Delhi Court November 2007 Judgments

Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(126)ECC199

1. None appeared on behalf of the appellant. The learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant by application dated 12.10.2007 requested to allow the appeal on merit following the decisions of the Tribunal and the Hon'ble Supreme Court on this issue.2. The relevant facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of dutiable commodities Ordinary Denatured Spirit and exempted commodity Rectified Spirit classifiable under chapter sub-heading 2204.00 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant availed cenvat credit on molasses used in the manufacture of dutiable and exempted finished goods. The appellant reversed the credit on molasses used in the manufacture of exempted final product under Rule 6(3)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002.But the appellant did not reverse the credit on inputs used in the manufacture of exempted final product, which was lost as mentioned in ER-1 return. Show cause notice was issued proposing demand o...

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Bhawani Shankar Castings Pvt.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)10STR213

1. Revenue filed this application for stay of the operation of the impugned order. The Commissioner (Appeals) after going through the evidence on record held that the respondents are not covered under the 'business auxiliary service'. The respondents are having only weigh bridge and only weighing the goods. The contention of the Revenue is that weighment of goods is also a 'business auxiliary service'. In these circumstances, we find no merit in this application, the same is rejected....

Jrs Turorials Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)10STR71

1. Heard both sides. The applicant filed this application for waiver of amount of Service Tax of Rs. 25,35,486/-. The applicant had already deposited an amount of Rs. 21,67,654/-.2. We find that Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to re-quantify the demand after taking into consideration the fact that amount received should be treated as cumtax and also to re-calculate the duty on pro rata basis.As the applicant received the amount prior to imposition of tax whereas service has been provided after the imposition of tax. In these circumstances, the amount already deposited is sufficient for hearing of the appeal.3. The pre-deposit of remaining amount of Service Tax and penalties are waived. Stay petition is allowed as indicated above....

Daurala Organics Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)12STJ327CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of amount of Service Tax of Rs. 9,79,641/- and penalty of the equal amount. The Service Tax was demanded on the ground that applicant has provided the service as management consultant.1.1 The contention of the applicant is that they had not provided any service as management consultant. Only some of their employees were on deputation with their sister concern to perform the day-to-day duty and they were recovering the actual salary and other allowances. The applicant relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2006 (2) STR 212. The contention is that the Tribunal the case where the persons were on deputation with other units and deputation amount is only recovered from the sister concern granted waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax.The contention of the Revenue is that in the case of Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2006 (3) STR 711 held t...

Dharam Vir Singh Son of Late Shri Vs. Lt. Governor, Govt. of N.C.T. of

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant has impugned the Memorandum dated 17.09.2007 issued to him by the Deputy Secretary (Admn.), Land and Building Department of the Government of NCT of Delhi, which could be extracted as hereinbelow: Reference his notice for voluntary retirement under Rule 48 dated 09/07/2007, Sh. Dharam Vir Singh, Gr.II (DASS)/Head Clerk is informed that the notice has been considered and not accepted by the Competent Authority.The legality of such communication is challenged and the applicant has prayed that the same be set aside. Further prayer is for directing the respondents to accept the notice of the applicant for voluntary retirement and for directing payment of retirement dues that might be due to him.2. During the course of hearing, Mr. Khurana, Sr. Counsel, has submitted that the applicant also prays that there should be a declaration that applicant stands retired from service, effective from 09.10.2007, obviously noticing that acceptance of notice for voluntary retirement, as...

Bharti Hexacom Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)12STJ316CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalties only. The amount of service tax has been paid by the applicant.2. The contention of the applicant is that consultancy service regarding which demand is confirmed were received prior to July, 2001, when the technical consultancy was not covered under the scope of service tax. In these circumstances, as the applicant had already deposited the amount of service tax, therefore, the pre-deposit of penalty is waived for the purpose of hearing the appeal....

Kehems Engg. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)12STJ324CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. Heard both the sides. The stay application is for waiver of pre-deposit of amount of service tax. The demand of service tax was confirmed on the ground that the applicant provided the services of installation commissioning and erection. The contention of the applicant is that contract entered with their customer is not only for installation, commissioning and erection. The scope of the contract is for residual design, engineering, supply, installation and commissioning. It is work contract and the work contract service are liable for tax from the year 2007. In the present case the period of dispute is 2003 to 2005. They relied on the Stay order passed by the Tribunal in the case of L and T Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara II reported in 2007 (7) STR 224 (Tri-Ahmd). The contention is that in that case also the demand was in respect of services of erection, installation and commissioning was confirmed despite they being a Turn key project and Tribunal waived the pre-deposit of amount of service...

Pinkcity Communication Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)12STJ308CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. This is an application for restoration of appeal filed by the appellant. In this case this Bench had an occasion to pass the following order on 17.5.07. 2. None represented the appellant despite notice. The learned authorized representative (DR) heavily relies upon the recent judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CCE, Delhi-III, v. Machino Montell (I) Ltd. wherein it was held that penalty is imposable even where duty has been deposited before issue of show cause notice. In view of this, he argues that the lower authorities have imposed penalty in accordance with the law after passing detailed orders, 3. I have perused the record and examined various grounds of appeal mentioned in the appeal petition. I do not find any lacuna on the part of orders passed by the lower authorities. I, therefore, dismiss the appeal upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The learned Counsel for this applicant states that on the date of hearing the authorized representa...

Arvind Motors Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)9STR464

1. The appellant challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) passed on 11.12.2006 upholding the penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority under the provisions of Section 75-A, 76 and 78 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994.2. The appellant was authorised dealer of Hyundai cars and was also providing service in relation to promoting and marketing various car loan schemes of the Bank and financial institutions. The appellant received commission for the cars sold in the assigned territory.According to the Revenue, the appellant was providing services under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Service'. The activities undertaken by the appellant were, according to the Revenue, directly or indirectly linked to the promotion and marketing of financial services provided by clients and also with promotion and sale of goods belonging to the clients. The adjudicating authority, on the basis of the material on record, gave a finding that the appellant was liable to pay Service Tax o...

Dharam Singh S/O Late Shri Dhan Pal Vs. the Chief Secretary, Govt. of

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1.This is the fifth round of litigation. Earlier three OAs had been filed by the applicant and one RA by the Respondents. Applicant has challenged order dated 30.09.2005 in the present OA whereby his request for compassionate appointment has been rejected by observing as under: xxxx the family members / dependents of the deceased are adult, the family pension of Rs. 2,500/- + DA being received by the family, the family had received the terminal benefits to the tune of Rs. 2,69,480/-, further as the family is having its own house and taking into account the whole case in totality in all the respects, the Screening Committee concluded that the family of the deceased Government Servant did not seem to be living in indigent circumstances and therefore, did not recommend the case of Shri Dharam Singh S/o Late Sh. Dhani Pal Singh for appointment on compassionate grounds.2. Counsel for applicant has challenged the above order basically on two grounds. Firstly, Respondents have taken into con...