Delhi Court July 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 11 of about 331 results (0.011 seconds)C.C.E, Lucknow Vs. M/S. Phoolchand Sales Corporation and Others
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: These three appeals are by the department and arise out of same order of the Commissioner (Appeals) 85 to 87-CE/LKO/2007 dated 27.7.07. 2. Heard both sides. 3. On 30.8.04, the officers intercepted the vehicle (tempo) No. UP53 D 1251 with 40 gunny bags of Phoolchand Super Brand gutkha and driver was having invoice No. 253 dated 30.8.2004 for 10 bags of gutkha issued by M/s. Phoolchand Sales Corporation in favour of M/s. Priyadarshni Stores, Gorakhpur. The entire goods were seized along with the vehicle. The investigation conducted revealed that M/s. Phoolchand Sales Corporation is a manufacturer of gutkha and M/s. M M Marketing is a proprietary concern of wife of Proprietor of M/s. Phoolchand Sales Corporation and that gutkha was also being sold through M/s. M.M. Marketing. The stock taking at the manufacturer’s premises revealed 3 gunny bags of gutkha in excess of the RGI stock. Later, one Shri Rama Naryan Mauraya claimed 30 bags out of seized 40 bags and produ...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.and C.Ex., Raipur Vs. M/S Hari Om Ingots Power (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 Commissioner (Appeals) No. 19/RPR-II/2007 dated 7.2.2007 which upheld the order of the original authority which was in favour of the assessee. 2. Heard the learned SDR. There is a written submission dated 18.8.09 made by the respondents seeking decision on merit. . 3. Learned SDR submits that the respondents procured M.S. channels, angle, PF beam, plate, and joist, and used them in the manufacture of supporting structure of crane and top part of the furnace and availed credit. He submits that credit on these items are not available in the light of the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. vs. C.C.E., Raipur reported in 2010 (253) ELT 440. He fairly concedes that both the authorities below have proceeded on the finding that the impugned items were used for manufacture of capital goods, and, therefore, there is no certainty about the actual use of the material. 4. I have c...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E., Kanpur Vs. M/S Sarada Steel Industries 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) setting aside the order of the original authority in so far as the same relates to M/s Sarada Steel Industries Ltd. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the Officers of DGCEI and Central Excise Commissionerate, Kanpur searched the factory premises of the respondents and other connected premises. They conducted stock taking verification of the finished goods. By inspection and weighment of CTD bars and MS ingots, they found physical stock of CTD bars of 759.9 MT whereas the stock shown in the RG-1 register was only 656.505 MT. They also found 30 MT of scrap as against the recorded stock of 22.360 MT. The officers also , according to the learned SDR, seized incriminating documents indicating suppression of production and clandestine removal. In pursuance of the show cause notice, the original authority ordered confiscation of 103.395 MT of CTD bars valued at Rs....
Tag this Judgment!C.C.(Prev.), Lucknow Vs. Shri Ram Avtar Singh Chauhan
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. 08-CUS/MRT II/2009 dated 26.10.2009. 2. Heard the learned SDR who reiterates the grounds of appeal. Heard the learned Advocate for the respondents. 3. This is rather a strange case in which gold jewellery valued Rs.4,91,336/- and Indian currency amounting to Rs. 2,87,000/- were stolen by a Nepalese servant from the appellant s premises after drugging his wife and FIR was lodged about the theft on 3.11.2007 in Kirti Nagar Police Station, New Delhi. The police acted promptly by conveying message to the Customs authorities at Nepal Border; the Customs authorities at Nepal Border apprehended the two Nepalese citizens who were trying to escape with the stolen goods. In other words, the stolen goods were material objects in the police case and that they were also goods seized under Customs Act and subsequently, confiscated under Customs Act for attempted illegal export to Nepal. 4. The...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/S. Crop Care Pesticides Pvt. 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. 41/CE/APPL/CHD-II/2009 dated 9.10.09 by which the order of the original authority confirming demand of duty and imposing penalty stands set aside. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The respondent is a manufacturer of pesticides and they are availing Cenvat credit on inputs and input services. They also procure river sand which is one of the non-dutiable inputs and incur goods transport agency services for bringing the inputs to the factory and take credit of Service Tax paid on GTA services. Show cause notice was issued alleging that part of the sand was sold by the respondents as such to M/s. Punjab Chemicals and Crop Protection Ltd. and in view of the same, the credit taken on input services associated with procurement of the sand was not eligible. Original authority confirmed demand of Rs.55,765/- along with interest and imposed equal amount as penalty. On appeal by the party, the Commis...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.and C.Ex., Raipur (C.G.) Vs. M/S Hira Industries 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 Commissioner (Appeals) No. 138/RPR-II/2007 dated 14.8.2007. Cross-Objection No.30/2008 which is basically in support of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is connected to this appeal. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The respondent is a provider of business auxiliary services. They are engaged in crushing of iron ore lumps on job work basis for third parties. The respondents have received items like M.S. angle, channels, M.S. plates, joist, CTD bars and M.S. beams and utilised the same for construction/fabrication of civil foundation/building structure, conveyor belt, crushing plant. The original authority denied the credit on these items and ordered recovery of Rs.5,52,395/- along with interest and imposed penalty of Rs.50,000/- under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Commissioner (Appeals) held that these items could be considered as capital goods and also as inputs and allowed the appeal. He also held tha...
Tag this Judgment!Lt Col Deepak Bali Versus the Govt. of India
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. This application has been brought against the findings and the order of the General Court Martial (GCM) dated 07.04.2007 whereby convicting the accused/applicant for the offences under Section 69 of the Army Act R/w. Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and punishing him for dismissal from service. It is said that the applicant has falsely been roped into this case. There is no evidence worth credence to fix the culpability of the accused/applicant. The work of the firm M/s.Pushpa Engineering Works of which PW2 Sh. Shriram Yadav was the sole Proprietor authorised his son Sh.Suresh Kumar Yadav, PW1 to look after the affairs of the said firm by way of executing the Power of Attorney. The firm defaulted in completing the work as per specifications. Time and again they were warned as is also decipherable from Exh.36, 37, 39 41, 42, 43, 45 and 46. Apart from it, PW1 Sh.Suresh Kumar Yadav was not competent to supervise the work as he was not having engineering qualification. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Satyaveer Singh (No. 14391055-k, Ex Gunner) Versus Union of India and ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. This appeal has been preferred against the Summary Court Martial (SCM) proceedings of 14.11.1994, wherein the appellant was sentenced to be dismissed from service. The appellant seeks to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. 2. The appellant states that in his nine years of service, he has performed to the best of his abilities and has even been awarded a High Altitude medal and a Sainya Sewa medal. He has a good service record. He has been posted at various stations under different Commanding Officers (CO) and has performed his duties to the best of his abilities. In 1994, when he had approximately nine years service and was serving in 100 Field Regiment, he was granted leave for 32 days from 5.8.1994 to 6.9.1994. Although he was entitled to sixty days of annual leave, he was sanctioned only 32 days. At the time of expiry of his leave, his mother, who was approximately sixty years of age, fell sick and the appellant initially treated her in the village and subse...
Tag this Judgment!Si Suresh Kumar Vs. Union of India ors
Court: Delhi
1. Issue pertains: Whether, on being invalidated from service on medical grounds, with disability certified to be 90%, is petitioner entitled to be sanctioned disability pension?2. It is not in dispute that as per CCS (Extra Ordinary Pension) Rules, if it is to be found that the disability incurred by the petitioner is attributable to or aggravated by service, petitioner would be entitled to disability pension at 100%, in view of OM dated 10.12.2010 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions.3. Petitioner claims to be enrolled as a Head Constable in CISF under Sports Quota. Winning laurels for the organization and in view of his excellent performance, petitioner claims to having earned accelerated promotion firstly to the rank of ASI and then as a Sub-Inspector. This is admitted by the respondents.4. Petitioner claims that while representing CISF at All- India Police Games at Bhopal, in the month of December 1996, he had a fall due to which he later on developed Cervical Sp...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Jallandhar Vs. M/S. Ambika Overseas
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. 119/CE/APPL/JAL/2008 dated 27.3.2008. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The respondents are a manufacturer of hand tools and part of the goods manufactured by them are being exported. The respondents appointed Overseas Commission Agents who are entrusted with the job of canvassing and procuring orders for the products in overseas market and, thus, helping them in sales of the goods and in following up of the payments from the overseas buyers. The said overseas commission agents did not have offices in India. The proceedings were initialled against the respondents and they were directed to pay the service tax on the overseas commission paid by them in their capacity as recipient of services. The respondents paid the service tax amounting to Rs.4,20,592/- on 25.8.06 along with interest. Immediately thereafter they have taken Rs.4,20,592/- as credit of service tax paid by them by treating the...
Tag this Judgment!