Delhi Court June 2007 Judgments

Margra Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(121)ECC107

1. These are five appeals all taken together as they involve a single common issue: whether the rough marble block imported by the appellant could be imported without any valid license and whether redemption fine and penalty imposed by the lower authorities is justified in all these cases.2. According to the appellants, the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 29.10.04 in which the learned Commissioner (Appeals) had enhanced the redemption fine and penalty on the ground that the appellants failed to produce Special Import Licence against the clearance of goods under ex-bond bill of entry was not legal and proper. It was contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not cited any provisions of law i.e. EXIM Policy requiring special import license which has not been complied with by them.3. The learned Authorised representative of the appellant submits that roughly in respect of 70% of their cases, the imports were backed by valid import licence and only in respect of remainin...

R.S. Gupta and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)8STR630

1. This is an application challenging the order of Commissioner (Appeals) made on 14.3.07. In the impugned order the Commissioner has observed as follows: 5. I have carefully gone through the case records, submissions made by the appellants in appeal and at the time of personal hearing. I find that, the demand has been confirmed on the ground that "the service provider has acted as share broker while making transaction with their clients and has charged a certain amount for providing services the same is liable to Service Tax." On the contrary, the Appellant has contended that they were sub broker, they were not stock broker. In this regard, I find that, they have provided services of stock broker while making transactions with their clients, they acted as share broker and has charged brokerage for providing such services, therefore, the Adjudicating Authority has rightly hold that such amount is liable to be service tax. Accordingly, I uphold the Impugned Order confirming the demand ...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)10STR352

2. Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order. The issue involved in this case is as to whether the input service tax credit on mobile phone is admissible in terms of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It is seen from the impugned order that the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the order following to decision of the Tribunal in the case of Indian Rayon & Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Bhavnagar 2006 (4) S.T.R 79. On perusal of the appeal filed by the Revenue, it is seen that the said decision of the Tribunal has been challenged before the Hon'ble High Court. Revenue failed to produce any order from the Hon'ble High Court for stay of operation of the Tribunal's decision.3. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the Revenue's appeal.Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected....

National Highways Authority of India Vs. Shri Sudhir Haryal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 142(2007)DLT566

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioner NHAI is aggrieved by the order dated 30.5.2007 followed by the order dated 2.6.2007 passed by Shri Sanatan Prasad, Senior Civil Judge, Delhi.2. The said 2 orders have been passed by the learned Judge in a suit filed by the respondent seeking a decree for permanent injunction against the petitioner restraining petitioner from taking possession of bus shelters, toilet blocks etc. right whereon for displaying advertisements was vested in the respondent under the agreement dated 31.12.2001.3. Vide order dated 30.5.2007, at the preliminary hearing of the suit an ex-parte ad interim injunction was issued against the petitioner. Further, respondent's application under Section 80(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed.4. Vide order dated 2.6.2006, petitioner's request to vacate the injunction was declined on the ground that unless a formal application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed, there was no question of even consider...

Great Galleon Limited, Vs. Cc and Ce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)9STR192

1. These are the five applications - all involving common issue and argued together by both the sides.2. The issue involved in all these matters pertains to the chargeability of service tax on the activities of packaging/bottling of country liquor, manufactured by the appellant companies. The show cause notice has alleged that such activities the activity of bottling, labelling and sealing of country liquor and supplying the same in bottles of different volumes in terms of tenders awarded by the State Excise authorities would fall under the category of 'packaging activity' as defined under Section 65(76)(b) of the finance Act, 1994 thus attracting service tax w.e.f. 16.06.2005.3. In this context, we have come across a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madnya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Vindhyachal Distilleries Pvt.Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 206 (3) STR 723 (M.P.).Para 14 of the said judgment reads as under: 14. It is clear that for supply of country liquor, the distill...

