Delhi Court April 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 20 of about 223 results (0.019 seconds)C.C.E., Bhopal Vs. M/S. S.S. Crop Care Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: Appeals No. E/1230/08 and E/1231/08 are by the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 36-37/BPL/2008 dated 15.4.2008. The Cross objections No. 379/08 and 380/2008 by the assessee are connected to these appeals. These appeals and Cross Objections are disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The respondents have two units in close proximity to each other. The respondents have undertaken job work for M/s. Bayer Crop Science (India) Ltd. The Unit I of the respondents cleared part of the inputs on which credit has been taken to their other units and to other job workers as directed by M/s. Bayer Crop Science (India) Ltd. While transferring the material to other units, respondents has adopted the value of 110% of landed cost and paid the higher duty and the recipient units have taken the duty paid by the first unit as credit. The Department issued show cause notice alleging that the Unit I ought to have paid the duty only to the ex...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.and C.E., Kanpur Vs. M/S Kurele Packaging Pvt. 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. 34-CE/APPL/KNP/2008 dated 29.1.2008. 2. Heard both sides. 3. When the Central Excise officers visited the factory premises on 25.3.2006 and conducted verification of stock , they found 15.575 MT. of plastic granules valued at Rs.9,45,184/- as short compared to the stock recorded in the books. The credit taken on the short found plastic granules was found to be Rs.1,55,255/-. The authorised signatory vide his statement dated 25th March 2006 accepted the shortage and explained that the same was due to their staff removing the same without preparing invoice and without reversing the credit. The said statement was not retracted. The duty involved was subsequently deposited on 27.3.06. The original authority, in pursuance of the show cause notice dated 22.2.2007, confirmed the demand of duty and also imposed equal amount as penalty under Section 11AC read with Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit R...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Indag Rubber Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur I
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. 52(RKS)CE/JPR-I/2008 dated 10.3.2008. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant fact, in brief, are that the appellant procured a duty paid DG set in 1997 and took modvat credit of Rs.4,58,640/- and used the set for nearly eight years in their Bhiwadi unit. In November 2005, the appellant transferred the old and used DG set to their another plant situated at Nalagarh, District Solan (H.P.). The show cause notice was issued proposing demand of duty of Rs.4,58,640/- being an amount originally taken as credit along with interest and proposing penalties under Rule 15(1)9, 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for the alleged contravention of Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules. The original authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty of Rs.50,000/- under Rule 15(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, penalty of Rs.4,58,640/- under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit R...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E., Ludhiana Vs. M/S. Didar Steel Complex (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) No. 493/CE/APPL/LDH/2004 dated 30.7.04. 2. Heard the learned DR. None appears for the respondent inspite of notice. 3. The respondents engaged in the manufacture of non-alloy steel ingots was working under compounded levy scheme. The original authority, on a finding that the respondent instead of paying Rs. 31,07,527/- paid Rs.30,83,334/- for the period October, 2007 to March 1998 and the balance of Rs.24,193/- was paid late, ordered recovery of interest and imposed a penalty of Rs.24,193 in terms of Rule 96ZO (3). 4. On appeal by the party, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that there was no intention to delay the payment of duty, and therefore, he reduced the penalty from Rs.24,193/- to Rs.5,000/-. The department is in appeal for enhancement of penalty from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.24,193/-. 5. The appeal was earlier decided by the Tribunal vide Final Order No.1444/06-SM (BR) dated 22.09.06 ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Fairways Trading Co. Vs. Cc, Amritsar
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per D.N. Panda: The Appellant is absent today despite notice. Therefore we took assistance of Revenue to decide this Appeal. Ld. DR Shri S. Chand appearing on behalf of Revenue submits that when the Adjudication dropped demand, that was thoroughly examined by ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and there was reversal of Adjudication done. He supported the Appellate order stating that Bill of Entry and the invoices having been examined, the goods were proved to be different and that is also different from the goods notified for exemption under Notification No. 76/2003-Cus dated 13.5.03. Even certificate of origin was established against the appellant. Therefore there should be no interference to the Appellate order. 2. Heard Revenue. 3. We should have certainly come to rescue of Revenue to support the Appellate order passed. But we do not find any evidence to show how the first examination has failed to detect the goods to be of different nature from the nature as held by the ld. First Appellate...