Delhi Court December 2004 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Panjon Limited Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-2004
Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC753
1. The appellants are manufacturer of Purti Tazgi Masala falling under sub-heading No. 2180.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and are availing Modvat credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of their final products. They had taken Modvat credit of Rs. 1,67,530 on the strength of the Invoices No. 3971 dated 21.2.95 and 3972 dated 21.2.95 issued by M/s. Paper Products Ltd. It was found that the date of issue of these invoices was much before the period of six months from the date of the availment of the credit by the appellants.Therefore, show cause notice was issued to them for disallowing the Modvat credit of Rs. 1,67,530 and after adjudication, the adjudicating authority disallowed this credit and imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000 on them. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the adjudicating authority disallowing the credit. However, he set aside the penalty imposed on the appellants.2. Shri A. Uppadhyay, Ld. Advocate appearing for the ...
Premium Packaging P. Ltd., Shri Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-2004
Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC333
1. This appeal has been directed by the appellants against the impugned Order-in-Original vide which the adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand and imposed penalties as detailed therein against them.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of flexible printed laminated plastic rolls of 3 layer and 2 layer, co-extruded multi layer poly films, printed poly, printed poly bags, printed plastic sheets (polyester) etc. Shri Ajay Jain and Shri Vipul Jain are their Directors. Proceedings were initiated against them through a show cause notice dated 13.12.2001 by alleging that they had indulged in suppression of production/ clandestine removal of the excisable goods without payment of duty during the period in dispute i.e. December 1988 to July 1999. They had been purchasing/procuring unaccounted raw-material without entering in the statutory records and used that raw material in the manufacture of finished excisable goods which they removed without payment of duty as well as ...
Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-2004
Reported in: (2005)(182)ELT380TriDel
1. This is an application by M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd. for waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty of Rs. 18,88,869.88 and equal amount of penalty.2. Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, learned Advocate submitted that the demand has been confirmed against them on the ground that they had received less quantities of inputs than mentioned in the duty paying documents; that the difference in quantity received by them is ranging from 0.08% to 0.39% which may be due to any reason, for example, errors in measurement such as dip-reading, different weighing scales and other circumstances such as temperature change, drying up of moisture etc. He also mentioned that there were sometimes higher figures of quantity noted to be received by them and no payment whatsoever was made to the supplier for such higher quantity; that such negligible difference in quantity is permissible under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act/Rules. He has also relied upon the decision in the case of Neera Enterprises v...
Kuwer Industries Ltd. and Shri Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-2004
Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC273
1. In these four appeals, filed by M/s. Kuwer Industries Ltd. & Ors., the issue relates to the clearance of metallised polyester film without payment of duty.2. Shri Rajiv Dutta, learned Advocate, submitted at the outset, that the impugned Order has been passed by the Commissioner confirming demand of Central Excise duty and imposing penalties on all the appellants on the ground that they had cleared metallised polyester film manufactured out of polyester film purchased by them in the names of other firms; that it has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Metlex (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., New Delhi, 2004 (165) ELT 129 (SC) that laminating/metallising of duty paid film does not amount to manufacture. The learned Advocate contended that once the process undertaken by them i.e. of metallising of polyester film does not amount to manufacture, the question of payment of any Central Excise duty on metallised film, does not arise. We also heard Shri U. Raja Ram, learned D.R.3. In t...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Onida Saka Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-2004
Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT397TriDel
1. In this appeal the Revenue has contested the validity of the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the order-in-original and allowed the refund claim of the respondents with interest.2. The learned SDR has contended that since the adjudication proceedings for the duty demand are pending against the respondents on remand by the Tribunal, the refund claim could not be allowed being premature. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned Counsel has argued that the duty was deposited by the respondents much earlier to the initiation of the demand proceedings and that even after the remand of the case by the Tribunal vide Final Order dated 4-5-2001, no adjudication has taken place and there being no confirmed duty demand against the respondents, they are entitled to the refund of the amount.3. We have heard both the sides and gone through the records. We find that the respondents deposited the duty amount b...
