Delhi Court June 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 1 of about 102 results (0.020 seconds)M/S Raipur Bright Steel and Wire Weld Industries Limited Vs. C.C.E.,ra ...
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. 416/RPR-I/2003 dated 9.9.2003. The matter is before the Tribunal as remanded by the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh vide order dated 15.1.2010 in Central Excise Appeal No.27/2004 by which the final order of the Tribunal No.A/522/04/NB(S/M) dated 18.3.2004 was set aside. 2. Heard both sides. Both sides agree that on identical issue involving the same appellant, on remand from the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, the appeal stands allowed vide Final Order No.511/2010-SM(Br.) dated 11.5.2010. 3. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restoring the order of the original authority which is in favour of the assessee....
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E., Raipur Vs. M/S Orion Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: Appeal No.E/1909/2007 is by the Department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 87/RPR-I/2007 dated 30.3.2007. Cross-Objection No.E/CO/125/2009 is related to this appeal. Since there is delay in filing of cross-objection, the application No.E/COD/125/2009 has been filed seeking condonation of delay. 2. None appears for the respondents in spite of notice. On earlier occasions on 13.5.2010, 23.5.201 and 5.1.2010 also, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. Heard the learned DR. 3. Considering the grounds disclosed in the application for condonation of delay, the delay in filing of cross-objection is condoned. 4. The relevant facts of the case are that the respondents have procured duty paid M.S. Channal, parallel flange beam, parallel flange column, M.S. angle during May, 2004 and May, 2005 and used them for fabrication of supporting structures, platform, walkways and staircases and treating them as capital goods taken cenvat credit amounting to Rs.1...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Gokal Steel Rolling Mills Vs. C.C.E., Ludhiana
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal against the order of Commissioner No. 14/Ldh/06 dated 27.6.06. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The appellant is a manufacturer of hot-rolled non-alloy steel products which are chargeable to duty in terms of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 upto 31.3.2000 and they opted to pay central excise duty on the basis of annual production capacity determined in terms of Rule 96ZP(3). The dispute relates to ‘d’ factor. On 1.9.97, the appellant declared ‘d’ factor as 245. The officers visited the factory premises on 21.8.99 and measured the’d’ factor in the presence and with the help of officials of the company and found it to be 261 and as a result , a show cause notice was issued proposing differential duty of Rs.14,29,136/- for the period 1.5.98 to 31.8.99 and proposing demand of Rs.89,321/- for March 2000 and also proposing imposition of penalty. The Commissioner, in pursuance of the show cause notice, adjudicated the di...
Tag this Judgment!Commander Vinod Kumar Jha Versus Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. Both these petitions involves similar question of law, therefore, they are disposed off together by a common order. However, for convenient disposal of both the cases facts given in the case of Commander Vinod Kumar Jha are taken into consideration. 2. Petitioner was a Naval Officer. He joined the NDA in July, 1981 and was commissioned in the Indian Navy on 1.7.1984. During 1984 to 1986, the petitioner underwent Sub. Lt.s courses and further from 1987 to 1995 underwent long Navigation course and held prestigious appointments from time to time. From 2000 to 2003, he served with Director General, NCC at New Delhi and was awarded commendation by the Chief of Naval Staff. From 2003 to October 2005 he served the Naval Headquarters as System Officer and Joint Director (Coord. and Admn.) in Directorate of Naval Operations. It is alleged that on 14.7.2005 at midnight the personnel of Naval Intelligence and Naval Police along with other unidentified persons (IB/CBI) came to his house and ran...
Tag this Judgment!Lt. Col. P. K. Kapur (Retd.) Versus Union of India
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. Petitioner has filed a Writ Petition and has prayed that unconstitutional disparity in fixation of war injury disability pension to same rank (class) by respondents circulars No. A-1 and A-2, both dated 4th May, 2009 on the basis of date of retirement, the pre and post 2006 retirees may kindly be corrected by striking down respondents arbitrary Circular No.16 (6)/2008/1/D (Pension/Policy) dated 4th May, 2009 and severing the provision in the heading and para 2.1 of the circular No. 16(6)/2008(2)/D (Pension/Policy) dated 4th May, 2009 which states that the provisions of this letter shall apply to Armed Forces personnel who were in service on 1.1.2006 or joined service thereafter. Therefore, petitioner prayed that distinction of cut-off date between pre and post 2006 retirees is unconstitutional and same may be done away. Respondent may be directed to fix the pension of all the persons pre and post on same parity. 2. The petitioner joined the Army at the time of emergency in 1962 crea...
