Delhi Court April 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 5 of about 169 results (0.042 seconds)Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Sadashiv Metallics Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT199TriDel
1. In this appeal the revenue has contested the correctness of the impugned order vide which Commissioner (Appeals) has dropped the duty demand and penalty against the respondents.2. I have heard both the sides and gone through the record. Duty of Rs. 50,175/- has been raised by the revenue on account of shortage of the finished goods i.e. alloy steel ingots which were found to be short to the extent of 11.007 m.t. but from the record it is evident that clearance on 7-2-2000 of these goods (818609 m.t.) were not taken into by the officers while working out the shortage. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly observed that after given allowance of these clearances, virtually there was no shortage especially when no evidence has been adduced to prove the clandestine removal of the goods.Therefore, Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly dropped the duty demand against the respondents.3. Regarding the shortage of raw material i.e. Ho Tops involving duty of Rs. 25,357/- and Melting Scrap cover...
Tag this Judgment!Samtel Colour Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT363TriDel
2. The appellants filed this appeal against order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of paints used in the shop floor is denied to the appellant.3. The appellant claimed the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of the paints used in the shop floor as input in view of the definition of input under Rule 2(f) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2001. The contention of the appellant is that the credit was denied on the ground that the paint is used for the maintenance of building and does not relate to the manufacturing activity of the final product.4. The Contention of the appellant is that they are engaged in the manufacture of colour picture rubes and for the assembly of colour picture tubes dust free atmosphere is required in the shop floor. To attain this dust free environment. They are using special type of paint on the shop floor of production hall to make it dust free and fire retardant. The contention of the appellant is that as per t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Sadashiv Casting (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT381TriDel
1. These three appeals are filed by Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No.1202-1204/03, dated 9-12-2003 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the demand on the ground that the extended period of limitation is not invocable against the respondents, M/s. Sadashiv Casting (P) Ltd. 2. Heard Shri P.M. Rao, learned D.R. and Shri Nand Kishore, learned Advocate. The respondents manufacture steel ingots and availed Modvat credit of the duty paid on inputs, namely, M.S. Scrap. The Adjudicating Authority disallowed the Modvat credit on the ground that they had availed of the Modvat credit on the basis of invoices issued by the dealers and the dealers had issued the invoices on the strength of fake invoices; that one set of invoices received by the dealer showed clearance of M.S. Scrap, whereas the other set of invoices showed clearance of M.S. pipes; that the value and duty element was the same in all the copies of the invoices; that the quantity of waste and scrap was double than that ...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Relan Vs. State Through Cbi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 119(2005)DLT636; 2005(82)DRJ60
Manju Goel, J.1. RC 10(S)/2001/SIU-1/SIC-1/New Delhi was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short `CBI') involving theft of 10 Indian Airlines tickets worth Rs. 1,80,000/-. The petitioner allegedly conspired with the principal accused in the commission of the offence. The petitioner first obtained an anticipatory bail and has thereafter obtained regular bail. The bail order passed by this court dated 7.1.2005 directs release of the petitioner on a bond of Rs. 1 lakh with one surety in the like amount subject to the condition that the passport impounded by the CBI shall remain in the custody of the CBI and the petitioner should not leave the territory of NCR without the permission of the concerned court and the petitioner shall not in any manner tamper with the evidence or influence any witness. The petitioner seeks permission to go to China where he has a business. The prayer is opposed by the CBI. The trial court declined the permission to go abroad, so has the cour...
Tag this Judgment!Pankaj Parmar Vs. Shikha Parmar
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 119(2005)DLT278; I(2005)DMC652
O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. Marriage between the parties was solemnised on 1.12.95. However, the parties would not pull on well and a joint petition (first motion) for decree of divorce by mutual consent was filed on 6.2.2003, whereon learned Matrimonial Court passed order dated 23.5.2003 granting first motion. Thereafter second motion was filed on 18.12.2004 that is after the expiry of more than 18 months from the order granting first motion. Learned Additional District Judge dismissed the second motion mainly on the ground that the same has been filed beyond 18 months' period as contemplated under Section 13(B)(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act and as such it cannot be entertained. Learned Counsel for the appellant has referred to a decision in the case of Santosh Kumar v. Virendra Kumar , wherein learned Single Judge took the view that period of 18 months contemplated under Section 13(B)(2) of the Act is the time-limit for withdrawal of the first motion and not outer limit for filing of motion fo...
