Delhi Court January 2010 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.
Cce, Meerut Vs. M/S Daurala Sugar Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2010
Per D.N. Panda: When the matter was taken up, we noticed that there is no authorisation by the Committee for appealing the matter before the Tribunal. Section 35(b) (2) of Central Excise Act, 1944 requires that the Committee through the process of Authorisation apply its mind to draw a conclusion whether the order appealed is legal and proper before exercising right of Appeal by Revenue. It serves twin objects: (1) Filing of undesirable appeals is avoided; and (2) Filing of desirable appeals do not escape to meet scrutiny of higher appellate authority. Such decision for filing appeal is carried out through process of scrutiny by a Committee of Commissioners reflecting their mind by a speaking order of Authorisation. Elementary Rule or law requires that there should not be empty formality followed to seek remedy of appeal nor the process of law prescribed to be followed is given go bye. Accordingly appeal before Tribunal is sought through the scrutiny process of Authorisation. A prelimi...
M/S Uniworth Textiles Ltd. Vs. Cce, Raipur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2010
Per D.N. Panda: Both sides agree that against the similar issue in Appeal case No. E/2995/06, the Tribunal has remanded the matter on 16.9.09 to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for hearing the matter afresh. Therefore, learned Counsel suggests that if Appeal No. E/3/06 and E/9/06 also go back to the same Authority, he shall have uniform decision on all the matters which shall be in consonance with judicial discipline. 2. In view of fair suggestion of both the sides, we remand present two Appeals to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for an analogous hearing with case Appeal No. 2995/06 disposed by our order dated 16.9.09 and pass appropriate order. 3. In the result, both he Appeals are disposed of by way of remand....
Cce, Jaipur-i Vs. M/S Iceberg Foods Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2010
Records disclose that notice was issued to the respondent for today’s hearing on 27th November, 2009. However, the records do not disclose any recording by the registry as to whether the said notice was served upon the party or not. There are already directions issued to the Registrar that before the matter is being placed for hearing, the registry should make note in the records of the file as to whether the respondent has been served or not. However, it appears that the said direction is being not complied with by the Registrar. Registrar is, therefore, directed to submit his explanation as to why necessary action should not be taken against him for not implementing the said direction issued by the Hon’ble President. The explanation should be submitted within three days and place before the Hon’ble President in Chamber on 11th January, 2010....
Commissioner of Central Excise Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Valley Iron and Ste ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2010
Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal by the Department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 49/CE/CHD/2008 dated 22.1.08. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the respondent, a manufacturer of stainless steel billets, flats falling under Chapter 72, were required to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- BED plus Rs.13,009/- Education Cess for the month of November, 2004 and the said amount should have been deposited latest by 5.12.2004. The respondents have cleared the goods under Excise invoices and they have also filed returns indicating the duty payable for the month of November, 2004. However, they did not pay the duty by 5.12.04 and the same was paid in two instalments of Rs.1,50,000/- on 30.8.2005 and Rs.2,63,009/- on 17.9.2005. Show cause notice dated 19.4.2005 was issued proposing imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules read with section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. Original authority imposed a penalty of Rs.4,00,000/- under R...
Shree Rajasthan Syntex Vs. Cce, Jaipur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2010
Per D.N. Panda: Both sides agree that the present Appeal is on a very narrow compass for determination of assessable value whether including freight incurred for delivery of the goods at buyer s place at depot or excluding the same. Both agree that the place of removal was defined under Finance Act, 1996. The only confusion arose is as to whether to add or delete different ingredients of the cost incurred at the time of removal of goods. Ld. Counsel Shri Anand submits that they have all evidence to produce and satisfy the Authority that there was no additional cost incurred before or after the amendment of law. But the ld. Authorities proceeded against the Appellant because the Appellant was prevented to reply to show cause notice. He agrees that if an opportunity is given, entire evidence shall be brought to record to satisfy the Authorities and prove that nothing more is includible in the assessable value as claimed by Revenue. 2. Ld. DR Shri Vijai Kumar agrees that there is no evid...