Tag this Judgment!J.P. Bhardwaj Versus Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The petitioner had filed this Writ Petition No.8007/2005 in Delhi High Court which was subsequently transferred to this Tribunal on 13.11.2009 for final disposal. 2. The petitioner vide his petition has prayed for quashing Court of Inquiry held consequent to the vehicle accident and letters dated 03.07.1999, 19.08.2000, 24.03.2003 and 30.11.2004 which denied the classification of war injury to the petitioner. He has also sought release of all benefits which are due to an individual on account of war injury. 4. The brief facts of the case are as follows: - The petitioner was enrolled in the Corps of EME on 24.12.1980. He was posted to 10, Rashtriya Riffles (Rajput) on 05.06.1994. On 30.10.1996 the petitioner took a truck One Ton from Udhampur to Doda after completion of local repair as per order of his superiors since the driver of the One Ton truck was feeling unwell. On the way the vehicle met with an accident in which he sustained severe commuted fracture paraplegia. Other passeng...
Tag this Judgment!In the Matter Of: Lt. Col. Jagnar Singh Versus the Union of India and ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The applicant has submitted OA 04/10 to the Armed Forces Tribunal against his non empanelment for the rank of colonel (Col). 2. The applicant was commissioned in the ARTILLERY on 19/12/ 1987 and subsequently, on his application, was transferred to the Intelligence Corps in 2000. He was subsequently promoted to the rank of Lt Col but was not empanelled for the rank of Col, in September 2006. His statutory complaint against the same was rejected vide Ministry of Defence letter dated 12/03/2008 (Annexure A-5) 3. The applicant avers that during his service he has earned seven outstanding ACRs and five Commendation Cards. The remaining have been above average except for some aberrations which are not matching when compared with his overall profile. 4. The applicant states that his Interim confidential report covering the period Jun 1996 to Jan 1997 had 7s in several personal qualities. These gradings must have been endorsed by his Reviewing Officer (RO) also. The applicant however submi...
Tag this Judgment!Jaypee Ayodhya Grinding Operations Vs. C.C.E., Allahabad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: Heard both sides. 2. The impugned order upheld the order of the original authority disallowing the credit of Rs.3,59,420/- in respect of spares for cement mill and cement silo which were taken treating said spares as capital goods ordering recovery of equal amount as duty along with interest and imposing penalty of equal amount. The demand related to the period September 2004 to July 2005 and the demand was raised by show cause notice dated 7.8.06. 3. Learned Advocate for the appellants submits that these spares were used in the cement silo and cement mill and the credit is available. He also submits that there were decisions both in favour of the assessee and the Department during the relevant period and therefore, the appellant bona fidely believed that they were entitled to cenvat credit as capital goods. They were filing periodical returns indicating the details of credit taken on inputs and capital goods. No information which was required to be furnished to the ...
Tag this Judgment!C.C. and C.Ex., Kanpur Vs. Shri Brijesh Kanodia, Managing Director of ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: These two appeals are by the Department against the same order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that when the factory of the respondents was visited there were shortage of inputs and capital goods and excess of finished goods. The Director of the company admitted the shortage and excess as above and the duty involved on the shortage of inputs and capital goods was paid. The original authority in pursuance of the show cause notice dated 6.5.05 passed a detailed order confiscating the excess found goods valued at Rs.8,75,286/- but allowed the same to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs.1 lakh. He also confirmed recovery of the cenvat credit attributable to the short found inputs and short found capital goods. He also confirmed the demand amounting to Rs.59,405/- involved on the waste consumed in the manufacture of exempted reprocessed granules. The Commissioner (Appeals), on appeal by the party, set aside the conf...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Varanasi Petrochem P. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Allahabad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: After hearing both sides, pre-deposit is waived and appeal is taken up for final hearing. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order, without going into the merits of the appeal against the order of the original authority dated 26.9.08 dismissed the appeal on time-bar as the appeal has been filed after a delay of 42 days. This is beyond his condonable power of 30 days. It is settled law that the Commissioner(Appeals) has no power to condone the delay beyond 30 days. 3. In view of the above, the written submissions filed by the learned Advocate which has bearing on the merits of the case need not be gone into. Learned Advocate is not disputing the delay for 42 days in filing of appeal. 4. There is no reason for interfering with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal is, therefore, rejected. Stay petition is also disposed of....
Tag this Judgment!