Tag this Judgment!Ajit Singh Vs. Ramesh Vohra and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2006(86)DRJ374
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. By means of IA. No. 6264/02, defendant No. 2 prays for rejection of the plaint alleging that on the pleadings of the plaintiff, no cause of action has been shown against defendant No. 2.2. Under Clause (a) of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, a plaint is liable to be rejected where it does not disclose a cause of action. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff very fairly states that indeed, a plaint which discloses no cause of action against a defendant has to be rejected qua the said defendant.3. Suit claims a money decree against the defendants.4. Vide para 1 of the plaint, plaintiff states that defendant No. 1 placed an order on him for supply of 600 pieces of Polyester Embroidered Odhanies. Price agreed per piece was US $14.5 (FOB), as stated in para 2 of the plaint. It is averred in para 3 of the plaint that plaintiff supplied the goods, delivery whereof was taken by defendant No. 1. Amount payable for the supply was US $9541.5. In para 5 of the plaint, it is stated that def...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Kashyap Sweetners Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT108TriDel
1. In this appeal the revenue has challenged validity of part of the impugned order by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has dropped the recovery of the Modvat credit amount from the respondents which they availed on the shortage of inputs.2. Ld. JDR has contended that the authorise representative of the respondents himself admitted the shortage of the inputs caustic soda resin, HCL etc. and even reversed the Modvat credit on the date when the officers visited the factory premises and found the shortage of the inputs. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had wrongly dropped the recovery of Modvat credit from the respondents on those inputs on which they have earlier availed the credit.3. On the other hand ld. Counsel has raised two legal issues. Firstly that the demand is time barred, secondly, that the demand could not be confirmed under Section 11A of the Act, as it pertains to the Modvat credit for the recovery of which Rule 57-I could only be involved. Ld.Counsel has referred to the Apex Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Narendra Nath Chopra Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT464TriDel
1. Shri Narendra Nath Chopra has filed this Appeal against imposition of penally under Customs Act.2. Heard Shri K.L. Srivastava, learned Consultant and Shri S.Bhatna-gar, learned Departmental Representative. In this matter, the officers of Trade Tax Department intercepted a Truck No. WB 15/7303 on 24-1-2001 which was handed over to the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. The search of the truck revealed the presence of Misc. electronic goods of foreign origin which have been confiscated by the Commissioner under the impugned order. The Commissioner has also imposed penalty on the appellants besides imposing penalty on owner of truck and others. Learned Consultant has submitted that the Appellants is not the owner of the truck; that he is working as commission agent and on request of Shri Prabhu Dayal Bajaj, he arranged the truck for loading the misprint rejected steel scrap and earned the commission of Rs. 560/-; that he has not committed any act which will render him li...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shree Kurele Chemical Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT319TriDel
1. In this appeal the revenue has contested the correctness of the impugned order vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the refund of duty of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the respondents which they deposited with the Department at the time of taking Central Excise Licence for the manufacture of Pan Masala.2. I have heard both the sides. There is no dispute regarding the deposit of above mentioned amount by the respondents with the Department. This deposit was made by them at the time when they took the Central Excise Registration for manufacture of Pan Masala etc. but they never started after the installation of the machinery, the production of the goods. They rather surrendered the licence to the Department. No evidence has been collected by the revenue to prove that the respondents even, manufactured the excisable goods and cleared the same. No such inference from mere installation of machinery by them, could be raised that they indulged in the manufacture of excisable goods. There...
Tag this Judgment!Escorts Limited Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC442
1. M/s Excorts Limited, the appellant in these three appeals, is a manufacturer of tractors and motor vehicles. Parts of these items are also manufactured in-house. The common issue that arises in these appeals is the valuation (for assessment to Central Excise duty) of two parts, namely, hydraulic gear and hydraulic distribution assembly manufactured by the appellant and used captively in the production of tractors. Except for the difference in the periods covered in the three appeals, facts and legal position are the same in regard to all the appeals.2. These appeals are before us on remand by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated October 25, 2004 in Civil Appeal Nos. 7310-7312 of 2003.3. We have perused the records and considered the submissions made by both sides.4. The contention of the Revenue is that parts which are used in in-house production are required to be assessed at the value at which the same parts when sold are assessed in terms of Section 4(1)(2) of the Central ...
Tag this Judgment!