Delhi Court June 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Fabrico (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs. C.C.E, Meerut
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
Per Justice Ajit Bharihoke (Oral): 1. M/s Fabrico (India) Pvt. Ltd., the appellant herein is enaged in the manufacture of base plate, steel tubular poles classifiable under heading 7308 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 2. The appellant established his first manufacturing unit at Meerut and got it registered with the Excise Department. Subsequently, the appellant established second manufacturing unit at Dabwali Road,Sirsa, Haryana which was also registered with the Excise Department. 3. In the year 2005, the appellant decided to stop production at his second unit located at Dabwali Road, Sirsa. Thus he wrote a letter dated 11.5.2005 to the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Hisar informing him about his intention to close the second unit and to merge the same with the first unit located at Meerut. The appellant also intimated that he intended to transfer the capital goods and also that stock of inputs was nil at the relevant time and requested for permission to transfe...
Mohd Tahir Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
Per Archana Wadhwa: 1. Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of same impugned order passed by the lower authorities. 2. As per facts on record, the officer of directorate of Revenue Intelligence intercepted one truck enroute to Gorkhpur on 7.11.07, the same was found to be loaded with scrap of old and used fused battery of various sizes. Inasmuch as markings on some of the goods indicated that they were manufactured in Japan, Revenue entertained a view that the said goods were smuggled. 3. The statement of driver, Shri Rajesh Yadav, was recorded on 7.11.07 wherein, he inter alia deposed that the goods were belonging to one Shri Rajesh Babu, owner of M/s. Jai Ambey Traders, Nautanwa. He further stated that he had gone to the house of Shri Rajesh Babu for loading of the said goods along with his younger brother Shri Girijesh Babu. Inasmuch as the said goods were not found at the premises, he was told to wait and Shri Girijesh Babu went to Nepal and c...
M/S. Cosmos Ispat Pvt. Ltd Vs. Cce, Raipur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-26-2012
Ajit Bharihoke (Oral) 1. The appellants are engaged in manufacture of MS angles, MS Channels, falling under chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006 (upto October 2006) availed cenvat credit in respect of various items like MS Angles, MS Channels, MS Plates etc. The appellant have been filing ER-1 returns month by month. 2. Audit of the accounts of the appellant was conducted by the audit team of Central Excise in the year 2006 and it was found that the appellant has wrongly availed cenvat credit on various items like MS Angles, MS Channels, MS Plates etc. This lead to issue of show cause notice dated 05.03.2008 against the appellant whereby duty demand in respect of inadmissible cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,02,458/- was raised and imposition of penalty under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules was proposed. 3. The appellant contested the show cause notice wherein he took the plea that the goods in question we...
Commissioner of Central Excise Kanpur Vs. M/S. Quality Laminators
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-26-2012
Per Archana Wadhwa: 1. I have heard Shri Sanjay Jain, learned AR appearing in support of Revenues appeal, and Shri Hrishikesh, learned advocate appearing for the respondent. 2. As per facts on record, the appellants factory was visited by the Central Excise officers on 6.1.06, who conducted various checks and verifications, as a result shortages were detected in the stock of raw materials. The appellants representative admitted such shortages and also paid duty involved therein. On the above basis, proceedings were initiated against the respondents, for imposition of penalties. The respondent took a stand that though they have admitted shortages, but the fact of clandestine removal does not stand admitted by the authorized representative. They have deposited the duty amount so as to avoid litigation, no penalty should be imposed upon them. 3. The original adjudicating authority accepted the above contention and did not impose any penalty. Revenue filed an appeal thereagainst before Co...
M/S. Mohendra Construction Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahab ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-26-2012
Per Archana Wadhwa (for the Bench): 1. After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs.11,65,355/- and penalties imposed upon the applicant, we proceed to decide the appeal itself inasmuch as we are convinced that the impugned order stands passed by Commissioner (Appeals) in a most cryptic manner and without application of mind. 2. After hearing both sides, we find that appellant is registered with the Service Tax department with effect from in or around 2009 for providing service of tangible goods. Said services become taxable with effect from 16.5.08. As the appellant was providing said services to M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd., Revenue sought figures of payment to the present appellant from M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd. as reflected in their book of account. It was found that M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd. has made a payment of Rs.1,10,56,813/- to the appellant between the period 1.4.2005 till March, 2010. 3. As the above receipts from M/s. Hindalco Industrie...
