Delhi Court March 2010 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Lucknow Vs. M/S. Indian Oil Corpn.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

In view of the order passed today, in Misc. Application No. 944/09, the appeal stands withdrawn and disposed of accordingly....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow Vs. M/S. Indian Oil Corpn.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

In view of the order passed today in Misc. Application No. 974/09, the appeal stands withdrawn and disposed of accordingly....

M/S. Slotco Steel Products Pvt. Limited and Another Vs. Cce, Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per Justic R.M.S. Khandeparkar: Heard. We have also perused the written submissions filed by both the parties. 2. These appeals involve common questions of law and facts and, therefore, were heard together, along with stay applications therein in terms of order passed by the Tribunal on 4.9.2009, and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The appeals arise from order dated 30.1.2009 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi-I confirming the demand of Rs. 1,48,60,803/- along with interest thereon and penalty of equal amount besides penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs against the Director, while appropriating sum of Rs. 28 lakhs voluntarily deposited vide TR-6 challan in the course of investigation. The appellants are engaged in manufacture and trading of excisable goods i.e. Slotted Angles, Shelves, Cable Trays and other Sheet Fabricated goods classifiable under Chapter heading 7216, 7308 and 9403 respectively of the first Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appella...

M/S. Sadashiv Casting Ltd., Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per RAKESH KUMAR: A show cause notice dated 23.8.2004 was issued to the appellants alleging that they had taken Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 6,59,925/- on the basis of fake/invalid invoices and that though the Cenvat credit has been reversed, they are liable for payment of interest on the wrongly taken Cenvat credit and also liable for imposition of penalty under Rule 13 of Cenvat Credit Rules. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Asst. Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 13.10.2004 by which interest demand of Rs. 1,09,562/- under Rule 12 of Cenvat Credit Rules read with Section 11AB of the Act was confirmed. Besides this, penalty of equal amount of Rs. 6,59,925/- was imposed on the appellants under Rule 13 of Cenvat Credit Rules read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The Asst. Commissioner also ordered for adjustment of Rs. 1,35,000/- which had already been deposited towards penalty and, extended the benefit of reduced penalty under the first proviso of Sect...

Cce, Jallandhar Vs. M/S. Pioneer Agro Industries Ltd.,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per RAKESH KUMAR: Facts giving rise to this appeal by the Revenue are, in brief, as under:- 1.1 One of the products being manufactured by the Respondents is Liquid Glucose which is manufactured from wheat and rice and common input used are Hydro Choloric Acid, Enzyme and Activated carbon in respect of which input duty credit has been taken. In the course of manufacture of Liquid Glucose, Gluten, and Spent Carbon emerge as unavoidable by-products both of which are fully exempted from duty. The point of dispute is as to whether in respect of clearances of Gluten and Spent Carbon an amount equal to their sale value was payable by the Respondents in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, as the Respondent have not maintained separate account and separate inventory of the inputs meant for use in the manufacture of dutiable finished products and the inputs meant for use in manufacture of exempted finished products. It is on this basis that a show cause notice dated 4.8.2005 ...

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

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per RAKESH KUMAR: The appellants are SSI unit availing SSI exemption. During the period of dispute while they paid the duty at concessional rate, they recovered full duty from their customers. On that basis, a demand under Section 11-D of Central Excise Act, 19454 for an amount of Rs. 4,16,133/- was confirmed against them and the same was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). 1.1 The appellants instead of paying the entire amount in cash, paid an amount of Rs. 3,51,378/- through Cenvat credit. This was not accepted by the Central Excise authorities and show cause notice dated 22.12.2006 was issued for (a) recovery of wrongly utilized Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 3,51,378/-; (b) imposition of penalty on them under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for wrong utilization of Cenvat credit; and (c) recovery of interest at applicable rate for wrongly utilization of Cenvat credit. 1.2 The demand was confirmed by the Asst. Commissioner and the order of the Asst. Collector was upheld by t...

