Delhi Court June 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 4 of about 102 results (0.019 seconds)M/S Vikram Cement (P) Ltd. and Others Vs. C.C.E., Kanpur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: None appears for the appellants in spite of notice. On earlier occasions also, the appeals were adjourned on a few occasions and on some occasions at the request of the appellants. In view of the above, it appears 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!Subhaash Srivastav C/O Kishore Tobacco Company Vs. C.C.E., Delhi Ii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: None appears for the appellants in spite of notice. No request for adjournment has been received. In fact, the matter was adjourned to 15.6.2010 when the appellant was represented on 23.2.2010. In spite of the same, the appellant is not represented. In view of the above, it is felt that the appellant is not serious in pursuing the appeal. The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution....
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Vikas Enterprises Vs. Cce, Allahabad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per D.N. PANDA: The appellant is absent today. 2. Heard learned SDR. It is found that there is an amount of service tax demand of Rs. 38,250/-. The reason why such demand arose is not categorically coming out from either of the orders of the lower authorities. But the fate of the case was decided by both the authorities below giving rise to this appeal. In view of the above position it is impracticable to approve a cryptic order which does not bring out the reason why the appellant faced demand. An unreasoned and non-speaking order of demand fails to meet scrutiny of higher forum. When the fate of the case is as above, it is necessary to sent back the entire matter to the learned Adjudicating authority to test the material thoroughly granting fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant to defend its case. Clearly bringing on record the material facts, that should be tested under provision of law, by a speaking order. It would be proper to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Garg and ors Vs Glencore GraIn Rotterdam B.V.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? No2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?ORDER.1. These Appeals assail the Order of the Learned Single Judge passed on 19th April, 2010, directing the sale of the shares of Judgment Debtors Nos.2 & 3 held by them in Judgment Debtor No.5. The amounts so realized were to be kept by the State Bank of India in Suspense Account awaiting the orders of the Court. Secondly the Learned Single Judge had disallowed argument on behalf of Judgment Debtors Nos.1 and 4 owing to their failure to make compliance with the orders of the Honble Supreme Court by depositing fifty per cent of the decreetal amount. Thirdly, the Learned Single Judge had declined to hear objections pertaining to fraud so far as the Judgment Debtors No.2 and 3 are concerned.2. M/s.Shivnath Rai Harnarain (India) Company (a dissolved firm) is Judgment Debtor No.1; Mr.Prem Chand Garg (partner of Ju...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. H.T. Media Ltd. Vs Sh. Shashi Bhushan Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?ORDER.1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the constitution of India prying for quashing of order dated 02.08.2008 passed by the Labour Court, Karkardooma, Delhi against the two Respondents namely Sh. Shashi Bhushan Singh, Respondent no. 1 and Hindustan Times Limited, Respondent no. 2.2. Brief facts of the case are that Respondent no.1 has filed the statement of claim under Section 2 A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with respect to his retrenchment on 05.05.2007 by the Respondent no.2 management Hindustan Times Limited. According to the Respondent no.1 workman he was appointed by the Respondent no.2 on 17.09.1993 as "Temporary Semi Clerk" and was confirmed in the said post vide letter dated 08.07.1994. He was the permanent employee of Respondent No.2 and continued to be employee wi...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Jalandhar Vs. M/S Ashwani Nut Bolt Indus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
PER JUSTICE R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR : Heard the learned Departmental Representative for the applicant and the learned Advocate for the respondents. 2. By the present application, the Department is seeking recall of the final order dated 24th July, 2008 and for reconsideration of the matter on three grounds firstly, the observation about non-issuance of show cause notice to the manufacturer in the said order was not correct, secondly, the observation about absence of any objection in law for the respondents taking credit on the duty paying documents in relation to the raw-materials is also incorrect in view of the fact that the raw-materials utilized were of description different than those mentioned in the invoices pertaining to raw-materials, and thirdly, that the modvat credit, on the basis of the documents in question, could not have been availed on account of difference in description in invoice vis-`-vis the actual product utilized as raw-materials. 3. The learned DR referring to th...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E., Rohtak Vs. M/S Surya Vinayak Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per Shri Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar: Heard the learned SDR and the learned Advocate for the appellant and the respondent respectively. 2. The present appeal arises from the order dated 27th December, 2004 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Delhi. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the respondents against the order of the adjudicating authority and quashed the proceedings which were sought to be initiated by issuance of three show cause notices dated 2.2.99, 29.6.99 as well as 23.3.99. The adjudicating authority vide its order dated 10.9.99 had denied the benefit of exemption Notification No.167/86 dated 1.3.86 to the respondents and had confirmed the demand of Rs.1,23,552/- and had imposed penalty of Rs.50,000/-. 3. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Essential oil (Tarpenless or not) classifiable under Chapter heading 3301.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They had been availing the modvat credit facility under Ru...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Ludhiana Vs. M/S Shital International
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
PER JUSTICE R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR : Heard the learned Departmental Representative for the applicant and the learned Advocate for the respondents. 2. The only point on which the present application has been filed is that, while remanding the matter by order dated 15th October, 2009, the Tribunal instead of remanding the matter to the Additional Commissioner has remanded the matter to the Commissioner. The learned advocate for the respondents has fairly stated that, in the facts and circumstances of the case the matter needs to be remanded to the Additional Commissioner. Consequently, the application is allowed and the expression Commissioner in the last para of the order dated 15th October, 2009 is directed to be read as Additional Commissioner. The order dated 15th October, 2009 shall be read with the above corrections. The application stands disposed of accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!Kahan Khadi Woollen Finisher Production Co-operative Industry Society ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per Shri Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar: Since a common question of law and facts arise in these two appeals, they are taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. We have heard the learned Advocate for the appellants and the learned SDR for the respondent and perused the records. 3. The present appeals arise from a common order dated 19th September 2005 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Gurgaon. By the impugned order, the appeals filed by the appellants against the order passed by the adjudicating authority have been dismissed. The adjudicating authority vide its order dated 30th April, 1998 had confirmed the demand of Rs.4,48,311.23 against the appellants. The proceedings were initiated pursuant to the issuance of two show cause notices dated 28.5.97. 4. The appellants were engaged in the processing of woollen fabrics assessable under erstwhile Tariff Item No.21 of Central Excise Tariff Act and they were availing exemption under Notification No.30...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Punjab Wire Vs. Cce, Chandigarh
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per: Shri Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar: Heard the learned Advocate for the appellants and learned DR for the respondent. The appellants challenge the order dated 29.11.2004 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Chandigarh. By the impugned order, the appeal which was filed by the appellants before the Commissioner (Appeals),was dismissed for non-compliance of the requirement of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. The appellants are engaged in manufacture of various items of iron and steel classifiable under chapter sub-heading 7217.90, 7313.00, 7312.10 and 7314.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Alleging that the appellants were misutilising SSI exemption under Notification No. 9/2000-CE dated 1.3.2000, a show cause notice came to be issued to the appellants on 19.11.2001 calling upon the appellants to show cause as to why an amount of Rs. 5,96,511/- for the period 1.10.2000 to 31.3.2001 should not be ordered to be paid. 3. The proceedings were contested by the appella...
Tag this Judgment!