Delhi Court July 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 26 of about 331 results (0.020 seconds)C.C.E., Raipur and Another Vs. Hira Ferro Alloys Ltd. and Others
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: These appeals involving common issues and are accordingly being disposed of by this common order. Appeal No.E/3176/06 2.1 The relevant facts, in brief, are that the respondents used M.S. Angles, channels, joist, flats, plats etc. for fabrication of structures, building foundation and shed. The original authority held that the items are not eligible for modvat credit and accordingly, confirmed the demand of Rs.5,05,580/- along with interest and imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the order of the original authority. 2.2 Learned DR submits that the impugned items are not eligible for credit as settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. vs. C.C.E., Raipur reported in 2010 (253) ELT 440. 2.3 Learned Advocate for the respondents submits that the impugned items have been used in the manufacture of electric arc furnace and therefore covered by the exception mentioned in para 50 of the decision of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Lucknow Vs. M/S Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: Appeal No. E/1689 of 2008 is by the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 54-CE/LKO/2008 dated 24.4.2008. The cross-objection No. 330 of 2008 is connected to this appeal. 2. Heard both sides. 3. On 1.6.2010 when the matter was on the board, the ld. DR pointed out that as per cross-objection, the party’s appeal No. E/1529/08 against the same order is pending and the same have to be tagged on. It has since been noticed that Appeal No. 1529/08 stands disposed of by final Order No. 535/2010 dated 6.5.2010. 4. The original authority vide order dated 11.1.2008 confirmed demand of Rs.3,73,515/-along with interest and imposed equal amount of penalty on the assessee. Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 24.4.08 upheld the demand but set aside the penalty. The party has filed appeal against the demand upheld against them and the said appeal has been disposed of by the Tribunal by remanding the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals). The ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Shakumbari Sugar and Allied Ind. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) 39-CE/MRT I/2007 dated 23.2.2007. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The appellant is a manufacturer of sugar, molasses, ethyl alcohol and ethanol. They are availing Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods. The appellant has received steel items like shapes and sections, channels, joists, H. Beam, MS Grating and Steel profile sheets and taken credit of Rs.3,81,541/- relating to the period June, 2004 to November, 2004. The appellants took credit on some items as inputs and on other items as capital goods. The original authority after holding that the appellants have failed to put forward the specific use of the goods i.e. the exact location and use of each of the item, confirmed the demand of Rs.3,81,541/- along with interest. He appropriated Rs.3,81,541/- which was already deposited. In addition, he imposed a penalty of Rs.3,81,541/-. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order of the original authority. 4. Le...
Tag this Judgment!C.C. and C.Ex.,, Raipur (C.G.) Vs. M/S Aparna Carbons Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: This appeal is by the Department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No.59/RPR-II/2007 dated 8.3.2007, by which the order of the original authority which was in favour of the assessee in so far as the same allowed the credit amounting to Rs.2,87,313/- on M.S. angles, plates, channels, HR coil, flats which were used in the manufacture and the erection of plant and machinery was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The demand relates to the period October, 2004 to September 2005 raised by show cause notice dated 6.1.06. 2. The learned SDR submits that the decision of the original authority and the Commissioner(Appeals) in allowing the credit is irregular as held by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. vs. C.C.E., Raipur reported in 2010 (253) ELT 440. 3. None appears for the respondent in spite of notice. On earlier occasions also that is on 25.3.10 and 15.1.10, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. 4.1 Perusal of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Raipur Vs. M/S Chhattisgarh Steel Castings (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.151-CE/RPR/APPEAL-II/2006 dated 22.1.2007 by which the order of the original authority dated 30.6.2006, which was in favour of the assessee was upheld. 2. None appears for the respondent in spite of notice. Further, written submissions have been filed by the respondent. 3. Heard the ld. DR. 4. The respondent has used MS beam for fabricating supporting structure for the EOT crane. Show Cause Notice dated 7.4.2006 was issued proposing demand of Rs.51,362/- relating to the period 14.8.2002 to 29.8.2002. The original authority after considering the submissions dropped the proceedings and the order of the original authority stands upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. Ld. DR submits that since the items involved are used for fabricating supporting structure, the respondents are not eligible for CENVAT credit and the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Hpl Additives Ltd. Vs. Cce, Faridabad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan : Vide Stay Order No. 186/2010-SM(BR) and 185/2010-SM(BR) both dated 10.5.2010, the appellants were directed to make pre-deposit of Rs. One lakh each and to report compliance on 6.7.2010. It is noticed that the stay orders have not been complied with. In view of the above, both the appeals are dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944....
Tag this Judgment!M/S Rajasthan Metals and Chemicals Vs. Cce, Jaipur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan Vide Stay Order No. 167/2010 dated 3.5.2010, the appellant was directed to make pre-deposit of Rs. 50,000/- and to report compliance on 6.7.2010. It is noticed that there is no compliance to the said stay order. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with stay order dated 3.5.2010....
Tag this Judgment!Surinder Pal Sharma Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Salma Noor, Member: 1. This appeal has been filed by the complainant/appellant against the order dated 11th March, 2008 passed by the District Fourm-II, Udyog Sadan, C-22 and 23, Institutional Area, Behind Qutab Hotal, New Delhi-110016 in complaint case No. 200/2006, by which the complaint of the complainant/appellant was allowed against the respondent-Delhi Development Authority in the manner that the respondent Delhi Development Authority was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000 as compensation and Rs. 5,000 as cost of litigation. Dissatisfied with quantum of compensation, the complainant/appellant has filed this appeal praying for enhancement of compensation amount. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant for NPRS Scheme 1979 floated by the respondent- Delhi Development Authority for allotment of MIG/LIG flats and deposited Rs. 1,500 as registration money on 25.9.1979 and was assigned priority No. 49338 for allotment. He however, applied for refund of his registration money...
Tag this Judgment!Nand Lal Dhingra Vs. Bank of Baroda
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
M.L. Sahni, Member (Judicial): 1. The complainant Shri Nand Lal Dhingra has filed this appeal against the order dated 24.2.2007 passed in his complaint case No. 774/06, by the District Forum (East) Saini Enclave, Delhi dismissing his complaint on the ground that the complaint does not constitute consumer dispute, that it is barred by limitation and that complainant failed to prove his allegations. 2. The Appellant has assailed the impugned order mainly on the following grounds: The learned District Forum got engrossed into other issues of the Bank and overlooked the status of complainant as a consumer and his deposit lying with the Respondent Bank. The documents filed by respondent before the learned District Forum clearly show that on 16.9.1995 FDR of Rs. 2,04,000 was made in Saving Account No. 987 of complainant and statement dated 15.11.2006 shows that there was a balance of Rs. 2,93,509.50 on 13.7.2006 (annexed with this appeal). 3. Facts as alleged in the complaint by the appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Neeraj Gupta Vs Commissioner of Income Tax
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 the judgment should be reported in Digest ? ORDER1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and it arises out of the order dated 30.01.2009 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA 386/Del/2005 in respect of the block period 01.04.1990 to 18.01.2001. The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal:-"1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued beyond the prescribed period of limitation and as a consequence thereof the block assessment order under 158 BC(c) of the said Act was bad in law ?2. Whether, if the notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is held to have been issued within time, the block assessment order dated 30.07.2004 was barred by limitation?"2....
Tag this Judgment!