Delhi Court March 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 1 of about 197 results (0.021 seconds)Cce, Indore Vs. M/S Siddhartha Marketing Services Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per D.N. Panda: None present for the Respondent. 2. Ld. DR Shri Verma submits that for a different period for the same issue the decision of the Tribunal is in favour of Revenue. If such a decision is applied to this case there may not be case of the Respondent. 3. When the ld. DR mentioned the above fact, we consider it proper to grant an opportunity of hearing to the Respondent whose interest may be prejudiced if an ex.party decision is taken. Therefore there is decision in the case of Siddhartha Marketing Services Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in 2005 (179) ELT 61 calling for consideration. 4. The appellant is directed to appear before the Tribunal on 29.4.2010 and explain its case otherwise the matter shall be decided ex.party without issuance of further notice. Registry is directed to issue notice expeditiously....
Tag this Judgment!Cce Delhi Vs. M/S Elofic Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per D.N. Panda: Revenue came in appeal against the order passed by the ld. Commissioner on 8.4.2004 consequent upon review made by the board having the view that the Adjudicating Authority has committed an error holding that the assessee is required to reverse the Modvat credit involved on the inputs used in the manufacture of goods destroyed by fire. Such a review was communicated by an order dated 6.4.2005. After filing of the appeal by Revenue, the Larger Bench in the case of Grasim Industries Vs. CCE reported in 2007 (208) ELT 336 (Tri.-LB) on 7.8.06, was of the view that no reversal of the Cenvat credit account is desirable in respect of accident. Decision of the Larger Bench in the said judgment appearing at para-7 reads as under :- “We find that reading of Rule 49 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 which provides for remission of duty in respect of goods lost or destroyed by natural cause or by unavoidable accidents or in case goods bec...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Saf Yeast Company P. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Lucknow
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per D.N. Panda: Both sides are fully agreeable for retesting of the materials by ld. Adjudicating authority to do justice to both the sides. Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that when scope of show cause notice was widened by the corrigendum issued before passing of the adjudication order, ld. Appellate authority should have also taken into consideration the pleading that emerged against the allegation made in the corrigendum. Piecemeal consideration of evidence having been made by the first appellate authority, the appellant has been prejudiced. Therefore if the appellant gets proper opportunity of placing entire factual and legal pleadings before Adjudicating authority and that Authority considers all such materials, there may not be denial of justice. 2. To the aforesaid proposition of the appellant, Revenue does not disagree. 3. Having noticed that both the sides are cooperative, we consider it proper to send the matter back to the ld. Adjudicating authority to consi...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Panagarh Engg. Works (Patna) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Patna
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per D.N. Panda: The Appellant is absent. Ld. DR Shri Virendra Chaudhary submits that the jurisdiction of Calcutta Bench is exercisable over the matter since the authorities who dealt the matter are in Patna. Considering that the appropriate jurisdiction should be exercisable, we direct the Registry to send entire record of this Appeal to Calcutta Bench to grant fair opportunity to hear the Appellant and Respondent. It is preferable for the registry to send records before the end of this month so that the matter could be listed before the Calcutta Bench at the earliest....
Tag this Judgment!M/S Himalaya International Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chandigarh
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per D.N. Panda: Ld. Counsel Shri Narasimhan submits that these appellants are in second round of litigation before Tribunal for the reason that they have been aggrieved by the appellate order passed by ld. Commissioner on 10.2.05 ignoring the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made on 11th October 2004 in Civil Appeal 6768/04 (at page 151 of the paper book). His contention is that two fold test was required by the Apex Court to be conducted. One was to find out the rate applicable and the second one was whether the appellant is entitled to any exemption in respect of the goods manufactured out of the raw material produced in India. When there was specific direction, the material itself available on record could have been tested for resolving the issue. The materials were altogether ignored while those are existing on record. 2. To the above proposition of the Appellant ld. Jt. CDR Shri Singh submits that he has instructions from the concerned Supdt. that there were no materia...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Swastik Industries Vs. Cce, Meerut-i
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per RAKESH KUMAR: The only issue involved in this case is, as to whether the appellants are eligible for Cenvat credit of service tax paid on GTA service availed for outward transportation of finished goods from the factory to the customer’s premises. According to the appellants their sales were on F.O.R. basis. However, the Asst. Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 22.1.2007 did not accept this plea of the appellants and disallowed the Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 10,376/- confirmed the demand along with interest. On appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 24.1.2008 upheld the order of the Asst. Commissioner. It is against this order that the appellants have filed present appeal. 2. None appeared for the appellants. However, as the appellants have sent a letter dated 4.2.2010 requesting for decision of this matter on merit keeping in view the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case o...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Allahabad Vs. M/S Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per D.N. Panda: Revenue has come in appeal to reverse the Appellate order passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the imposition of penalty of Rs.10,000/- levied by the ld. Adjudicating Authority. Shri Baig, ld. DR submits that the penalty upheld by ld. Appellate Authority should have been enhanced for very reason of the Cenvat Credit. 2. The Respondent is absent today but Shri Bipin Garg ld. Counsel suggests that Shri Pradeep Mittal shall appear in this case if the matter is adjourned. 3. Heard both. 4. Finding that the order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) appears to be reasoned, there is no scope to interfere to his order upholding penalty of Rs.10,000/- levied by Adjudication order. Consequently, department’s Appeal is rejected. Cross-objection is accordingly disposed of....
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Allahabad Vs. M/S Amrit Bottlers Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per D.N. Panda: Ld. DR appearing for Revenue submits that earlier, direction was given by the Tribunal as under: Heard the submissions of both sides. We note that there is a verification report by the Inspector of Range countersigned by the Superintendent in respect of new empty bottles as per form IV register. We also note that the appellants produced various documents before the Appellate Authority which are not at all discussed by the Appellate Collector. We find that the Asstt. Collector acting as an Adjudicating Authority only relied upon the investigation conducted at the back of the appellant and without supplying them a copy of the investigation report. This investigation report assumes importance in as much as it was relied upon for coming to the conclusion in the case. In this view of the matter we hold that it was a fit case for remand. Accordingly we remand the case to the Asstt. Collector with the direction that he will examine the documents showing receipt of the new Glas...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Kanpur Vs. M/S Keymen Laminators (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per D.N. Panda: None present for the Respondent. 2. Ld. DR Shri Baig assists for disposal of the matter. Appeal was filed in this case on 17.4.2008. That is nearly two years old. Keeping the matter pending is not considered proper in view of no dispute to the duty liability in absence of any appeal by the Respondent. Therefore the matter has been taken up for hearing today to dispose the same to serve the interest of justice. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has found that there was detection of shortage of the goods on the date of investigation. Also he has recorded that the Respondent has not challenged duty element but only pleaded waiver of penalty before him. He noticed that in absence of any corroborative evidence for the shortage of the stock penalty cannot be imposed. 3. Shri Baig, Ld. DR submits that once the duty element is not disputed by the Respondent, there is no question of any immunity to be granted in respect of penalty. The element of proviso to Section 11A(1) of Central E...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Shreyans Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jalandhar
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per D.N. Panda: The dispute in this case has given rise to demand of Rs. 13,668/- towards education cess and penalty of Rs.10,000/-. Finding the amount to be very low, the appeal is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!