C.C.E, Lucknow Vs. Electricity Pole Manufacturing, Unit, Sub-divisiona ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
Per Justice Ajit Bharihoke (Oral): 1. By this order, we propose to dispose of above two appeals preferred by Revenue against the respective orders in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) involving same parties and similar question of law and facts. 2. Briefly stated the facts relevant for disposal of these appeals are that M/s Electricity Pole manufacturing, Unit, Sub-Division I, UPSEB (now known as U.P. Power Corporation Ltd.), Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow is engaged in the manufacture of PCC poles falling under sub-heading 6807.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period with effect from January 2002 to June, 2002 which is the subject matter of appeal No.E/1958/2005, the respondent cleared PCC poles valued at Rs.16,12,925/- at nil rate of duty claiming benefit of SSI exemption under said Notification No.8/2001-CE dated 1.3.2001. Similarly, during the period July, 2002 to December 2002, the respondent cleared PCC poles valued at nil rate of duty claiming the benefit...
Dr. Mohd. Sohail Fazal Vs. State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
MANMOHAN SINGH, J. 1. The present application has been filed by Dr. Mohd. Sohail Fazal under Section 438 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case of FIR No.127/2012, under Sections 306/498-A IPC registered at Police Station Seema Puri, Delhi. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had no role to play in the suicide of his wife, namely, Dr. Smitha Rani on 22.04.2012 at House No.822, Pocket-D, Dilshad Garden, Delhi. According to the petitioner, he has been falsely implicated in the above said case and is totally innocent. 3. Admittedly, the marriage of the petitioner with the deceased, Dr. Smitha Rani was solemnized on 06.04.2010 at Delhi as per Section 13 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The deceased, Dr. Smitha Rani was Hindu by birth, whereas the petitioner is a Muslim. They both married due to love and affection. No child was born out of the said wedlock. The petitioner‟s counsel submits that as some temperamental d...
C.C.and C.Ex, Meerut Ii Vs. M/S Hsa Chadha Exports
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-19-2012
Per Justice Ajit Bharihoke (Oral): 1. The above quoted appeals are filed by Revenue against a common order of Commissioner (Appeals) No. 64-69/CE/MRT-II/2005 dated 16.5.2005 whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) accepting the appeals filed by respondents M/s HAS Chadha Exports set aside the order in original rejecting refund claim of the respondent and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for re-examination of the refund claims of the respondent in the light of the observations made in the order. 2. Revenue being aggrieved of the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) have preferred these appeals on sole ground that as per Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, Commissioner (Appeals) have no power to remand the case back for de novo adjudication. 3. The respondent has contested the appeals by filing cross-objection in respect of the above referred appeals and taken a position that in view of the judgments of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., R...
M/S Modipoon Fibres Company Vs. Cce, Ghaziabad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-19-2012
Ajit Bharihoke (Oral), J. 1. M/s Modipon Fibres Company, Modinagar, the appellant herein are engaged in manufacture of man made fibre and yarn falling under heading No. 54.04 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 2. During the period 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 (upto February 2004) the appellant while clearing the goods from its factory collected charity /Dharmada from the customers. The appellant however did not include the amount of charity/Dharmada collected from the customers in the valuation for the purpose of excise duty. 3. The Supreme court vide its judgement in civil appeal No. 7900-7902/95 in the matter of CCE vs. Panchmukhi Engg. Works and Others reported in 2003 (158) E.L.T. 550 (S.C.) held that ‘Dharmada charges’ collected by the manufacturer from the buyer would be included in the transaction value for the purpose of the excise duty. In view of the said judgement the Department issued a ...
Mrs. Kamna Malhotra Vs. Samiah International Builders Private Ltd. Thr ...
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Jun-19-2012
N.A. Zaidi, President. 1. This Complaint has been filed with the allegation that the complainant booked a flat in "Garden City" with OP-1 in the month of October 2007 and deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/- vide cheque No.0005477 dt. 15.10.07. Flat bearing no.201, type C in Block C1 on the second floor was allotted and a buyers agreement dt. 26.12.07 was executed with OP. A cheque of Rs.1,55,000/- was deposited on 19.12,07. In total Rs.1,75,000/- were deposited. A Tripartite agreement with the Dewan Housing Finance Company was also executed on 08.01.08. As per the terms and conditions of the buyer agreement the entire pre-interest EMI amount until possession was to be delivered, is to be compensated by PDC cheques in favour of the complainant. The date of possession of the flat was to be 22 months from the date of the booking and at the time of the offer of possession, the complainant have a choice of either retaining the flat or returning back to the OP wherein the complainant was to be re...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »