Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1985)LC1103Tri(Delhi)
1. The facts of this case, is brief, are that the appellants claimed benefit of exemption Notification No. 145/74-CE dated 12.10.1974 (commonly known as incentive rebate for higher production of sugar).They filed a refund claim for Rs. 45,144.45 on 25.8.1975. The Assistant Collector deducted a small amount out of it on account of re-processing loss and sanctioned their claim for Rs. 42,260.00 on 10.11.1975. The appellants took credit of the amount sanctioned in their Personal Ledger Account on 15 11.1975. Subsequently, through their Association etc., they learnt that Madras and Karnataka High Courts had interpreted the aforesaid notification in a different manner which was more beneficial to them. These High Courts had held that the various percentage slabs of concession in the Table annexed to the notification should relate to the excess production of sugar and not to its average production. Thereupon, the appellants submitted a revised claim for Rs. 1,56,898.83 on 2.4.1976 and asked...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2005)(103)ECC136
1. In this appeal, the appellants have contested the correctness of the part of the impugned order relating to the demand of interest from them.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants during the period in dispute opted to work under the Compound Levy Procedure from 1.5.2001. They submitted an application to avail special procedure relating to processed textile fabrics from that date by alleging that they were eligible for the said procedure as the original value of plant and machinery did not exceed Rs. 3 crores. They accordingly paid the duty under the Compound Levy Scheme, but again from 1st September reverted to the Adv. basis for having purchased a merceriser and as a result thereof, the value of their plant and machinery exceeded Rs. 3 crores. However, on verification, it revealed that they were not entitled to avail the Compound Levy facility as the value of the plant and machinery was more than Rs. 3 crores as on 1st March, 2001. They were required to pay the diffe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2010(173)LC1(Delhi); 2010(251)ELT162(Del)
Siddharth Mridul, J.1. By way of the present writ petition, the Petitioner seeks to challenge the miscellaneous order No. 142/CE/09-SC(PB) dated 29th April, 2009 and prays for the following relief:(i) Quash and set aside the impugned miscellaneous order dated 29.4.2009 and received by the petitioner on 8.5.2009 to the extent it denies the benefit of payment of penalty @ 25% as provided under Section 11AC of the Excise Act;(ii) Consequent to (i) above, direct the Settlement Commission to grant to the petitioner, complete immunity from penalty or in the alternative, extend the benefit of reduced payment of penalty @ 25% under Section 11AC.2. The facts as are necessary for the adjudication of the present writ petition may be adumbrated as follows:(a) The Petitioner is a manufacturer of readymade Khaini under the brand name 'Madhu. falling under Chapter 24 of the 1st Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and is registered with the concerned Central Excise Authorities.(b) Based on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2001)(76)ECC579
1. In this appeal filed by M/s Tata Engg. & Locomotive Co. Ltd., the issue involved is whether the Collector was competent to adjudicate the matter without issuing the shown cause notices and whether the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 217/86 dt. 2-4-86 and 281/86 dt.22-4-86 was available to material handling equipments and measuring and checking instruments manufacture by them.2. Shri R. Swaminathan, 1d. Consultant, submitted, that the Appellants manufacture Motor Vehicle and parts thereof; that they also manufacture material handling equipments like lifting tackes, trolleys, conveyors, carriers, loading-unloading equipments etc., and measuring and checking equipments for captive use; that before the introduction of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985, all these items were exempt under Notification 118/75-CE; that after introduction of new Tariff these were exempt under notification no. 217/86 as these were captively used in or in relation to the manufacture of the fin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided On :20. 03.2014 + W.P.(C) 6224/2013 M/S GLYPH INTERNATIONAL LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. J.K. Mittal, Adv. Versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Mukesh Anand, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. The petitioner challenges the decision of the Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) whereby it ruled that an appeal in respect of refund and rebate claims is not maintainable before it in view of Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act since it finds specific mention in Section 83 after its amendment in 2011.2. The facts briefly are that the petitioner is a service tax assessee. It made a refund claim in respect of service tax export turn-over. Aggrieved by an order refusing the refund, it preferred an appeal to the CESTAT under Section 86. The Tribunal by the order impugned in this case accepted the revenues cont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2000)(122)ELT485TriDel