Cce, Jaipur Vs. M/S Sesame Foods
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2010
Per D.N. Panda: Ld. DR Shri Vijai Kumar submits that when the goods were sold by 100% EOU in domestic area charging provision under Section 3 of Central Excise Act 1944 is to be read in terms of proviso appearing in sub-clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section (3) for levy of duty on such goods. According to him if any rate of duty under excise law is not prescribed on such goods, the duty payable shall be equal to aggregate of the duties of Custom which would be leviable on goods produced or manufactured outside India if imported into India. In view of such mandate of the statute, not only the duty becomes payable according to the Tariff Entry of Customs law but also according to the provisions contained in any other law for the time being in force. He also submits that even if the goods are not appearing in Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, those goods are liable to excise duty since manufactured in India. Therefore, ld. Appellate Authority has made an error in law to allow the Appea...
M/S Bhilai Auxilary Indus. Vs. Cce, Raipur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2010
PER JUSTICE R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR : Heard the learned Departmental Representative for the respondent. Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate, appearing for the appellants informed that, the party has already expressed in writing that the Tribunal should decide the matter on perusal of the records and, therefore, he has no submission to make in the matter. He has, however, drawn my attention to the fact that the decision of the Larger Bench in the matter of ABB Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Bangalore, reported in 2009 (15) S.T.R. 23 (LB-T), has been stayed by the Karnataka High Court. 2. The records also disclose a submission in writing on behalf of the appellants filed in the Court on 25th May, 2009 that the Tribunal may decide the appeal on the basis of merits of the case. 3. In the circumstances, I have gone through the entire records with the assistance of the learned DR and have also heard the learned DR. 4. The appellants are the manufacturers of goods falling under Cha...
M/S International Tractors Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jalandhar
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2010
Per D.N. Panda: Although specifically notice was issued by an order passed on 4.8.09 by the Bench, the Appellant is absent today. While passing the order for notice, we had noticed in para-2 of the order dated 4.8.09 that the dealer of the Appellant makes advertisement through wall paintings for promoting the sale of tractor for which they were getting 50% of advertisement cost reimbursed by the Appellant. But according to Revenue such cost should form part of the assessable value. Once this is a feature, we do not propose at all to keep the matter pending with the Tribunal without being disposed. 2. Ld. DR Shri Meena supports the order of the Authorities below. But he is fair to submit that there is already order of the Tribunal in the case of Maruti Sizuki India Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in 2008 (232) ELT 566 holding that such cost is not includible. Once such a fair submission comes to surface, we are inclined to allow the Appeal and we do so....
C.C.E., Allahabad Vs. M/S K.M. Sugar Mills Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2010
Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal by the Department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No.196-CE/ALLD/2007 dated 10.12.2007. 2. None appears for the respondents in spite of notice. Heard the learned DR for the Department. 3.1 The relevant facts, in brief, are that the respondent is a manufacturer of speed de-natured spirit and ordinary spirit falling under Chapter 22 of CETA, 1985. They also manufacture rectified spirit which is not subject to central excise duty. It appears that certain common inputs have been used in the manufacture of dutiable products and rectified spirit. The respondents apparently have paid 8% on the price of the rectified spirit in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules treating the same as exempted goods. The valuation of the product is in dispute for the purpose of payment of 8% of the amount in terms of the said rule 6(3)(b). Show cause notice dated 23.9.05 was issued alleging that as per the contract of the buyers, the transportation cos...
C.C.E., Chandigarh Vs. M/S A.B. Tools Ltd. and Another
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2010
Per M. Veeraiyan: These two appeals by the Department arise out of a common order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and involved a common issue. Accordingly, the same are disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard the learned SDR. None appears for the respondents in spite of notice. 3. The respondents cleared the goods on payment of duty and subsequently revised prices and collected differential price by issue of supplementary invoices. The original authority demanded interest with reference to the date of clearance of goods under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the parties were not aware at the time of first clearance of the goods that the value would be enhanced by the purchaser and accordingly, set aside the orders of the original authority. 4. Learned SDR submits that the issue stands decided in favour of the Revenue by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E., Pune vs. S.K.F. India Ltd. - ...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »