Delhi Court May 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 16 of about 157 results (0.019 seconds)M/S. Kamakhya Steel (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meeru ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: Heard both sides for a while on the stay petition. 2. Considering the nature of dispute, the stay petition is disposed of and the appeal itself is directed to be placed for final disposal. 3. When the officers visited the factory premises on 4.1.2008, they noticed the stock position of MS ingots, their final products as 225.155 MT and on physical verification, the stock was found to be only 126.675 MT, thus a shortage of 98.480 MT valued at Rs.18,71,120/- involving duty of Rs.3,08,361/-. The variation in stock in respect of runners risers was negligible. The authorised signatory, Shri Moizuddin Khan, in his statement dated 4.1.2008, admitted the shortage and submitted that he could not give any explanation for the shortage detected. However, on 21.1.2008, the entire duty involved was deposited and the same was intimated to the Department vide letter dated 26.2.2008. While replying to show cause notice vide letter dated 5.11.2008 it was claimed that they were recordi...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Ghaziabad Vs. M/S Delta Foods (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per. Rakesh Kumar: The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Biscuits, chargeable to Central Excise Duty under sub-heading 1905.11 of the Central Excise Tariff. They manufacture biscuits on job work basis for M/s Britannia Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as M/s BIL) out of the raw material supplied by them. The biscuits are cleared on payment of duty. The respondent also avail Cenvat credit of duty on the cenvatable inputs. In course of manufacture of biscuits, waste in form of floor sweeping consisting of flour, dirty dough, etc. is generated which is returned to M/s BIL without payment of duty. The Department was of the view that since the waste generated is an exempt product, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 6 (3) readwith Rule 6 (2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001/2002/Rule 57 AD (2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944, the respondent would be liable to pay an amount equal to 8% of the clearance value of such waste, as the respondent had not maintained separate...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Lucknow Vs. M/S India Polyfibres Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
The facts leading to filing of this appeal by Revenue are, in brief, as under. 1.1 The respondents are manufacturer of Polyester staple fiber (PSF) chargeable to Central Excise Duty under Chapter 55 of the Central Excise Tariff. One of the inputs used in the manufacture of PSF is Mono Ethlylene Glycol (MEG). The dispute in this case pertains to January 1987 to May 1991 period. During that period Notification No. 225/86-CE issued under the then Rule 8 (1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 exempted -PSF including tops and polyester filament yarn (PFY) from so much of duty of excise chargeable under the Central Excise Act, 1944 or additional Customs Duty chargeable under Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as the case may be, already paid on the MEG used in the manufacture of such PSF or PFY. During the period from May 1989 to August 1991, nine show cause notices were issued to the Respondent for recovery of allegedly wrongly availed input duty exemption amounting to Rs. 1,15,54,845/- on the following ...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Jammu Vs. M/S. Metal Extrusions
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar: Having heard the learned D.R. and the learned Advocate for the respondents at length, we propose to dispose of the appeals themselves. Hence, the applications are disposed off. 2. Since common questions of law and facts arise in all these appeals they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. These appeals arise from order dated 16.2.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh whereby appeals filed by the respondents against the order of the adjudicating authority were allowed, holding that the respondents were eligible for the benefit of area based exemption notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002 w.e.f. 26th August, 2006 as the production in their factory commenced from that date, subject to fulfilling the other requirements and eligibility criteria under the said notification. The adjudicating authority by order dated 7.3.2008 had rejected the refund application filed by the respondents. 4. The respondents ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Pvt. Limited Vs. Cce, Delhi-ii ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar: On oral motion made by the learned Advocate for the appellants appeal is allowed to be withdrawn, and stands disposed of as withdrawn....
Tag this Judgment!Sepoy Ravidas Laxman Kusalkar Versus Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The applicant had filed a writ petition (civil) No. 7752 of 2009 in the Honble Delhi High Court requesting to be declared as a Battle Casualty for financial purposes. The same was transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal on 14.10.2009. 2. The applicant was enrolled in the Army on 28.4.1989. He contends that while serving in field area in Kaprol on 16.5.1997, whilst during live mine training, the applicant suffered injury due to accidental mine blast as a result of which his left leg was amputated. The applicant should have been declared as a battle casualty which would have enabled him continue in service and get promotions when due to him. He would also get other benefits from his state of domicile (Maharashtra). The applicant has contended that his orders for discharge would be effective from 30.4.2009. 3. The applicant contends that the court of inquiry held that his injury was attributable to military service (Annexure P-1). Commander 33 Corps Artillery Brigade has held that t...
Tag this Judgment!Ex Nk Satbir Singh Versus Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. Applicant by the present original application has prayed to direct the respondents to pay him the service pension with effect from 18.04.1996 along with arrears and interest thereon. 2. Applicant was enrolled in the Indian Army as Combatant Soldier on 18.12.1979. While he was on annual leave with effect from 23.03.1990 till 12.05.1990, although he was out of his village on 23.03.1990 on the day of occurrence of family feud occurred between his uncle and family members and in the ensuring fight his uncles son died. While on leave, he was arrested by the Police and kept in Police custody and later in Judicial Custody till he was granted bail from Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court on 17.09.1990. He was granted casual leave with effect from 02.08.1992 till 11.08.1992 but he absented and reported back on 09.09.1992. He reported back to his unit after being granted bail and he was attached with Military unit at Hisar till finalization of case by his unit. Case in which he was charged ...
Tag this Judgment!