Delhi Court January 2008 Judgments

S.R. Gupta and Sons Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 1,49,248/- and penalties. The demand is confirmed in respect of the gross amount received by the applicant under the category of photographic service. For certain period the applicant paid the Service Tax after excluding the value of materials. The applicant relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Addition Advertising v. UOI reported in 1998 (96) ELT 14 to submit that the service tax is only in respect of services rendered. The contention of the Revenue is that for some period in dispute the applicant had not even paid appropriate Service Tax in respect of the service provided.2. In this case, the issue is whether the cost of material is to be included while computing the assessable value for the service provided by the applicant. The applicant is providing the photographic service.In these circumstances, prima facie, I find that it is not a fit case for total waiver of amoun...

Gangaadhar and Sharma and Sons Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)12STJ387CESTATNew(Delhi)

2. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of amount of Service Tax of Rs. 8,19,445/- and penalties. The applicant had already deposited an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-.3. The contention is that the demand was confirmed on the ground that the applicant is providing commercial construction services. The applicant constructed warehouse on the land owned by railways and the construction for railway does not comes under the commercial or industrial construction service as per the definition under the Finance Act. It is also submitted that the applicant entered into a works contract with Central Warehousing Corporation for constructing the warehouse on railway land and the works contract comes under the purview of Service Tax with effect from June, 2007. The period in dispute is prior to June 2007. The contention is that there is no finding on the issue that the contract in question is only a works contract.4. The contention of the Revenue is that as per the contract ent...

Narayan Builders Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

The applicants filed this application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The appeal was filed within the normal period of limitation. However, the Registry of the Tribunal returned the appeal papers to remove the defects, and therefore, after removing the defects appeal was again filed. In these circumstances delay in filing the appeal is condoned.2. The applicants have filed stay application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 7,55,357/- and penalty. The applicants had already deposited Rs. 1 lakh at the time of hearing before the Commissioner (Appeals). In this case demand is confirmed by considering the applicants as provider of cargo handling service. The applicants, under contract, are undertaking the job of coal handling system. The applicants were unloading the coal wagons, crushing and conveying and feeding of coal to stock pile or bunkers through conveyer belts. I find that the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of S.B.Construction Co. v. U.O.I...

Pramod Kumar S/O Raj Singh and Vs. Commissioner of Police, Joint

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Delhi Police invited applications for recruitment to 692 posts of Sub Inspectors (Executive) (Male) vide advertisement published in the Employment News 20-26 October, 2007, for open, departmental and ex-servicemen categories. Applicants in OA No. 2384/2007 are departmental candidates presently holding the posts of Head Constable, whereas applicants in OA No. 2389/2007 applied as candidates in ex-servicemen category holding the rank of Sergeant or others in the Indian Air Force. It is the common case of applicants in both the Original Applications that the respondents had prescribed a race of 1600 meters to be completed in 6 minutes 30 seconds as one of the conditions for qualifying physical endurance test, which is wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and against rules. Inasmuch as, in both the Applications the relief asked for is the same as mentioned above and the facts and circumstances are identical, we propose to dispose of these Applications by a common order. The learned Counsel r...

Sh. A.K. Gupta, Sh. K.S. Parmar and Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this OA applicants have challenged order dated 09.5.2007 (page-15 to 17), speaking orders passed by respondents pursuant to direction given in OA No. 2876/2005 Ashok Kumar Gupta v. Union of India and Ors.decided on 18.9.2006 (page 21) and order dated 13.12.2005 whereby applicants were transferred to Allahabad Division while respondent No.3 was transferred to Jhansi Division from Agra Division (page-29).2. The brief facts as alleged by three applicants are that they were posted as Head Booking Clerk, Head Parcel Clerk and Head TTE in Agra Division but they were transferred to different Divisions vide order dated 24.12.2005 affecting their seniority and in contravention of Railway Board's letter dated 25.1.1969. Being aggrieved they filed different OAs. The said OAs were disposed of by directing the respondents to complete the departmental proceedings within a stipulated period and consider their posting back as per Railway Board's letter dated 25.1.69 and pass detailed and speaki...

