Delhi Court April 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 21 of about 223 results (0.038 seconds)Nk Satendra Singh Versus Union of India, Through the Secretary Govt. o ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. Writ of Certiorari was brought before Delhi High Court for setting aside the orders dated 03.01.2006 passed by Summary Court Martial (SCM), dated 08.06.2007 passed by the Chief of Army Staff, Show Cause Notice dated 15.07.2007 and also the order dated 01.08.2007. This petition has been received from Delhi High Court by way of transfer because of the enforcement of Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. The basic contentions from the side of the petitioner are that he was enrolled in the Army as a Soldier (General Duty) on 24.10.1995 and after successfully completing his basic military training he was posted to 4 JAT Regiment. The petitioner discharged his duties efficiently to the satisfaction of the superior authorities. He was also a good sportsman and was appointed as a Lance Naik on 08.05.2003. The petitioner was subsequently promoted to the rank of Substantive Naik on 18.01.2005. While he was serving in Assam on 20.09.2005 he was detailed to take part in an operation launched by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Brig. Rakesh Sharma Versus Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The applicant vide this original application has prayed for quashing of the letters dated 11.04.2007 and 08.12.2009 in which the applicants claim to the rank of Major General was rejected. It is also prayed that respondents may be directed to expunge the impugned Annual Confidential Report (ACR) covering the period September, 1999 to June, 2009 and grade 7 in the impugned ACR, reconsider the applicant for promotion to the rank of Major General from December, 2006, annul the policy letter of 07.03.2000 and Promotion Board proceedings of December, 2006. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows. The applicant was commissioned in the Army on 16.06.1974. He served with the dedication and also qualified in various professional courses. During his service he tenanted several important command and staff appointments. He was selected for foreign assignment also. 3. The applicant was considered for promotion to Major General in December, 2006 along with the 1974 batch and was not approved....
Tag this Judgment!M/S Vision Metal Aids Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Meerut I
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: Heard both sides. 2.1 There was a fire accident in the premises of the appellant on 27.2.2005 and the appellant claimed remission of duty amounting to Rs.67,634/- on the finished goods destroyed in the fire accident in terms of Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The remission sought for was denied by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 28.10.2005. 2.2 Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner has chosen to issue show cause notice dated 4.1.2006 proposing demand of Rs.67,634/- which was confirmed by the original authority and the said order has been upheld by the Commissioner. 3. Meanwhile, the appellant filed appeal against the order of the Commissioner rejecting the remission application and the Tribunal vide Final Order No.391/08-SM(BR) dated 16.1.2008 in Excise Appeal No.2263/2006-SM allowed the appeal of the party and thus allowed the remission. 4. In view of the above, the basis for issue of show cause notice and confirmation of demand does not sur...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E., Kanpur Vs. M/S. Juhi Alloys 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. 173/CE/APPL/KNP/2008 dated 24.4.2008. 2. None appears for the respondent inspite of notice. Heard the learned DR for the Department. 3. When the officers visited the factory premises on 22.12.05 and conducted stock verification, they found a shortage of 53.058 MT of steel bars against the recorded stock valued Rs.7,79,953/- involving duty amount of Rs.1,27,288/-. The party paid the duty involved on 4.1.06. The reason given for the shortage was that they entered the quantity of finished goods on the basis of consumption of raw material in the manufacturing process whereas the finished goods were cleared from the factory on actual weight basis. The original authority apart from confirming the demand of duty imposed equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty so imposed. Hence, the Depart...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Deepak Transformers and Another Vs. Commissioner of Central Excis ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: Both these appeals involve identical issues and, therefore, the same are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The appellants supplied excisable goods to customers like State Electricity Board as per contract containing price escalation clause. Subsequently, due to revision in prices, they paid the differential duty on the additional amounts collected. There was no dispute on liability to payment of differential duty. The original authority confirmed recovery of interest with reference to date of clearance of the consignment and due date on which duty ought to have been paid. Original authority also imposed penalty on both the appellants. Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the order of the original authority in so far as the same relates to recovery of interest. However, he set aside the penalties on the appellants. 4. Both sides agree that the issue regarding interest liability on price increase effected by issue of supplementary invoices i...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Polytron and Fragrances Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Noida
