Delhi Court June 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 3 of about 102 results (0.019 seconds)Shri D.L.Ojha, Manager and Another Vs. C.C.E., Meerut Ii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: Heard both sides for a while on the stay petition. As it was felt appropriate to decide the appeal finally, I waive pre-deposit of the dues as per the impugned order and dispose of the stay petition and take up the appeal for final disposal. 2. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the records of the appellant were subject to verification by Cost Audit and there was some differences between the figures given in the monthly return submitted to the Department and the figures in the Cost Audit report. The closing balance of the spares for the month of February, 2004 was shown as 987 whereas the report for March, 2004 indicated the opening balance 381. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued proposing differential duty on 606 numbers of spares. It transpires from the records that personal hearing was held before the original authority on 29.1.2009 and the monthly return for April 2004 and some other documents were sought for from the appellant to verify the correctnes...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Sudarshan Security Services Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur I
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal arising out of the order in appeal No. 57(DK)ST/JPR-I/2009 dated 27.7.2009 by which the order of the original authority confirming demand of service tax amounting to Rs.58,617/- along with interest imposing penalties under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act was confirmed. The appellant, a proprietary concern paid service tax amount on 30.6.08 along with interest and paid penalty imposed under Section 77 and 25% of penalty imposed under Section 78. The Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order of the original authority. 2. Learned Advocate is not disputing the service tax liability or interest liability or penalties under Section 77 and 78. He submits that the appellant is a proprietary concern and was running a small business as a service provider and was not familiar with the laws. On coming to know of the liability, they have paid the same. He submits that imposition of separate penalty under Section 76 is very harsh and may be dispensed wi...
Tag this Judgment!Modipon Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Ghaziabad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: On 22.4.2010, the matter was adjourned specifically to 17.6.2010 on appellant s request. None appears for the appellant today. There is no adjournment request on record. It is apparent that the appellant is not serious in pursuing the appeal. 2. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution....
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Jindal Saw Limited Vs. Cce, Lucknow
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per D.N. PANDA; Although these two matters were fixed for stay hearing, learned Counsel submits that the very demand may not sustain, if the matter is looked into thoroughly on the touch stone law granting fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant as well as evaluating evidence touching the material facts. He points out that when interim reply to show cause notice was given on 2.4.2008 as well as on 10.9.2007 (which were the preliminary object) the appellants brought out how it will suffer if natural justice is violated. Paying deaf ear, the adjudicating authority passed the order depriving the appellants from submitting its defence although legal pleading were made in these two replies about unsustainability of proceedings itself. Shri Santhanam brings out clearly that opinion of audit observation submitted ipso facto does not give rise to proceeding. Therefore, instead of disposal of stay application, appeals itself may be disposed of for granting fair trial to the appellants. Lea...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Electro World Vs. Cce, Chandigarh
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per D.N. PANDA; Learned Consultant submits that if short fall in payment of service tax is paid mitigating factor of sub-section (3) of Section 73 takes care of that case. The present appellant having paid short fall by 24th April 2006, there should not have been issuance of show cause notice for the said short fall on 28.11.2007. The action of the learned adjudicating authority, not being in consonance with the provision contained in Section 73(3) of Finance Act, 1994, this appellant had been directed to pay penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. In short, preliminary argument is that when no show cause notice was to be issued the question of penalty does not arise since adjudication is not intended by under Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Learned D.R. supports the authority below. 3. There is no dispute that the case is made for realization of short fall and only default period penalty has been called for under Section 76 of Finance Act, 1994. Statutory mandate...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Amar Food Products and Another Vs. C.C.E., Lucknow
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: These two appeals arise out of a common order impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 354 to 356-CE/2004 dated 29.10.2004/ 2. Heard both sides. 3.1 The relevant facts, in brief, are that as per investigation, M/s Amar Food Products with Shri Chokey Lal as the proprietor, are registered manufacturers of pan masala and gutkha and M/s Radha Enterprises is a proprietary concern with Shri Ram Bharosey Sharma as proprietor, through whom the goods manufactured by M/s Amar Food Products were reportedly sold. The trucks carrying pan masala and gutkha were intercepted on three different dates and were found to have brought goods manufactured by M/s Amar Food Products without payment of duty but carrying sale invoices issued by M/s Radha Enterprises. The goods valued Rs.10,90,950/-were seized as having been cleared and transported without payment of duty. There were seizures at the premises of M/s Amar Food Products as well. During the course of investigation, at the re...
Tag this Judgment!Selection Synthetics Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur Ii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: These two appeals were listed on a few occasions. The Advocate Shri K.K. Anand, on record, sought for adjournment and were given a number of adjournments. During the last hearing held on 4.5.2010, the Advocate sought permission to withdraw from the case on the ground that he was not getting instructions from his client. Accepting the said request, fresh notice was ordered to be issued to the appellants. As per postal acknowledgment receipt, the notice has been acknowledged on 12.5.2010. None present on behalf of the appellants in spite of notice. There is no request seeking any adjournment for hearing of the appeals. It is evident that the appellants are not serious in pursuing the appellate remedy. 2. In view of the above, the appeals are dismissed for non-prosecution....
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Kanpur Vs. M/S. Summer Engg. Works Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per D.N. PANDA; None present for the respondents. Also, there is no request for adjournment. 2. Learned D.R. submits that the first appellate order having granted relief on penalty Revenue is affected, when clandestine removal and duty liability was not challenged by the respondents. 3. Heard Revenue and also perused the record. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the respondent No. 2 was not directly connected with the clandestine removal of goods. Having such finding he relieved the appellant before him from net. The penalty on Shri Azad Ahmed was Rs. 10,000/-. There is no evidence put forth by the Revenue to contradict the finding of the learned appellate authority below who granted relief to the respondent No. 2. Therefore, appeal against Azaz Ahmed, Authorized Signatory was dismissed. So far as appeal against M/s. Summer Engg. Works Pvt. Ltd. is concerned, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has doubt that whether shortage is on account of clandestine removal or on account of...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur I
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.25(RKS)CE/JPR-I/2008 dated 30.1.2008. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the appellants are manufacturers of sugar and molasses. The appellants used welding electrodes in filling cavity/joints of machinery and manufacture of parts of capital goods. In other words, welding electrodes are used either in relation to the repair and the maintenance of the plant and machinery which are used in the manufacture of their final products. Show cause dated 23.10.06 was issued alleging that the appellants have wrongly availed the cenvat credit on welding electrodes by misstating them as capital goods with intent to defraud the Department and in contravention of Rules 3 and 4 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and accordingly, proposing demand of Rs.12,036/- relating to the period May, 2004 to April, 2006. The original authority upheld the demand along with interest and imposed equal amou...
Tag this Judgment!M/S M.P. Steel Process Vs. Cce, Raipur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
PER JUSTICE R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR : The appeal is taken up for hearing in terms of the order passed today in Stay Application No. E/2865 of 2009. 2. This appeal arises from the order dated 26th March, 2009 passed by the Commissioner, Raipur, whereby the annual capacity of the hot re-rolling steel mill of the appellants has been finalized for the year 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 while fixing the duty liability accordingly. 3. The appellants were the manufacturer of Hot Rolled Products of Non-Alloy Steel classified under Chapter 72 to the Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The provisional capacity of the mill was determined under order dated 18/28.12.1998 to be 1083 MTs and the duty liability was fixed at Rs. 13,538/- per month from 1st April, 1998. For the purpose of finalization of the said provisional order as well as the earlier orders passed in that regard, notices were issued to the appellants. However, there was no response from the appellants and consequently the ...
Tag this Judgment!