Uma Joshi Vs. Enforcement Directorate

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

O.P. Nahar, Chairperson. - This is an appeal filed against adjudication order No. ADJ/250/DZ/2005/AO(AKJ)/1800, dated 31-5-2005 passed by Additional Commissioner (CCU), Central Excise while working as Adjudication Officer, Enforcement Directorate imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,84,000 against the appellant for contravention of section 18(2) read with section 18(3) FER Act on the reasons that appellant after making exports by two GRIs of the value of Rs. 10,84,000 failed to take reasonable steps for repatriation of export proceeds within the prescribed period of six months or any other extended period by RBI. This Tribunal while disposing of application for dispensation of pre-deposit allowed full dispensation of pre-deposit of penalty by order dated 30-5-2007 passed by this Tribunal. Presently we are hearing this appeal on merits for final disposal. 2. We have heard Shri Anil Arora, Chartered Accountant on behalf of the appellant and Shri A.C. Singh, DLA for respondent. According to Shri ...

Nandosal Industries Vs. Enforcement Directorat

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

R.N. Poddar, Member. - 1-2. This appeal is directed against adjudication order No. ADJ-I30/B/AAO/AD/04, dated 24-2-2004 passed by Additional Commissioner of Central Excise acted as Adjudicating Officer imposing penalty of Rs. 8,84,52,000 on the appellant-company for the reason of failure to furnish evidentiary proof of imports in utilization of foreign exchange acquired and remitted in contravention of provisions of sections 8(3) and 8(4) of FER Act, 1973. 3. By an order dated 9-3-2007, this Tribunal dismissed this appeal for filing beyond 90 days. Being aggrieved the appellant approached the Honble High Court at Bombay. By an order dated 24-8-2007 in Writ Petition No. 5956/2007, the Honble High Court held that the appeal filed was within the time and consequently set aside this Tribunals order dated 9-3-2007. This Tribunal was directed by the Honble High Court to hear the appeal in accordance with law. 4. Heard Shri Tanvir Ahmed, Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant and Shri A.C. ...

Nanda Devi Sharma and ors. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(128)ECC48

1. The relevant facts of the case are that the appellants procured coal ash from M/s. Nepa Ltd., which they sold to their customers. M/s. Nepa Ltd. paid duty under protest. The appellant filed refund claim before the adjudicating authority based on the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court judgment dt.4.4.2000. The adjudicating authority allowed the refund claim as the issue of unjust enrichment was settled in favour of the assessee by the Commissioner(Appeals) in identical case of one of the appellant Manoj Kumar Agarwal vide order-in-appeal No. IND-I/121/2004 dt.17.3.04 which was upheld by the Tribunal vide Final Order No.1797/05-SM dt.24.8.05. The revenue filed an appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals). Commissioner(Appeals) set aside the adjudication order on the ground that the appellant failed to establish that the incidence of duty had not passed on to any other person. Hence, the appellant filed these appeals before the Tribunal.2. Ld. Advocate submits that the Commissioner(Appeals) whi...

Vodafone Essar Digilink Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of an amount of Rs. 61,473/-. The demand is confirmed after denying the credit in respect of service tax on Port & Space charges. The Revenue is of the opinion that BSNL is not required to pay service tax in respect of Port & space charges paid by them. The applicants availed the credit of the service tax paid by BSNL as the BSNL provided taxable service to the applicants.2. The contention of the applicants is that as the service tax paid by BSNL is accepted by the Revenue, and there is no challenge to the payment of service tax, the credit cannot be denied.Prima facie BSNL has paid service tax which were accepted by the Revenue, therefore, applicants have a strong case in their favour.Therefore, pre-deposit of duty and penalty is waived. Stay petition is allowed....

Cce Vs. Jai Mata Alloys (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No.140/CE/CHD/06 dated 27.2.2006 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the Respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Cylinder Liners and other Engine parts classifiable under heading No. 8409 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Respondent cleared the goods on payment of concessional rate of duty under small scale exemption notification, which were returned by the buyer as defective goods on payment of higher rate of duty. The Respondent availed the credit of the whole duty paid by the buyer under Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2000. The adjudicating authority denied the credit availed by the Respondent on the ground that the Respondents are entitled to avail the credit which were paid by them at the time of removal of the goods from their factory and imposed penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) set-aside the adjudication order. Hence, the Revenue f...