Delhi Court February 2010 Judgments

Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Surya Pharmaceutical Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per Rakesh Kumar: The facts leading to this appeal filed by the Revenue are, in brief, as under: 1.1 The Respondent are manufacture of bulk drugs chargeable to Central Excise Duty. On 14.11.05, the Respondent cleared a consignment of 5 MT of Bulk Drug Amoxicillin Trihydrate without payment of duty for export under ARE-I against CT1’s certificate produced by a merchant exporter M/s. Sai Sharddha Exim(P) Ltd., Mumbai. The goods after clearance from the factory under ARE-I were handed over to the transporter M/s. B.L.R.India Ltd. In the meantime, DRI initiated the enquiries against merchant exporter M/s. Sai Sharddha Exim(P) Ltd. and booked against him a case of diversion of the excisable goods to domestic market by substituting the consignment of drugs obtained duty free from the manufacturers by soap stone powder mis-declared as a bulk drug. As a result of the case booked against the merchant exporter, the export consignment cleared by the Respondent was not taken delivery by the ...

M/S. J.R.Herbal Care India Ltd. Vs. Cce, Noida

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per Rakesh Kumar: The Appellant are manufacturer of Herbal Cosmetics chargeable to Central Excise Duty under Chapter 33 of the Central Excise Tariff. They are registered with Central Excise Department since 30.6.05 and are availing Cenvat credit facility. The Appellant vide their letter dt.29.8.05 informed that they had started manufacture of herbal cosmetics from 1.8.04 but since their clearances during 2004-05 were below to rupees one crore, they did not obtain registration; that they took Central Excise Registration on 30.6.05 as soon as their clearances crossed Rupees one crore and that they intend to avail Cenvat credit of duty on capital goods purchased during July-03 - June-04 period. The Appellant took capital goods Cenvat credit of Rs.1,77,116/- on 30.8.05 (equivalent to 50% of the total duty on the capital goods) and took balance 50% credit of Rs.1,77,116/- on 30.10.05. A show cause notice dt.21.8.06 was issued to the Appellant for recovery of the Cenvat credit of Rs.3,...

M/S Beekay Hosiery Industries Vs. Cce, Delhi-i

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per D.N. Panda: Ld. Counsel Shri Bajaj submits that when the Adjudicating Authority failed to examine the evidence that was submitted in terms of letter dated 24.8.2004 (appearing at page 32 of the appeal folder) the appellant has faced the demand. That authority has also mentioned in the order that the documents were not before him for examination. When such finding was there, the appellate authority confirmed adjudication without examining the issue. There was no unreasonable claim by the assessee for availing credit of Rs.4,07,925/- in RG-23A, Part-II recorded vide Entry No. 2 dated 1.4.2004. Detailed calculation sheet was submitted before the Authority to prove bonafide of the appellant. In view of such circumstances, if entire set of documents available in the adjudication record itself is examined, the appellant may not have a grievance. 2. Ld. Jt. CDR Shri Saxena submits that when the appellant failed to buttress its claim before the authority below, the allegation in show cause...

Cce, Noida Vs. M/S. Polytron and Fragrances Inds(P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per Rakesh Kumar: The facts giving rise to this appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross Objection by the Respondent are, in brief, as under: The Respondent are manufacturer of Flexible Packaging Laminate, Flexible Packaging Laminate Pouch and Paper coated Plastic, chargeable to Central Excise Duty under Chapter 39 and 48 of the Central Excise Tariff. They had purchased duty paid capital goods during the period from Oct-99 to Nov-03, in respect of which they had taken capital goods Cenvat credit as per the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules. The total value of the capital goods purchased was Rs.52,87,448/-, the bulk of the purchases being during Oct-99 to Dec-2000 period and total capital Cenvat credit taken was Rs.8,44,429/-. In Sept-2004, there was a fire accident in the factory in which there was total loss of plant and machinery as well as of the stock of raw-material and finished goods. The -burnt capital goods were sold in Feb.,2005 in Rs.3,30,000/- and at the time of sale, duty amou...

Cce, Kanpur Vs. M/S. Adarsh Kanch Udyog Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per Rakesh Kumar: The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal filed by the Revenue are, in brief, as under: The Respondent are manufacturer of Glassware and Kitchenware chargeable to Central Excise Duty under Chapter 70 of Central Excise Tariff. On 14.12.05, their factory was visited by the jurisdictional Central Excise Officers and stock checking of the finished products was done in presence of two independent witnesses. In course of stock checking, 49800 pieces of Lead Glass Tubes involving duty of Rs.2,03,184/- were found short for which the Respondent’s representative present on the spot could not give any explanation. Shri Rajiv Jain, Authorised Signatory, present on the spot, in his statement recorded on the same day under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act,1944 admitted the shortage of the Lead Glass Tubes and stated that the goods found short had been removed from the factory without issue of invoices and without payment of duty. The duty involved on the goods foun...

