Delhi Court March 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 19 of about 197 results (0.019 seconds)C.C.E., Chandigarh. Vs. M/S. Nachiketa Strips and Tubes 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) No. 91/CE/CHD/ 2007 dated 12.4.2007 by which the order of the original authority which was in favour of the assessee was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. None appears for the respondents. Heard the learned SDR for the department. 3. The respondent received hot rerolled products of non-alloy steel from M/s. Pepsu Steel Rolling Mills and M/s. Pritam Singh Hunjan and Bros. who were working under compounded levy scheme and took deemed credit in terms of notification No. 58/97-CE dated 30.8.97. The amount involved is Rs. 3,95,167.68 relating to the months of October to December, 1999. Show cause notice was issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise Incharge of the respondents inter-alia alleging that the invoices from the supplier either did not contain the declaration that duty liability has been discharged under Rule 96ZP as required under Notification No. 56/97 or that the d...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Ludhiana Vs. M/S. Nahar Spg. Mills Ltd.,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per S.K. GAULE: The Revenue’s appeal is directed against order No. 26/CE/LDH/08 dated 17.1.2008 whereby the Commissioner (Appeals), while relying upon the Tribunal’s decision in the case of CCE, Chandigarh vs. Nahar Industrial Enterprises, reported in 2007 (7) STR 26 (Tri.-Del.), has upheld the payment of service tax in respect of output service of GTA by the respondent from their Cenvat account. 2. None appeared for the respondents despite notice. Therefore, appeal is taken up for decision in the absence of the respondents. Shri S.K. Bhaskar, learned D.R. appeared on behalf of the Revenue. 3. The contention of the appellant is that the respondents did not pay service tax on output service of GTA through cash/PLA/TR-6 challan, instead they paid the service tax through accumulated Cenvat credit meant for payment of central excise duty and service tax in respect of output service, etc. The Contention is that the department appealed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court against...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Northern India Steel Rolling Mills Vs. C.C.E., Chandigarh
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: 1.1 Appeal No.E/1301/07 of M/s A.R. Alloys, Mandi, Gobindgarh and Appeal No.E/1194/07 of M/s Northern India Steel Rolling Mills are against demand of duty and imposition of penalty on the finding that they have availed Cenvat credit on the basis of invoices without receiving the materials. 1.2 Appeal No.E/2279/07 of M/s Dhiman Steel and Agro Industries, Khanna and Appeal No.E/2304/07 of M/s Surya Ispat Udyog, Khanna are against the penalties sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals). These two are re-rolling mills situated in Khanna city and according to the Department, they have connived with M/s J.K. Jindal and Sons in passing on credit irregularly to M/s A.R. Alloys and M/s Northern India Steel Rolling Mills. 1.3 Other appeals [Appeals No.E/758/07, E/759/07, E/760/07, E/761/07, E/762/07, E/763/07 and E/764/07] are by the Department. In Appeal No.E/758/07 and E/761/07, the Department is aggrieved against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in setting aside the pen...
Tag this Judgment!In the Matter Of: Havildar Ram Bahadur Versus the Union of India and O ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The applicant Havildar Ram Bahadur had filed a writ petition (civil) number 9912 of 2009 before the Honble Delhi High Court, challenging the correctness and legality of the impugned order dated 4.2.2009 by which his statutory complaint with regard to promotion to Havildar Ram Bahadur TA 170 of 09 the rank of Naib Subedar was rejected. The case was transferred to this Tribunal on 24.9.2009 under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. 2. The applicants date of birth is 1.1.1964 and he was enrolled in the Army on 25.1.1984. He was promoted to the rank of Havildar in 1999 with seniority of 1998 and he successfully completed the Cadre Course for promotion to Naib Subedar between 30.10.2006 to 17.2.2007 but due to non availability of vacancy till 31.12.2007 he could not be promoted. Thereafter, he was denied promotion as he had crossed the requisite limit of age for promotion on 31.12.2007 vide order dated 5.1.2008 (Annexure P-1). It was submitted by the applicant that it was not the case ...
Tag this Judgment!Balbir Singh Versus the Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. Balbir Singh, the appellant herein, challenges the Court Martial proceedings dated 2.2.1991, whereby he was found guilty under Section 52(a) of the Army Act for having committed theft of a .38 Revolver (Reg. No.V-303675) belonging to the Government, and the order of the Chief of Army Staff dated 17.3.1997, whereby the statutory appeal filed by the appellant was rejected. He has also sought to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. 2. It is contended by counsel for the appellant that the appellant was not afforded the opportunity of being heard at the time of framing of charge under Army Rule 22, violating the provisions of Army Rules 180 and 185. The appellant never pleaded guilty. His signature was not obtained on the so-called plea of guilt which created doubt about the authenticity of the plea of guilt. Moreover, the appellant was not apprised of the consequences of pleading guilty as is warranted under Army Rule 115(2). The certificate annexed to the proceedin...