Cce, Jaipur-i Vs. M/S. Iceberg Foods Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per RAKESH KUMAR: The Respondents are manufacturer of Packaged Drinking Water and Soda Water chargeable to Central Excise duty under Chapter Sub-heading 20011010 and 2201020 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were also availing Cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs as per the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules. During the period 2004-05 and 2005-06, they brought a stock of finished goods i.e. packaged drinking water and soda water manufactured in their other unit on stock transfer basis to their unit at Jaipur, as there was huge demand for these products and the production of Jaipur unit was not sufficient. However, while bringing the finished goods to their factory for sale, they also took Cenvat credit of duty paid on these goods. There is no dispute that these goods have been brought for sale, not for processing or reprocessing. The Department was, therefore, of the view that the Respondent are not eligible for Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 2,17,456/- of dut...

In the Matter Of: Ex Rect Rameshwar Dayal Versus the Union of India an ...

Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi

1. The applicant had submitted a writ petition (civil) No. 3934 of 1997 in the Honble Delhi High Court challenging the impugned order dated 1.7.1997 passed by the Director, Defence Service Corps (in short DSC) rejecting his claim for re-enrolment. The same was transferred to this Tribunal on 8.9.2009 under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act of 2007. 2. The applicant, born on 1.6.1963, was enrolled in the Corps of Signals on 6.7.1984 and was undergoing training at Signals Centre, Jabalpur where he completed his initial basic military training. He, however, could not pass the Signals electronic subject and hence he was discharged on 6.12.1986, after rendering two years and five months service. The applicant tried between 1987 to 1994 to get the documents, without success. The counsel for the applicant served a legal notice to the respondents on 31.1.1995 (Annexure A-5) and on 16.8.1995 (Annexure A-4) applied for issue of his discharge book. The same was provided vide Signals Records letter da...

Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Mithila Malleables(P) Ltd. and Another

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per Rakesh Kumar: The facts giving rise to these two appeals filed by the Revenue against order-in-appeal No.612 and 728/CE/APPL/CHD/06 dt.25.8.06 are in brief as under: 1.1 M/s. Thour Steels Indus. and M/s. Ashoka Steel Corpn. are two registered dealers at Mandi Gobindgarh. M/s. Thour Steels Inds.Ltd. is a proprietor concern owned by Sh. Krishan Kumar and M/s. Ashoka Steel Corpn. is a partnership firm with M/s. Kewal Krishan, brother of Krishan Kumar and Mrs. Sheel Devi wife of Sh. Krishan Kumar is as partner. Sh. Ravi Kant son of Sh. Krishan Kumar was also working with both the firms and was maintaining the account. Both the firms were purchasing ship breaking scrap from Bhavnagar and were selling the same to various parties. Sometimes around in June/July,2000, the business as well as residential premises of both the registered dealers was raided by officers of the Sales Tax Department and a number of documents including their ledger, cash book and other private documents regarding p...

M.M.T.C. Limited Vs. Mukta Sons

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2010(174)LC204(Delhi)

Indermeet Kaur, J.1. Plaintiff M.M.T.C. Ltd. was nominated as an agent by the Ministry of Commerce, Central Government for import of gold of 0.995 fineness as per the Export Import Policy 1992-97 (hereinafter referred to as the EXIM Policy). Under the notifications dated 16.9.1992 No. 273/92-Cus dated 28.6.1993 No. l43/93-Cus there was no customs duty if gold jewellery is exported within 120 day from the date of the drawl of the gold. Further, the export oriented jewellery manufacturers who draw gold from the nominated agency were required to export the manufactured jewellery articles within 120 day from the date of the said drawl of the gold.2. Plaintiff delivered 3 kgs. of gold to the defendant on 3.6.1994 under contract No. L-963. This gold was duty free. Defendant was required to export the gold jewellery within 120 days i.e. by 27.10.1994. He failed to do so. He thus became liable to pay customs duty and penalty.3. Vide notice dated 29.12.1994 the office of the Collector of Custom...