M/S Pooja Cables Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Bhopal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per D.N. Panda: Consequent upon drawing of conclusion by learned Commissioner (Appeals) while disposing three appeals registered as Nos. 13, 14 and 15-CE/BPL/2006 on 13.1.06 by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the case of the present assessee holding that an amount of Rs.1,96,316.87 was liable to be recovered under Section 11D of Central Excise Act, 1944, an amount of Rs.15,642/- was liable to be recovered under Section 11A and Rs.4,41,061.33 was recoverable under Section 11D of the said Act, that Ld. Authority in para-15 of the appeal order dated 13.1.2006 also held that so far as payment of Rs.15,642/- under Section 11A is concerned, the Appellant was liable to interest under Section 11AB. However he held that so far as recovery under Section 11D is concerned, the assessee is not liable to interest for the period prior to the Finance Bill, 2003 receiving the assent of the President. 2. On the above background, a show-cause notice dated 2.4.2007 was issued to the present assessee-app...

No 2607818f Sepoy Shaik Raffee Versus the Chief of Army Staff, Army He ...

Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi

1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 praying for quashing and setting aside the SCM proceedings of 15.9.2007 as well as for quashing the impugned order of 1.7.2008 passed by the Chief of Army Staff, which rejects the appeal of the appellant. 2. The appellant pleads that he has been performing his duties to the best of his ability with complete diligence, honour and discipline. The appellants reports are good and accordingly reflect his conduct and behaviour. There has been no charge of even a small misdemeanour against the appellant who has performed to the complete satisfaction of his superiors, colleagues and fellow Sepoys. 3. It is against this background that the appellant was shocked to receive a communication on 10.9.2007 from his Commanding Officer informing him that he would be tried by SCM on 15.9.2007. He was also informed that in accordance with Army Rule 129, he could have a person to assist him during the trial or he cou...

Col. Ram Niwas Versus Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of D ...

Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi

1. This is an appeal preferred by Col. Ram Niwas (the appellant), who is aggrieved against his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the period from 1.9.2002 to 30.6.2003. He desires that the initiating officers portion therein be set aside as being subjective as well as the Central Government order dated 26.5.2008 rejecting his statutory petition be quashed. He also pleads that based on such changes in ACR profile consequent to setting aside the Initiating Officers report as pleaded above, he be considered afresh for detailment on the higher command/ equivalent courses. 2. As a backdrop, the petitioner has listed his over all career in order to establish his relative standing amongst his peers. His record of excellence started on 9.3.1985 when he passed out first in his batch from the Officers Training Academy at Chennai. Throughout his career of almost 20 years till the time of this impugned ACR, his record of service in terms of ACRs as well as grading in courses of instruction have ...

Cce, Indore Vs. M/S Spentex Industries Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per Shri Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar: Since common questions of law and facts arise in all these matters, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) directing the refund of the amount sanctioned as rebate ignoring the department’s claim confirmed by the order passed by the adjudicating authority, the Revenue is in appeal in all these proceedings. On the other hand, the impugned order is sought to be justified by referring to the order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court staying the effect of the order passed by the Central Government in revisional authority whereby order relating to the rebate claim of the respondents was sought to be rejected. 3. Learned DR while challenging the impugned order submitted that the order in relation to the appropriation of the amount due to the Department against the rebate sanctioned in favour of the assessee was done prior to the disposal of the appea...

Stichting Doen-postcode Loterij Vs. VIn Poly Recyclers Pvt. Ltd. and o ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2010]154CompCas155(Delhi)

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff in the suit before the learned Single Judge, against the order dated 12th December, 2008 staying further proceedings in the suit under Section 22 of The Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA). The suit was instituted under Order 37 of the CPC for recovery of money. The respondent/ defendant applied for leave to defend. Arguments on the application for leave to defend were addressed by the counsel for the parties and order thereon reserved. It was at this stage, that the respondent/defendant made a reference to the BIFR and the reference of the respondent/defendant was registered and the bar of Section 22 of the SICA invoked. The only contention of the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff before the learned Single Judge and before us is that since nothing remained to be 'proceeded with' in the suit, Section 22 did not apply and the learned Single Judge ought to have pronounced the orders / j...