Delhi Court June 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 2 of about 102 results (0.008 seconds)C.C.and C.Ex., Raipur Vs. M/S R.K. Ispat Udyog
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. 225/RPR-I/2007 dated 1.11.2007. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The officers visited the factory premises on 15.9.06; finding the raw material stock was huge, they did not conduct any verification of the raw material stock; the respondents were manufacturing several varieties (about 45 varieties) of final products like M.S. Flats, M.S. Square bar, M.S. Round, M.S. Angle, M.S. CTD bar. The officers conducted stock taking of only a few final products. The show cause notice indicates that the stock taking was done on eye estimation basis for these products. As regards M.S. squares, the available quantity, at the instance of the officers, were loaded on to the trucks and were taken to weigh bridge and the weight was ascertained to be 82.020 MTs. Whereas as per the record, it was only 55.860 MTs. The original authority in pursuance of the show cause notice ordered for confiscation of the exces...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E., Ludhiana Vs. M/S Khalsa CotspIn (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. 397/CE/Appl/Ldh/2007 dated 1.1.2008 by which the order of the original authority dated 6.2.2007 which was in favour of the party was upheld. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the respondent was manufacturing polyester yarn and acrylic yarn which were subject to duty. They received capital goods namely, Machinery Draw Frame and took credit of Rs.2,78,284/- in two instalments as provided for. The capital goods were installed and were being used for manufacture of excisable goods. Notification No.30/04 dated 9.7.04 came to be issued and as a result, the final products manufactured by them namely, polyester and acrylic yarn got exempted. The party reversed the credit attributable to inputs lying in stock, inputs in process and inputs contained in final products which were pending clearance. The respondent thereafter sold the machinery on which they had take...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Plastronic (India) Vs. C.C.E., Ghaziabad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: None appears for the appellant. I find that direction to deposit a sum of Rs.75,000/- vide Stay Order No.192/2010-SM(Br.) dated 30.4.2010 is not complied with. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35F read with Stay Order dated 30.4.2010....
Tag this Judgment!M/S Kumar Industries Vs. C.C.E., Lucknow
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: Vide Stay Order No.113/2010-SM(Br.) dated 22.3.2010, the appellant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- and report compliance on 8th June, 2010. It has come to notice that compliance of the stay order has not been reported. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35F of the Act read with Stay Order dated 22.3.2010....
Tag this Judgment!Dushyant Varma Vs. State of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The applicant is involved in a case Under Section 376 of IPC. This is second bail application of the applicant made before High Court. The first bail application, after lengthy arguments, was withdrawn. The additional grounds taken by the applicant are that the call records of the prosecutrix, SMS messages and the carbon copy of MLC of prosecutrix show that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and there was fabrication of evidence.2. It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that after the alleged incident of rape, the prosecutrix had travelled in the car of the accused for about 10 kilometers and she got down near Bhikaji Gama Place. She did not lodge FIR on the same day. There was delay in lodging of FIR of two days. Though the prosecutrix had visited Max hospital on the same night but the injuries described by her in her complaint to the police as well as to the Doctor of AIIMS at the time of her examination at AIIMS do not find mention in the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Dushyant Varma Vs State of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not?3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?ORDER1. The applicant is involved in a case u/s 376 of IPC. This is second bail application of the applicant made before High Court. The first bail application, after lengthy arguments, was withdrawn. The additional grounds taken by the applicant are that the call records of the prosecutrix, SMS messages and the carbon copy of MLC of prosecutrix show that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and there was fabrication of evidence.2. It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that after the alleged incident of rape, the prosecutrix had travelled in the car of the accused for about 10 kilometers and she got down near Bhikaji Gama Place. She did not lodge FIR on the same day. There was delay in lodging of FIR of two days. Though the prosecutrix had visited Max hospital on the same night but the injuries described by her in her...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E., Raipur (C.G.) Vs. M/S Ajay Kumar Bhasin
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. 169/RPR-I/2007 dated 23.8.07. 2. Heard the learned SDR for the Department. None appears for the respondents in spite of notice. On earlier occasions also, none appeared for the respondents. 3. A show cause notice was issued proposing confiscation of the goods alleged to have been removed without payment of duty by M/s R.K. Structures (P) Ltd. and in the said show cause notice, proposal was made for confiscation of the truck used for transporting such non-duty paid goods and penalties were also proposed on the owner of the truck as well as on the driver of the truck. The original authority confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty on the manufacturing company. He ordered confiscation of the truck but allowed the same to be redeemed on payment of fine of 25% of the value of the said truck. However, he refrained from imposing any penalty on the owner of the truck and on the dri...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E., Delhi Ii Vs. M/S Hindustan Petroleum Corporation 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. 134-CE/DLH/2007 dated 6.11.2007. The respondent is M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The hearing of the appeal was postponed for want of clearance from the Committee on Disputes. Learned SDR submits a communication from the Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi II addressed to him wherein the decision of the Board not to refer to COD has been communicated to the Commissioner. Learned SDR brings this notice to the Tribunal and seeks appropriate order. 2. From the communication placed on record, it is seen the CBEC has decided not to refer the case to COD as the amount involved in this case is very low. In view of the above, the Commissioner and the SDR should make a prayer for withdrawal of the appeal filed. Even otherwise, as the Department has indicated its decision not to seek permission from COD, the question of maintaining the appeal does not arise. The appeal is dismissed...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Arhant Suedes Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Ghaziabad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: Miscellaneous Applications and Appeals are listed for hearing today. Miscellaneous Applications are allowed and the appeals are taken up for final hearing. 2. Appeal No.E/1558/07 is against the order of the Commissioner No. 02-CE/TECH/COMMR./GZB/2006 dated 27.11.2006 by which the claim for remission of duty on goods destroyed in fire was partly denied to them. Appeal No.E/1928/08 by the same appellant is on a closely connected matter. Consequent to denial of remission, the original authority confirmed the demand of Rs.8,29,515/- on 25700 kgs. of PU foam as no remission was granted by the Commissioner. The said demand stands upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 29.4.2008. 3. None appears for the appellants in spite of notice. On 28.4.2010, hearing of appeals was adjourned specifically to 22.6.2010 as requested by the learned Advocate for the appellants. Earlier on 4.12.2009, the matter was adjourned on the request of the appellants. In view of the abov...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Kanpur Vs. M/S. K.B.K. Plascon (P) Ltd., and Another
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per RAKESH KUMAR: The facts giving rise to these appeals and cross objections are as under:- The appellant company M/s. K.B.S. Plascon (P) Ltd., 24/468, Birhana Road, Kanpur are engaged in the manufacture of Plastic sheets, Plastic Rods, Plastic Block and Plastic parts of machines chargeable to central excise duty. They were also availing Cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of their final product. The factory of the appellant company was visited by the jurisdictional central excise officers on 25.8.2006. On verification of raw material lying in the factory the central excise officers found shortage of 6000 kgs. of P.P. Repol and 3220 kgs. of HDPE involving Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,02,929/. Shri Ramanand Sharma, authorized signatory of the appellant, on being asked by the officers, while admitting the shortage explained that cenvated input found short must have been removed by some employees without payment of duty. Subsequently, the entire Cenvat credit involved ...
Tag this Judgment!