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per D.N. Panda: The short dispute in this case is whether cost of printing of the cylinder shall form part of assessable value along with cost of cylinder. The assessee did not include the cost of cylinders with the printing cost of lamination done. Therefore, Revenue raised duty demand of Rs.3,11,247/- followed by interest and penalty. 2. Ld. Consultant Shri Gaur appearing on behalf of Appellant submits that when there was Board circular No. 170/4/96-Cx. dated 23.1.96 to amortise the cost of cylinder, there is no necessity to add cylinder cost to the cost of printing laminates for determining the assessable value. 3. On the other hand, the contention of Revenue is that Apex Court having decided in the case of Paper Products Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in 2007 (214) ELT 161 (SC) holding that value of all the goods shall be what that contributes to make the same capable of being marketable, cost of cylinder should be added to cost of lamination to determine assessable value of goods cleared...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Panchkula Vs. M/S. Yamuna Gases and Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per S.K. GAULE: Heard both sides. 2. Revenue is in appeal in the case against Order-in-Appeal No. 405/GRM/RTK/2005 and 406/GRM/RTK/2005 both dated 21.11.2005. Since the issue involved in these appeals is common, they are taken up for disposal together. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the Respondents were engaged in making of the Cable Jointing Kits (hereinafter referred to as CJK). The Respondents paid duty on CJK despite the fact that CEGAT in their own case vide Final Order No. 408/2000-B dated 15.3.2000 held CJK as non-excisable commodity. But they have not paid the duty on intermediate products. Proceedings were initiated against them and duty of Rs. 47 lakhs was demanded along with interest and penalty was proposed under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for contravention of various rules (ibid). The proceedings were also initiated for recovery of Cenvat credit taken on bought out items which were used in CJK. The lower authorities confirmed the demand of duty along ...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E., Kanpur Vs. M/S. Hans Metals (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. 113/CE/Appl./KNP/2008 dated 24.3.2008. 2. None appears for the respondent inspite of notice. Heard the learned SDR. 3. When the officers visited the factory on 10.8.05 and verified the stock of finished goods, they found shortage of finished goods namely, MS structurals weighing 35.03 MT valued at Rs. 6,83,085/- involving the duty amount of Rs. 1,11,480/-. Shri Sunil Dhiman, authorised signatory admitted the shortage and attributed the shortage as due to reporting of wrong production on the basis of estimation by the Production Supervisor. On 5.9.05, the respondent paid the duty involved amounting to Rs.1,11,480/-. The original authority confirmed the demand and imposed equal amount as penalty section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Commissioner (Appeals), on appeal by the party, set aside the penalty imposed on the par...
Tag this Judgment!Sandeep Sehgal Vs. C.C., New Delhi
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. CC(A)/Cus/Prev./D-II/85-86/08 dated 20.2.2008 by which the penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- imposed on the appellant by the original authority has been upheld. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The officers of DRI seized computer parts of foreign origin on 18.2.2003 from a go-down under the control of Shri Sandeep Sehgal, the present appellant. He, during investigation, submitted that earlier he was getting consignments through speed post and subsequent to seizure of consignment by DRI, he has chosen to bring goods from Nepal through carriers arranged by one Shri Joginder Gulati. In reply to the show cause notice, however, he denied that the goods were brought from Nepal through carriers but submitted that the same were procured locally. It was also claimed that the goods were not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act and therefore, the burden of proving that the goods were of foreign origin was on the Depart...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Jal Board Vs. Jagdish Lal
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
M.L. Sahni, Member (Oral): 1. Undisputed facts of this case are that the respondent/complainant got installed a water connection bearing No. 846, at the first floor of House No. 2183, Shora Kothi, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi7. The appellant Delhi Jal Board transferred the said connection in the name of Smt. Chanchal Kumari in the year 2008. The complainant/respondent made representation to the appellant/OP against the illegal, unlawful transfer of the connection in the name of Smt. Chanchal Kumari and when the appellant/OP did not respond, the respondent/complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum praying for direction to the appellant/OP for the restoration of the water connection bearing No. 846 in his name. He also prayed for compensation and costs of litigation. 2. The complaint was allowed by the District Consumer Forum vide order dated 14.3.2008 and the appellant/OP preferred an appeal bearing No. FA 08/680 before this Commission requesting for setting aside the order dated ...
Tag this Judgment!