Delhi Court May 2010 Judgments
M/S Satia Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Ludhiana
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2010
Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 171/CE/Appl/Ldh/2007 dated 15.7.07. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the appellant’s premises were visited on 10.3.2006 by Audit Team authorised under Section 14AA of the Central Excise Act. In respect of one of the inputs namely, Defoamer, computer records maintained by the appellants showed a balance of 17,940 kgs. whose value was arrived at Rs.6,27,900/- involving duty/credit of Rs.86,600/-. A show cause notice dated 10.8.06 was issued alleging that the short found Defoamer has been cleared without payment of duty and accordingly, demanding duty along with interest and proposing imposition of penalty. The appellant submitted a reply dated 19.9.06 claiming that there was no shortage and also produced detailed worksheet regarding input received and disposed of and showing nil closing balance as on 9.3.06. The original authority has taken note of such chart submit...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise, Kanpur Vs. M/S. Mineral Oil C ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2010
Per M. Veeraiyan: E/1416/08 is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 110/CE/APPL/KNP/2008 dated 24.3.08. Cross Objection No. 76/2010 is connected to this appeal. 2. None appears on behalf of the respondent inspite of notice. Heard the learned DR. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the officers visited the factory premises of the respondents on 6.12.05 and detected shortage of 31586 of base oil / processed oil valued at Rs.6,47,513/-. The stock taking was done in the presence of Shri Vikas Chandra Agarwal, partner. The shortage was explained as due to spilling over of the oil on the surface due to leakage from the storage tanks. However, the credit involved on the short found inputs amounting to Rs. 1,05,674/- was deposited on 10.12.05. A show cause notice was issued alleging that the short found inputs have been cleared clandestinely and, accordingly, proposing demand of duty and imposition of penalty. The original authority confirmed the demand and did not impose...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Kisan Cooperative Sugar Factory Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Meerut I
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2010
Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 14-CE/MRT-1/2008 dated 31.1.2008. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The dispute relates to eligibility of credit on welding electrodes used for repair and maintenance of plant and machinery in the sugar factory of the appellant. The issue is no more res integra as the same has been decided by the Tribunal in the case of Vikram Cement vs. C.C.E., Indore reported in 2009 (242) ELT 545 (Tri-Del.) wherein it has been held that in such a situation, the credit was not available. 4. However, the learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the issue involved was subject to different interpretations and therefore, the penalty imposed was not justified. This submission merits acceptance. 5. In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of by upholding the demand of duty of Rs.25,748/- along with interest but setting aside the penalty....
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise, ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2010
Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 534 (RKS)CE/JPR II/2007 dated 1.10.2007. 2. The matter is before the Tribunal for the second time having been remanded to the original authority by Final Order No. 1755/2006 dated 29.11.06. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the appellant has taken credit of Rs. 66,193/- on tyres based on invoices which were issued by M/s. CEAT Limited to their depot at Udaipur. The original authority disallowed the credit and ordered recovery of equal amount as duty alongwith interest and imposed equal amount as penalty. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order of the original authority. 5. Learned Advocate fairly submits that in their own case relating to subsequent period, the Tribunal has disallowed the credit in such a situation. He refers to decision of Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur II reported in [2007 (214) ELT 51(Tri-Del)]. However, he submits t...
Tag this Judgment!Cce Kanpur Vs. M/S Mercury Containers (P) Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2010
Per D.N. Panda: Revenue has limited prayer in this appeal to impose penalty for the violation of law made by the Assessee. The order does not show conduct of the assessee. There was no penalty imposed by both the authorities below. Finding no infirmity in the order, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Bhopal Vs. M/S Indian Oil Corp Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2010
Per D.N. Panda: None for the Respondent. 2. Learned DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that interest was payable on the differential duty payable as held in the case of CCE Pune Vs SKF India Ltd reported in 2009 (239) ELT 385 (SC). 3. Considering Revenue’s submission, it is directed that interest shall be payable as held by the learned Adjudicating Authority following the Apex Court decision in the case of SKF India Ltd (supra) and consequently setting aside the first Appellate Authority order. The order in original is restored and Revenue’s appeal is allowed....
Tag this Judgment!Cce Kanpur Vs. M/S Vinay Wires and Poly Products (P) Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2010
Per D.N. Panda: Revenue has come in appeal being aggrieved by waiver of penalty by the Appellate Authority while there was imposition of the same by the learned Adjudicating Authority. 2. None present for the Respondent. Heard Revenue. 3. The impugned order reveals that the learned Appellate Authority has proceeded on the basis of the law as that was before him at the time of passing of the order. In the meantime, the Apex Court has laid down the law in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills reported in 2009 (238) ELT 3(SC) for which imposition of penalty requires reconsideration by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Consequently, the matter is remanded to him to grant opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate order in respect of levy of penalty....
Tag this Judgment!C.C. and C.Ex., Kanpur Vs. M/S Kumar Rotoflex (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2010
Per M. Veeraiyan: Appeal No.E/1415/08 is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 139-CE/APPL/KNP/2008 dated 31.3.2008. Cross-Objection No.E/348/08 is connected to this appeal. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the officers visited the factory premises of the appellant on 22.2.2006 and found shortage of inputs on which credit was taken. The value of the short found goods was Rs.12,24,803/- involving duty amount of Rs.1,99,888/-. The authorised signatory Shri Mahesh Tiwari in whose presence the stock taking was undertaken admitted the shortage and submitted that he was not in a position explain the reason for shortage and agreed to deposit the duty involved on the said shortage. The duty involved stands deposited by debiting in PLA on 28.2.2006. The original authority in pursuance of the show cause notice dated 16.5.06 confirmed the demand of duty and imposed equal amount as penalty under Section 11AC, Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and als...
Tag this Judgment!Col. P.K. Nair Versus Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-04-2010
1. This case was originally filed in Honble Delhi High Court as Writ Petition (C) No.11698/2005 and was transferred to this Tribunal on 05.11.2009. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was commissioned as an Officer in the Indian Army on 15th June, 1975. During his career he tenated several important appointments. He also attended several professional courses in which he excelled himself. He was selected to become Lt. Col. and commanded 69 Field Regiment in Kargil from 10.08.1995 to 03.10.1997. Thereafter, as full Colonel, he again commanded 290, Medium Regiment from 01.06.1998 to 20.08.2003. However, the petitioner was not selected for the rank of Brigadier in 2004. When the petitioner was not approved for the rank of Brigadier, he put in a statutory complaint against this Annual Confidential Report (ACR) covering the period from June, 1995 to May, 1996 and Interim Confidential Report (ICR) from 01st June, 1996 to 20th September, 1996 which was rejected by the Central Gover...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Petrosolv (i) Co. and Another Vs. Cce, Indore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2010
Per Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar: None present for the appellants. Heard learned D.R. 2. Record discloses that the appellants have not complied with the order regarding pre-deposit and, therefore, when the matter had come up for hearing on 19.4.2010 it was recorded that the consequence contemplated under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are bound to follow. Further opportunity was granted to the appellants to satisfy the Tribunal as to why appeal should not be dismissed. As none has appeared, nor there is anything placed on record to satisfy as to why appeal should not be dismissed in spite of failure on the part of the appellants to satisfy the requirement of pre-deposit, appeal is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly hereby dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »