Delhi Court March 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 18 of about 197 results (0.019 seconds)Preeti Daga and Others Vs. Cc, New Delhi
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
PER: D.N. PANDA 1. Two batches of appeals were made against two adjudications done in respect of different imports of ball bearings involving following appellants who came before Tribunal facing consequences of adjudication as depicted in the table below. Both sets of appeals are dealt by this common order in view of similar cause of action and common investigation resulting in similar consequences. Both sides could not inform whether other persons/concerns against whom adjudication was also done by the following order were whether in appeal accordingly this order is confined to the appellants as appearing in the table below: Consequence arose under O-I-O No. 105/2005 dated: 30.11.2005 against allegations in SCN No. 338/XIV/96/2003 Dt. 30.04.2004 Consequence arose under O-I-O No. 100/2005 dated: 28.11.2005 against allegations in SCN No. 338/XIV/96/2003 Dt. 22.11.2004 Sl.No Appellants Batch of Customs Appeal No. Consequence of Adjudication Batch of Customs Appeal No. Consequence o...
Tag this Judgment!In the Matter Of: Sub Maj (Clk) Kiran Pal Singh Versus the Union of In ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The applicant had filed a writ petition (civil) No. 27 of 2009 in the Honble High Court of Delhi. The same was transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal on 10 September 2009. 2. The applicant has stated that he was enrolled as a sepoy in the Army on 6.12.1975. It was submitted that after his superannuation his service was extended for two years from 15.1.2005 to 14.1.2007 (up to 31.1.2007) in terms of letter dated 21.9.1998 issued by Army Headquarters, New Delhi. During his period of extension his medical category was downgraded to P2 (Permanent) with effect from 14.5.2006 due to primary hypertension. He was served a show cause notice on 16.10.2006 for discharge under Army Rule 13(3)(1)(i)(a) before his extended tenure expired. The applicant was discharged on 1.11.2006. It is stated by the applicant that he was discharged without holding an invaliding Medical Board. The applicant also challenged the Army Headquarter policy for extension dated 21.9.1998 on the grounds that it is unjus...
Tag this Judgment!Lt Col P.Ahluwalia Versus Union of India Through Secretary to the Gove ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. This petition has been received from Delhi High Court on transfer and has been treated as an Appeal under Section 15 of Armed Forces Tribunal Act. The prayer in this appeal is confined for quashing the GCM proceedings and also the findings of the guilt including that of sentence awarded to the appellant. Simultaneously, the orders passed by the GOC-in-C, Headquarters Western Command, Chandimandir whereby confirming the sentence so awarded to the appellant has also been challenged. It is also prayed by the appellant that the respondents be directed to place him in the original seniority with all consequential benefits of promotion, pension etc. It is contended by the appellant that he has falsely been framed in this case when he was used as decoy for arranging the trap against Naik Balwinder Singh. On his own initiative as a complaint of the demand of bribe was made but the GCM resorted to surmises and conjectures apart from the fact that the entire proceedings vitiated against the a...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E., Chandigarh Vs. M/S. H.S.Steels (P) Ltd. and Others
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: These three appeals are by the Department arising out of common order-in-appeal No. 140-144/CE/CHD/ 2008 dated 15.2.2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). There are other parties aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and their appeals are not being dealt with in this order. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts in Appeal No.1017/08 with Shri H.S. Steel (P) Ltd. as respondent is that the officers visited the factory premises on 23.9.03 and found shortage of MS ingots weighing 18.540MT and the Cenvat credit involved amounting to Rs.41,313/- was debited on the same date. Shri Raj Kumar, authorised signatory attributed shortage as burning loss. The original authority while confirming the demand of duty imposed penalty of Rs.41,313/- under Rule 13 of Cenvat Credit Rules on the respondents which was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. In Appeal No. E/1019/08 with M/s. Mahadev Steel Industries and E/1020/08 with Shri Naresh Joshi partner of M...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Auro Weaving Mills Vs. C.C.E., Chandigarh
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) No. 112/CE/Chd/08 dated 5.2.2008. 2. Heard both sides. 3.1 The relevant facts, in brief, are that the appellant procured inputs from M/s V.S.G.M., a 100% EOU. The dispute relates to the extent of credit available to the appellant in respect of the inputs received from 100% EOU. 3.2 As a 100% EOU , the supplying unit was liable to pay duty in terms of the proviso to Section 3 of the Central Excise Act being an a amount equal to the aggregate duties of customs which would be leviable under the Customs Act, 1962 or any other law for the time being in force, on like goods produced or manufactured outside India if imported into India” The supplying unit paid concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No.2/95 which exempted from so much of duty of excise as is in excess of the amount calculated at the rate of 50% of each of the duties of Customs which would be leviable under Section 12 of the Custo...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Jai Maa Appliances Pvt. Ltd. (Rep by Sh. V.D. Batra, Rep.) Vs. (Re ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
At the request of the learned representative for the appellants, the matter is adjourned to 28.04.2010 high on Board....
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Meerut-i Vs. M/S. Prem Steels (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal by the Department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) by which order of the Original Authority was set aside. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the officers visited the factory premises of the respondent on 24.1.2006 and found stock of 145.150 MTs of steel ingots as per records. However, they found 729 number of ingots totally weighting 83.907 MTs thus a shortage of 61.242 MTs of the finished goods. The shortage was arrived at by weighing 10 samples of ingots in the weighing bridge. The weight of 10 ingots was found to be 1151.10 Kgs. and accordingly, the weight of one ingot was arrived at as 115.10 Kgs and accordingly, the weight of available stock and shortages were ascertained by the officers. 4. The Authorised Signatory has given a statement on the same day agreeing with the stock taking and the shortage and submitted that he was not in a position to explain the reasons for said shortage. They also prompt...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E., Delhi Ii Vs. M/S. Karshini Impex Pvt. Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: These two appeals are by the department against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 244-245/CE/DLH/ 2009 dated 20.11.09 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the order of the original authority and directed for denovo consideration of the appeal on the ground that the defence reply dated 25.05.2007 was not considered by the original authority. 2. Heard the learned DR. 3. The stay applications, in the facts and circumstances of the case are infructuous and they are disposed of and appeals themselves are taken up for final disposal as short point is involved. 4. The Commissioner (Appeals) has ordered for fresh consideration of the issue by the original authority with the following findings and observations:- “4. The first contention of the appellant and appellant No.2 is that their defence reply dated 29.05.2007 has not been taken into consideration while passing the adjudication order. I have gone through the Adjudication Order, the defence ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Ishwar Steels and Others Vs. Cce, Noida
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
PER JUSTICE R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR : Heard. Since common question of law and facts arises in all these appeals, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The appellants challenge the order dated 28.01.2009 passed by the Commissioner, Noida. By the impugned order the learned Commissioner has confirmed the demand of Cenvat Credit of Rs. 1,00,03,601/- against the appellants, M/s D.R. Auto Industries, in terms of the provisions of Rule 12 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with proviso to Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 having wrongly availed the same on the strength of invoices issued by M/s Ishwar Steels, Ghaziabad, and has confirmed demand of interest on the said amount. The impugned order further confirms the demand of excise duty to the tune of Rs. 1,45,931/- from the appellants, M/s D.R. Auto, in relation to the goods found short in the factory and has imposed penalty of Rs. 1,01,49,532/- against ...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E., Chandigarh. Vs. M/S. Samtel Electron Devices
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal by the Department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 63/CE/CHD/2008 dated 21.1.08. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the respondent received capital goods in their factory at Parwanoo, Dist. Solan unit during the period February,1996 to July, 1996 and December, 1996 and took modvat credit under Rules 57Q. The respondent could not install the same and hence the same were removed from the factory in February, 1999. The respondent also had a unit at Ghaziabad. The respondents informed the jurisdictional Central Excise authority and removed the capital goods to the unit in Ghaziabad and while clearing the goods, they paid duty amounting to credit actually taken by them at the time of receipt of the goods. It is also claimed that after receiving the goods in Ghaziabad unit, they have taken the credit of duty, paid by the Parwanoo factory. Show cause notice was issued alleging that under Rule 57S(1)(ii) the re...
Tag this Judgment!