Siddhartha Polymer Limited (Now Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Appellant Sidhartha Polymers Ltd. has been engaged inter-alia in the import and sale of polycarbonate sheets. It imported 52 consignments of polycarbonate sheets during the period 1998 to 2001.2. Its offices and connected premises were searched by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence on 5-6/10/01. This was part of an investigation pursuant to information that importers of polycarbonate sheets have been mis-declaring the description and value of imported polycarbonate sheets and evading customs duty.3. Appellants imports were of Korean origin goods, though the purchase were from traders in Singapore. The investigation covered appellant's sales agents, Indian producers of similar goods etc. As a part of the investigation, samples of similar goods were obtained from Dubai and comparative testing was carried out of the samples seized during the search as well as the similar samples obtained.4. Show cause notice dated 31.3.2003 was issued alleging that the imported consignments had b...

Sh. S.N. Sharma S/O Late Shri S.C. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA, validity of Order dated 20th April, 2004 passed by co-ordinate Bench at Ernakulam of this Tribunal in OA No 134/2002, allowing Respondent No -3 OA No 134/2002, directing respondents NO 1-2 to place him in seniority list of Section Officer w.e.f. 31.5.1990, has been challenged. A That the official respondents be directed to produce the relevant records pertaining to the absorption of Respondents No 3 for the perusal of this Hon'ble Tribunal. B That the judgment and Order dated 20.4.2004 passed by the Ernakulam Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal in OA. NO 134/2002 be referred to a larger Bench/Full Bench and reconsidered/reopened and declared as unsustainable in law; and the consequent revision of seniority as envisaged vide O.M. dated 6.1.2005 be quashed and set aside. C That the initial appointment on deputation and subsequent absorption of Respondent No 3 be held as having been made not in accordance with the provisions of the relevant recruitment rules and therefore, bad ...

Punjab Ex-serviceman Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue states that, after the order dated 11.4.07 was made by this Tribunal in which the Tribunal had expressed its prima facie reaction that Hon'ble High Court has set aside the order of the Tribunal with the direction to take a fresh decision not only on the question of limitation, but also on other grounds raised for the Tribunal's consideration, the Revenue had approached the Hon'ble High Court for a clarification but, unfortunately, the said order of the Tribunal was not placed before the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble High Court had rejected the application for clarification by observing that there was no ground for clarification of the order dated 19.2.07. It was submitted that the clarification was to be sought in view of the fact that this Tribunal had expressed its prima facie reaction in the order dated 11.4.07 that the matter was to be decided a fresh. He submitted that since the issues regarding valuation and the assessee...

Betul Tyre and Tube Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(121)ECC78

2. The appeal challenges the order of Commissioner of Customs Export promotion, New Customs House, Mumbai made on 11.8.03. Briefly stated the appellants had obtained import licence for import of "second-hand machinery having year of manufacture 1995 along with spares". The said second-hand items arrived under two different Bills of entries. While the second-hand machinery imported by the appellant got cleared from the Customs without any hassle, the spares imported however, were not spared from the customs contradictoriness although the appellant produced Chartered Engineers certificate to prove that the year of manufacture of the spare was 1995. The expert appraiser of the Department had, however, concluded that the items imported were 'more than 10 years old' while observing that the goods were old/used, the goods were reconditioned and that the residual life was over eight years. All the observations culminates in the denial of the benefit of Notification No. 55/2003 dated 1.4.03 a...

Commercial Motors Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)110TTJ(Delhi)596

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) dt. 22nd Aug., 2006 for the asst. yr. 1984-85, in the matter of orders passed under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 wherein following grounds of appeal have been raised: 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 7,11,093 made by the learned Dy. CIT in respect of sales-tax paid in previous year and by disregarding the order of Hon'ble Tribunal. 2. The view of learned CIT(A) that as sales-tax collections for April, 1982 were not credited to trading account, hence sales-tax expenditure of Rs. 7,11,093 could not be allowed under Section 43B of the Act, is erroneous, contrary to law, based on unsound reasoning and irrelevant considerations, and is not tenable in law. 3. The view of learned CIT(A) that deduction for sales-tax payment of Rs. 7,11,093 was not allowable under Section 43B of the Act on payment basis in the year under consideration, is wholly erroneous, arbitrary and...