Delhi Court April 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 22 of about 223 results (0.023 seconds)Ex Nk Sube Singh, S/O. Shri Roshan Lal Villalge Bas Duda District Rewa ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The challenge in this petition is directed against the order dated 25.11.1993, whereby the appellant was found guilty of the offence punishable under Army Act Section 46(a) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to be dismissed from service. However, while confirming the DCM proceedings, the Officiating Commandant remitted the rigorous imprisonment from one year to six months. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are: On 25.6.1992 at about 2330 hours, the appellant after consuming liquor entered into the bed of one K. Srinivasan Rao (No.13304699L Driver, Mechanical Transport) with an intention to perform homosexual act with him. Being annoyed, Srinivasa Rao managed to escape and reported the matter to Hav. R. Anabalagan. Next day, the appellant again after taking liquor entered into the bed of Srinivasa Rao with the same intention. He removed the shorts and underwear of Srinivasa Rao and started doing homosexual act on him. When Srinivasa Rao reported the ma...
Tag this Judgment!Maj. (Mrs.) Sreedevi G Versus the Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. Petitioner by this Writ Petition has prayed that the order of attachment and disciplinary proceedings may be quashed and the respondent may be granted TA/DA claim for Rs.72,032/-, which is hard earned money of the petitioner and further prayed that the statutory complaint dated 1st October, 2001 may be disposed of. She also prayed that impartial inquiry, for harassing, torturing, humiliating to petitioner, being a lady, may be ordered against those persons. 2. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the petition are that petitioner was granted permanent commission on 20th December, 1986 in the Military Nursing Service and was appointed as Lieutenant and thereafter, she served in various Military, Air Force and Naval hospitals, according to service requirements. Due to her dedicated service she was promoted to the rank of Captain and Major. 3. On 20th December, 1999 petitioner was posted to INHS Asvini, Colaba, Mumbai, as General Duty Matron. Petitioner continued serving ob...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Bec Strips Limited Vs. Cce, Raipur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per D.N. PANDA: The appellant is not present today despite several notices. There is an application to grant further opportunity to the appellant for hearing. 2. Revenue’s submission is that the present appellant has not become successful before the learned first appellate authority. It was a job worker for the M/s. Bhilai Engg. Corporation Ltd. and did not discharge the duty liability in respect of the goods job worked nor furnished the declaration required under notification No. 214/86-Ce dated 25.3.1986 for which the adjudication was confirmed raising duty demand as well as penalty and interest. Against such adjudication the appellant went in appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant but confirmed the demand of duty for which the Appellant is before the Tribunal. While waiving the penalty the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has come to the conclusion that there was no evidence to prove evasion. 3. Heard Revenue and also ...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E., Chandigarh Vs. Shri Gunmit Singh and Others
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: All these appeals by the Department arise out of common order-in-appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 2-12/Cus/Ldh/2009 dated 13.2.2009. 2. None appeared for the respondents in spite of notice. Heard the learned SDR and perused the records. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that M/s. Chug Exports, a partnership concern with Shri Gurdip Singh, Shri Gunmit Singh and Shri Daljit Singh as partners made exports of Crank Shaft for high speed compressor but declared the same as Timing Shaft for Mercedes Truck. The DEPB rates applicable for Crank Shaft was 14% whereas DEPB rates for Timing Shaft for Mercedes Truck was 22%. On the basis of exports made, the DEPB scrips were obtained at higher rates and the same were transferred to different importers who utilised the same for duty free imports. Three importer specific orders were issued and by the said orders Shri Gunmit Singh has been imposed penalties of Rs. 70,000/-, Rs.85,000/- and Rs.12,000/-; Shri Gurdip Singh ha...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Jaipur-ii Vs. M/S. Janki Processors Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per D.N. PANDA: Revenue has come in appeal to set aside the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that first appellate authority has committed an error in remanding the case to the learned adjudicating authority. The reasons for committing such an error are depicted in para 3 in review appeal which was the subject matter of review by the Committee of Commissioners. 2. When the matter was heard, the first objection of the Revenue was that when the law debarred the first appellate authority to exercise power to remand, that authority should not have remanded the matter. Revenue relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in MIL India Ltd. vs. CCE, Noida, as reported in 2007 (210) ELT 188 (S.C.), which has been followed in the case of M/s. Rajpurohit Card Tec Ltd. vs. C.C. (Imports), Mumbai, as reported in 2009 (243) ELT 369 (Tri.-Mumbai). According to Revenue an elaborate order has been passed by this Tribunal in Rajpurohit Card Tech Ltd. (supra), following the ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Aroma Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut Ii
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. 227-228/CE/MRT II/2007 dated 30.10.07. 2. Heard both sides. 3.1 The premises of the appellant factory was visited on 25.1.2006 and verification of stock of raw material and finished goods was conducted. There was no discrepancy in respect of raw materials. However, in respect of Peppermint, Mint Terpine and Menthone, excess stocks were noticed and in respect of L. Menthol and Menthol Crystals shortages were noticed. The value of goods found short was Rs. 11,67,375/-. The appellant deposited a sum of Rs.1,90,516/- during the course of investigation. The excess found stock was seized. The original authority, in pursuance of show cause notice, ordered confiscation of excess found goods and allowed the same to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs.25,000/- . He confirmed a demand of Rs.3,49,544/- in respect of goods found short and appropriated the amount already paid by the appellant. He also imposed p...
Tag this Judgment!C.C. and C.E., Indore Vs. M/S Magadh Precision Equipment Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: Learned Advocate for the respondents submits that the very same appeal filed by them was registered also as Appeal No.3011/2007 and the same was disposed of vide Final Order No.1479/2009-SM(Br.) dated 24.11.2009. 2. Called for the file relating to Appeal No.E/3011/07. It is noticed that the very same appeal filed by the Department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No.IND-I/150/2007 dated 9.8.2007 has been registered as two Appeals No.E/3011/07 and E/551/08 as two units of the same company were cited as two respondents. Both copies were received only on 18.10.07. As the dispute related to transfer of goods from one unit of the respondent company to another unit of the respondent company, both the units were separately imposed penalties by the original authority and two appeals were preferred before Commissioner (Appeals) and hence, two copies of the same appeal memoranda have been registered as two different Appeals. Inasmuch as the Department’s app...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.and C.E., Kanpur Vs. M/S Super Sales (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) No. 32-CE/APPL/KNP/2008 dated 29.1.2008. 2. Heard both sides. 3. When the officers visited the factory of the respondents on 30.9.2005, they found shortage of finished goods as detailed below: Sl.No Description of goods Stock as per RG I register as on 15.12.05 (in pairs) Days’s production up to 18.00 hrs. (in pairs) Days’s clearance upto 18.00 hrs. (in pairs) Stock as should be ( in pairs) Stock physically verified (in pairs) Shortage found against recorded balances (in pairs) Value (Rs.) Duty involved @ 16.32% (inclu-ding cess) (Rs.) 01 Pu foot Wear sole 7157 Not taken into account No clearance made 7157 4034 3123 2,89,971 46,395/- 02 TPR Foot Wear soles 5166 Not taken into account No clearance made 5166 1166 4000 3,37,000 53,920/- Total 7123 6,26,971 1,00,315/- The above stock taking was undertaken in the presence of two independent witnesses and in the presence of Shri Vipin Bansal, Director...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E., Meerut I Vs. M/S Modi Rubber Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) No. 197-CE/MRT-I/07 dated 30.10.2007. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The case has long background history. The respondents were purchasing tyre cord fabrics and the suppliers have paid duty under erstwhile Tariff Item 68 and the appellants have availed set-off of duty in terms of Notification No.201/79. The Department felt that the classification of the said tyre cord fabrics should have been under Chapter 22 and not under Tariff Item 68 and therefore, the credit taken by them was incorrect. The Department issued show cause notices dated 16.2.81 and 10.3.81 and the respondent agitated the matter and finally got a favourable order from the High Court of Delhi vide order dated 28.2.2002. Meanwhile, in a process to reduce the litigation with the Department, without prejudice to their rights in writ petition, the respondents deposited an amount of Rs.2,24,068.75 vide TR-6 challan No. 5.12.86. Subsequently, in pursuanc...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Ram Shree Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Kanpur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) No. 209-CE/APPL/KNP/2007 dated 30.5.2007. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The appellant, a manufacturer of M.S. Ingots opted for payment of duty on the basis of annual capacity of production during the period April 1998 to March, 2000 as provided under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act read with Notification No.43/97-CE(NT) dated 30.8.97. A show cause notice dated 18.9.03 was issued indicating that an amount of Rs.1,25,02,981/- was outstanding against the party relating to the period April 1998 to March 2000 and proposing imposition of penalty. The original authority, without confirming any demand of duty, imposed penalty of Rs.1,25,02,981/- and he also ordered recovery of interest on confirmed demand. The relevant portion of the order of the original authority is reproduced below:- “(i) I impose a penalty of Rs.1,25,02,981/- upon M/s Ram Shree Steels (P) Ltd. orai under Rule 96ZO(3) of then Central Excise...
Tag this Judgment!