Tag this Judgment!Jc-642498 K Sub. Ved Prakash Versus Union of India Through the Secreta ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. This petition has been initiated by the petitioner for setting aside the Court of Inquiry on the basis of which he has been attached for disciplinary proceedings. This Court of Inquiry has supposedly not applied the mandatory provision of Army Rule 180 while carrying out such investigation and, therefore, he has been denied his statutory right to natural justice. 2. The short and moot issue is the non-application of Army Rule 180 while conducting a Court of Inquiry in which the military reputation and character of an individual is affected. The backdrop of the entire case is that the petitioner wrote a letter to the Chief of Army Staff on 31.5.08 listing out some allegations of misappropriation against his Commanding Officer IC 46823Y Lt. Col. D.D Manik, OC 382 Company ASC (Supply) Type A. The authorities convened a Court of Inquiry on 8.7.08 to investigate into the various allegations made by the petitioner. However, this Court of Inquiry was more of a white-wash to exonerate Lt. C...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. S.R.F. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Gwalior
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 239/2004 dated 24.11.2004. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The appellants are receiving furnace oil in sealed tankers from Indian Oil Corporation. The invoices issued by Indian Oil Corpn. is on the basis of kiloliters. The appellants at the time of receiving weighs the tanker with the furnace oil before unloading and also the tanker after unloading the oil to arrive at the weight of the consignment. It also appears that dip reading was undertaken at the appellant’s premises and the quantity in terms of volume arrived on the basis of dip reading method was found to be lower than the quantity mentioned in the invoice. The appellants have taken credit of duty paid for the entire quantity as mentioned in the invoice. The original authority held that Cenvat credit amounting to Rs.7,75,377/- is not available to them on the ground that there was shortage in goods received during the period October, 2002 to ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S A.K. Multimetals Pvt. Limited Vs. Cce, Chandigarh
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per: Shri Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar: Since the matter involves limited issue regarding disposal of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) solely on the ground of failure on the part of the appellants to deposit the amount which was required to be deposited in compliance of order under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, we find it appropriate to dispose of the appeal itself at this stage in view of the willingness expressed by the appellants through their Advocate to deposit a sum of Rs. 75,000/-. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the appeal itself while allowing the stay application. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal on account of failure on the part of the appellants to deposit 50% of the duty amount and 50% of the penalty amount which was confirmed by the adjudicating authority. The impugned order is dated 25.05.2009. 3. Considering the fact that the appellants had produced certain additional evidence at the time of filing the appeal itself, it was nece...
Tag this Judgment!14552580n Ex Naik/Tcm (Line) Prabhu Dayal Sharma Versus Union of India ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. Ex. Nk. Prabhu Dayal Sharma, the applicant herein, seeks to quash the order dated 3.2.1997, whereby he was found guilty for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (the Code, in short) by Summary Court Martial held at Siliguri, and also the subsequent order dated 19.12.1997 passed by the Chief of Army Staff, rejecting his representation under Section 164(2) of the Army Act (the Act, for brevity). 2. At the outset, with regard to the delay of about 13 years in filing the application, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the applicant was not communicated about the rejection of his representation under Section 164(2) of the Act. Further, the applicant was not informed about the rejection of that representation even by his lawyer who had sent the representation to the Chief of Army Staff under Army Act Section 164(2) while the applicant was in jail. Therefore, he continued to send reminders for the disposal of the representation and he had even approached the Allah...
Tag this Judgment!In the Matter Of: Rect Komal Singh Versus the Union of India and Other ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The applicant Rect Komal Singh had submitted a writ petition (civil) 5369 of 2003 before the Honble Delhi High Court. The same was transferred on creation of this Tribunal under Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007. 2. The applicant has stated that he was enrolled on 28.11.2002 and reported for training to the Artillery Centre Hyderabad on 1.12.2002. Here his trade was changed from Gunner to Driver MT without assigning any reasons. It is stated that training only commenced on 1.1.2003 and the period before that was utilised for sundry duties. All recruits were sent on 28 days leave due to acute scarcity of water. He rejoined duty on 5.5.2003 and on 6.5.2003 he was beaten by Sub Maggar Singh and being under threat he left the Centre and proceeded to his home. The applicant reached home on 8.5.2003. He returned with his father and cousin to the Centre on 10.5.2003. There they met a few officials but the applicant was not taken back for training and had to return home on the same day 10.5.2...
Tag this Judgment!