1. M/s. R.K. Texcon (India) Ltd. and 12 others feeling aggrieved with the common Order-in-Original dated 11.06.99 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II had filed separate appeals with the Tribunal, which were received in the Registry on 10.09.99. Alongwith the appeals, they also filed 13 separate stay applications for waiving the requirement of pre-deposit of duty and penalty amounts adjudged against them, till the disposal of their appeals.2. The stay applications came-up for hearing on 14-10-1999 when on request made by the applicants the same were adjourned to 11-11-1999.On 11-11-1999, when the matter was called, no one appeared for the applicants. The Bench noted that the matter had come-up earlier on 14-10-1999 when on request made by the applicants in the presence of one Shri Ved Prakash, the matter was adjourned for 11-11-99. As there was no reason for any adjournment, the matter was proceeded with and was dealt with on merits after hearing the Departmental Re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2002)(80)ECC541
2. Revenue filed this Appeal against the portion of the adjudication Order where, the Commissioner of Central Excise held that the provisions of Sections 11AC and Section 11AB of Central Excise Act are applicable only in respect of demand of the period after 28.9.96.3. The contention of the Revenue is that when the Commissioner in the impugned Order held that there is suppression on the part of the assessee during the period in dispute, therefore, the provisions of Sections 11AB and 11AC are applicable to the whole of the period in dispute.4. We find that this issue is now settled by the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE v. Supra Foundry Services (P) Ltd. Hon'ble High Court has held that penalty under Section 11AC and penal interest under Section 11AB of Central Excise Act is not leviable where the alleged offence and removal of the goods took place before introduction of these Sections i.e. 28.9.96. Hon'ble High Court relied upon the decision of the Apex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2003)(157)ELT297TriDel
1. This appeal is at the instance of the assessee. The order impugned is passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur confirming the duty demand of Rs. 1, 06, 39, 037/- under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs. The duty was confirmed on the ground that since the appellants are availing exemption on final product, namely, coated paper under Notification No.3/2001-CE dated 1.3.2001, they are liable t pay duty on uncoated paper.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of coated and uncoated paper falling under Chapter 48 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Notification No. 3/2001-CE grants exemption from payment of duty to paper and paper board or articles made therefrom upto the first clearance of an aggregate quantity of 3500 MTs in any financial year, subject t the condition that the pulp from which such paper is manufactured should have been made out of not less than 75% of non-conventional raw material. Adm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2006)(111)ECC231
1. This stay application is directed against order in appeal dated 28/03/2006 which set aside the penalties imposed on the respondents.Since, the issue involved is squarely covered by the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court, the stay application filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal itself taken for disposal.2. The relevant fact that arise for consideration are that the respondent's factory was visited by the officers of the Central Excise and on the physical stock being verified, found shortage of some finished goods on which duty was paid by the respondent immediately. A show cause notice was issued on 12/02/04 to the respondents i.e.subsequent to the debits of the duty involved. The adjudicating authority appropriated the amount of duty paid and also imposed penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. On an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) relying upon the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal and also in the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v.Commission...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. In view of the objection raised by the Registry, heard on the question of territorial jurisdiction. 2. This is an OA, under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 seeking the following reliefs:- 1) Declaration to the effect that the ACRs in question are technically invalid, 2) Quashment of the result of No 3 Selection Board qua the petitioner and 3) Direction to consider the case of applicant by No. 3 Special Review (Fresh) Selection Board and in the event of his being declared fit for promotion to grant all consequential benefits including no loss of seniority. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner is presently posted as a Lt.Col. at Meerut Cantt. and none of the ACRs was recorded or reviewed at New Delhi. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner, has strenuously contended that the order dated 04.02.2013 (Annexure A-1) rejecting the statutory complaint made by him against the non-empanelment and technically invalid ACRs, constituted a part of cause of action in terms of Rule 6(1)(ii) A...
Tag this Judgment!