Service has assailed an order passed by the respondents on 20.12.2005, where on non-applicability of Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944' (hereinafter referred to as CS (MA) Rules, for short) claim of applicant for medical reimbursement has been turned down.2. Applicant, who retired on superannuation as a Private Secretary on 31.10.1997 from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), was as erstwhile CGHS beneficiary. On account of a severe heart-attack on 8.9.1999 he underwent a bye-pass surgery in Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, Okhla, New Delhi, where he remained as an indoor patient and had incurred an amount of Rs. 1,50,000 towards medical expenses. On submission of claim for medical reimbursement to the Director, CGH-S, within the stipulated period, was recommended and forwarded vide MHA's letter dated 4.11.1999. The claim was rejected on the ground that the CS (MA) Rules are not applicable to retired Governme...

Capt. Jai Singh Jakhar Vs. the Director (Estate), Ndmc

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 132(2006)DLT184

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The respondent NDMC filed an application under Sections 5 and 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) against the petitioner in respect of office unit No. 23, Palika Place, RK Ashram Marg, New Delhi. The application dated 19.12.1991 avers that a license was granted to the petitioner in respect of the office unit for a period of five years w.e.f. 23.10.1989 at a monthly license fee of Rs. 5,710/-. The petitioner is alleged not to have paid license fee w.e.f. 1.1.1990 despite demand notices and the license was cancelled on 6.7.1991. The possession of the office unit was thus sought as also the arrears of the license fee. A subsequent application was filed by the respondent on 22.7.1992 stating that the office unit was found lying abandoned/unlocked/vacant during the course of inspection on 26.6.1992 and the respondent had taken over vacant possession of the office unit. Thus the relief und...

Amanpreet Singh Vs. University of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 132(2006)DLT648

Anil Kumar, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction quashing or setting aside the order dated 2nd December, 2005 passed by respondent Nos. 2 detaining the petitioner from appearing in third semester LLB examination on account of shortage of attendance.2. Brief facts to comprehend the controversies are that petitioner contended that he had been a first class student throughout his life scoring 85% marks in his secondary examination and after graduating the petitioner joined the LLB course at Law Centre I, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, New Delhi. The petitioner qualified all the papers of the first semester. The result of the petitioner for the second semester examination was not declared due to UFM (unfair means) case against him. The petitioner was, thereforee, denied admission to second year LLB course which commenced on 2nd August, 2005 and which continued till 9th August, 2005 though he had approached for admission 4th August,200...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vibros Organics Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)206CTR(Del)582

ORDER1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dt. 28th Feb., 2006 passed by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench T in ITA No. 3806/Del/2005 relevant for the asst. yr. 2001-02.2. The assessed is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing Chemicals. For the year under consideration it declared a loss and also claimed depreciation to the tune of Rs. 32,83,710. The AO was of the view that the claim for depreciation could not be allowed since there was no manufacturing activity carried on by the assessed during the relevant previous year.3. The assessed filed an appeal which was considered and then dismissed by the CIT(A). The assessed accepted the view of the CIT(A) and did not take up the matter any further.4. Subsequently penalty proceedings were initiated against the assessed under the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. In response, the assessed contended that there was a bona fide difference of opinion between the assessed and the AO on the question whether depreciation should ...