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Indore Vs. M/S Maikaal Fibres Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per D.N. Panda: Revenue has come in Appeal against the order passed by the ld. Commissioner on 11th July 2006 reversing the order of Adjudication dated 29.3.06. The Adjudication order resulted in Custom duty demand of Rs.11,11,22/- followed by penalty of Rs.2.00 lakhs and interest on the amount defaulted. The substance of the Adjudication was that the Respondent although imported certain furnace oil that did not reach to the factory of the Respondent. For the reasons discussed in para 20 and 21 of the order-in-original, Adjudicating Authority was of the view that the goods were diverted and benefit of Notification No. 53/97-Cus. dated 3.6.97 was abused. He had doubted the movement of the goods itself and discarded the plea of bartering of the furnace oil from M/s Solar Trade Links Pvt. Ltd. without finding basis of law to approve the same. When the matter came before the ld. Appellate Authority below, he agreed with the submission of the respondent and allow the appeal. Therefore, Reve...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Ntf (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. C.C.E., Delhi Iii and Anothe ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: Appeal No.E/3047/07 is by the party against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) No. 423/KKG/GGN/2007 dated 17.9.2007. Appeal No.E/3153/07 is by the Department against the same order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Cross-Objection No.E/194/08 is by the party connected to the appeal filed by the Department. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the assessee is a manufacturer of automobile parts for Maruti Udyog Ltd.; they have received certain moulds from Maruti Udyog Ltd. and taken cenvat credit of duty paid on the said moulds. They cleared the final products on payment of duty on various dates. Under the impression that the amortised cost of moulds were not included in the assessable value of product cleared by them to Maruti Udyog Ltd., they issued four supplementary invoices on 8th December 2001 in respect of invoices of the final products cleared by them during the earlier period and paid the duty of Rs.1,08,727/-. It is claimed that they we...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.and C.E., Kanpur Vs. M/S S.S.Polyfilms (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) in upholding the order of the original authority in not imposing the penalty under Section 11AC read with Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that on 18.5.2006 when the Central Excise officers visited the factory premises and conducted stock verification, they found shortage of 16,120 kgs. of raw materials namely, LLDPE on which the cenvat credit was availed by the respondent. Cenvat credit involved amounted to Rs.1,55,874/-. The authorised signatory of the respondent firm Shri Ramesh Chandra Pandey admitted in his statement dated 18.5.2006 given under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 that the short found inputs were cleared from the factory premises by the factory staff in his absence without cover of any invoice. The said statement has not been retracted. On the other hand, the same was acted upon and the entire du...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E., Kanpur Vs. M/S. Jagdish Rolling Works
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 No. 147/CE/APPL/KNP/2008 dated 31.3.2008 2. Heard both sides. 3. When the officers visited the factory premises on 4.8.06 and verified the stock, they found that there was only 86.985 MT of MS ingots as against the stock of 182.925MT as per records and thus shortage of 95.94 MT valued at Rs.14,39,100/- involving Cenvat credit of Rs. 2,34,861/-. Shri Brijendra Srivastava, authorised signatory of the firm admitted the shortage and submitted that the short found stock was cleared from the factory premises by the factory staff in his absence without cover of invoices. The statement was not retracted. On the other hand, the respondent paid the duty involved in two instalments on 31.8.06 and 16.11.06. The original authority, in pursuance of show cause notice issued, confirmed the demand of duty and also imposed penalty of Rs.2,34,861/- under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with section 11AC ...
Tag this Judgment!Maj Gurbachan Singh Kochar (Retd.) Versus Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The present petition has been transferred from Honble Delhi High Court to this Tribunal on its formation. 2. Petitioner by this petition has prayed that by a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, a direction may be issued to the respondents to pay the retirement pension to the petitioner, who retired on 30th December, 1984 as Company Commander (Major), Field Company. 3. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of present petition are that when petitioner was barely 11 years, he joined Rashtriya India Military College, Dehradun for compulsory military training and final induction into the Indian Armed Forces. He passed the Diploma examination from the said Institution in December, 1964. He passed the said Diploma examination at the age of 15 years. Thereafter, he was sent to National Defence Academy at Pune in 1965 for 3 years Military training which is compulsory for commissioned officers. After that he was sent to India Military Academy, Dehr...
Tag this Judgment!