Delhi Court June 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.
Pawan Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2004
Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC365
2. The appellants are manufacturers of iron and steel products falling under Chapter 72 of the CETA Schedule. They were working under the erstwhile compounded levy scheme for the purpose of discharge of Central Excise duty liability during September 1997 -- March 2000.Under the scheme, which was introduced under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, they had to pay a fixed amount of duty for every month as determined by the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise who would determine the rolling mills annual capacity of production (ACP) and work out the monthly duty liability under the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 (ACD Rules, for short).The ACP originally determined by the Commissioner as per order dated 11.12.1997 was 7784.834 MTs according to which the duty liability was Rs. 23,35,450 p.a. (Rs. 1,94,621 p.m). This determination of ACP was on the basis of the parameters of rolling mill as declared by the appellants under the above rules. A...
Reliable Safety Glass, Shri Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2004
Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC602
1. The first appellant is a manufacturer of glass and glass products which are liable to Central Excise duty. In the impugned order, the differential duty demand of about Rs. 49 lakhs has been confirmed on the ground that the appellant evaded payment of duty to that extent in respect of clearances made during the period 1996 to 2002. There are also penalties imposed, including on the officers of the company, and demand for payment of interest on the duty evaded. Second to fourth appellants are the penalised officers of the first appellant.2. The duty demand is in respect of supplies made to Indian Railways under DGS&D rate contracts. The differential duty demand has been made on the ground of incorrect valuation of goods and clandestine manufacture and removal of the goods.3. The valuation dispute is on account of two grounds. The first ground is that the appellant should have included charges attributable to "Sound Delivery Charges" in the assessable value of the goods. The secon...
Shakthi Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2004
Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC332
1. M/s. Shakthi Chemicals have filed this Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 461/2003 dated 29.10.03 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the imposition of penalty of Rs. 44 lakhs against them for passing the Cenvat credit wrongly to their buyers in contravention of the provisions of Rule 57AE of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, learned Advocate submitted that the appellants are engaged in the trading of Caustic Soda, soda flex, soda ash light and sodium sulphate and are registered with Central Excise Department as dealer for issue of modvatable invoices; that Appellants buy these goods from various dealers of the manufacturers, who in turn buy the materials from the manufacturer like IPCL, M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd.; that for the sake of saving transport cost etc. the goods for which orders are placed by the Appellants on the dealers are consigned directly by the manufacturer from their premises to the Appellants premises; that the goods are accom...
Rajiv Aggarwal and ors. Vs. Canara Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2004
Reported in: IV(2004)BC63
1. This appeal has been directed against the order dated 4.3.1998 passed by the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') on an application filed by the respondents 4 and 5 herein (who are defendants 2 and 3 before the DRT; and hereinafter referred to as "the defendants 2 and 3") for impleading the appellants herein as defendants 11 to 13 in the O. A., 633/95. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT (by the impugned order) ordered that the appellants be impleaded as such.2. Ist respondent-Canara Bank (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent-Bank") has filed said O.A. 633/95 against (1) M/s. Shivani Synthetics Ltd., (2) Mr. C.P. Modi, (3) Mr. K.K. Aggarwal (defendants 1 to 3 respectively) and seven others, for the recovery of Rs. 2,72,41,481.52 with interest from defendants 1 to 9 jointly and severally. The respondent-Bank has averred in para 2 of the O.A. that the Ist defendant is the borrower and that the defendants 2 and 3 are...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›