Harmirpur Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-2004
Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC69
1. This Misc. application was filed for out of turn hearing of the appeal. The stay application was also taken up for hearing.2. Shri R. Santhanam, Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants pleaded that the appellants have taken credit in their Modvat Account on the basis of invoices issued by the dealers but the department issued show cause notice denying the credit on the ground that the dealers are not registered. The dealers got themselves registered before December 1994 and this fact was submitted before the original authority. The original authority accepted the registration certificate in respect of one dealer and accordingly modified the demand. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) denied the credit to the appellants on the ground that the invoice does not contain the required particulars as provided under Notification No. 15/94-CE (NT) although they got registration on 15.7.94 and he also held that M/s. Khandelwal Ferro Alloys Ltd. has also not registered themselves and the ...
Paharpur Cooling Towers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-2004
Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC663
1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by M/s. Paharpur Cooling Towers Pvt. Ltd. is whether the benefit of Notification No.3/2001-C.E., dated 1-3-2001 (S. No. 254) is available in respect of PPE Blades manufactured and cleared by them.2. Shri M.S. Gupta, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture PPE Blades which are used in a particular cooling machines supplied to M/s. Gowthami Bio-Energies Ltd. who have been granted a licence to set up 6 MW Bio-mass based power project by M/s.Non-Conventional Energy Development Corporation of Andhra Pradesh; that they had claimed nil rate of duty under Notification No. 3/2001; that S. No. 254 of the said Notification provides nil rate of duty in respect of Non-Conventional Energy devices/systems specified in List 5 which mentions "parts consumed within the factory of production of such parts for the manufacture of goods specified at S. Nos. 1-19 above"; that the Revenue has denied the benefit of Notification on the ground that ...
J.S. Gupta and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-2004
Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC333
1. M/s. J.S. Gupta & Sons have filed the present appeal against the Memorandum No. 1 dated 27-7-04 by which the Commissioner has suspended the facility of duty free procurement of raw materials by them.2. Shri Piyush Kumar, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants is a 100% EOU operating under Letter of Permission dated 15-12-2000 granted by the Development Commissioner, NEPZ, Noida; that they are procuring/importing raw material free of duty against CT-3/Procurement certificates as envisaged under the provisions governing administration of 100% EOU; that on 2/3-1-2004, their factory and office premises were searched by the Central Excise Officers and pending investigations, they were directed to pay an amount of Rs. 26,99,871/- which has been deposited by them; that may be taken from the unit in this regard.3. Opposing the prayer Ms. Charul Barnwal, learned S.D.R., submitted that the CBEC, under Circular F. No. 305/119/2000-FTT dated 17-10-02, has directed that in case ser...
Xerox Modi Corp. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-2004
Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC563
1. The appellants had paid central excise duty of Rs. 5,07,326 under protest on pre-budget stock which was cleared from 1.3.88 to 31.7.88.Subsequently, they filed a refund claim for this amount which was rejected and the amount was credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground that the appellant have failed to negate the presumption of the unjust enrichment as provided under Section 12B of the Central Excise Act. The appeal filed by them before the Commissioner (Appeals) was rejected under Section 11B of the Act as they failed to establish that incidence of duty has not been passed on by them to anybody.2. Shri Ravi Raghavan, Ld. Consultant appearing for the appellants conceded that in view of the Supreme Court's judgments in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II v. Allied Photographics India Ltd. 3. In view of this position, the appeal is dismissed as there is no merit in the appeal....
Subhash Market Association and anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Delhi209; 116(2005)DLT406; 2005(79)DRJ606
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional District Judge on September 16, 2004 passed in Suit No. 1236/2000 dismissing the suit filed by the appellants as plaintiffs with costs.2. The suit was instituted by the appellants as plaintiffs seeking for a decree of declaration that the plaintiffs and particularly its members are owners by adverse possession in respect of all the area abutting the Central Park, and also for a decree of permanent injunction and also mandatory injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants and employees from in any manner ejecting the plaintiff-association and its members and their families from the suit property as also restraining further demolition and to prove temporary structures at the suit site, and also to pass a decree for damages.3. The aforesaid suit was instituted in the name of Subhash Market Association. In the cause title of the suit the appellant-plaintiff descr...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »