Full Text
Translation output
I
$-26 & 27 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CEAC 42/2013
M/S JAIN & COMPANY (THR ITS PROPRIETOR PAWAN KUMAR JAIN) Petitioner
Through Mr. C. Hari Shankar and Mr. S.
Sunil, Advocates.
$-26 & 27 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CEAC 42/2013
M/S JAIN & COMPANY (THR ITS PROPRIETOR PAWAN KUMAR JAIN) Petitioner
Through Mr. C. Hari Shankar and Mr. S.
Sunil, Advocates.
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF CENTPL\L EXCISE DELHI-I Respondent
Through Mr. Satish Kumar, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Harish Makhija, Advocate.
Through Mr. Satish Kumar, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Harish Makhija, Advocate.
CEAC 43/2013
ANIL SALES CORPORATION Petitioner
Through Mr. C. Hari Shankar and Mr. S.
Sunil, Advocates.
ANIL SALES CORPORATION Petitioner
Through Mr. C. Hari Shankar and Mr. S.
Sunil, Advocates.
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE DELHI-I Respondent
Through Mr. Satish Kumar, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Harish Makhija, Advocate.
Through Mr. Satish Kumar, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Harish Makhija, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
06.09.2013 Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. We notice that the order-in-original not only refers to the statement of Pawan
2013:DHC:7686-DB / Kumar Jain, but also tbe statement of Anita Jain. These statements may have been retracted but there are other statements and corroborative evidence/material which have been referred to in the order-in-original including the data downloaded from the laptop, statement of purchasers etc.
Statement of the accountant has been relied.
Looked from any angle, we do not think that the impugned order requires or justifies interference.
At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the time for payment of the first instalment has lapsed. On his prayer, we extend the time for making payment of the first instalment up to 2L' September, 2013. The second, third and fourth instalment will be payable on or before 29^''
October, 2013, 29^*^ November, 2013 and 30'^ December, 2013, respectively.
The appeal is disposed of.
SEPTEMBER 06, 2013 NA ^ I ^ SANJIV KHANNA, J.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
2013:DHC:7686-DB
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
06.09.2013 Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. We notice that the order-in-original not only refers to the statement of Pawan
2013:DHC:7686-DB / Kumar Jain, but also tbe statement of Anita Jain. These statements may have been retracted but there are other statements and corroborative evidence/material which have been referred to in the order-in-original including the data downloaded from the laptop, statement of purchasers etc.
Statement of the accountant has been relied.
Looked from any angle, we do not think that the impugned order requires or justifies interference.
At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the time for payment of the first instalment has lapsed. On his prayer, we extend the time for making payment of the first instalment up to 2L' September, 2013. The second, third and fourth instalment will be payable on or before 29^''
October, 2013, 29^*^ November, 2013 and 30'^ December, 2013, respectively.
The appeal is disposed of.
SEPTEMBER 06, 2013 NA ^ I ^ SANJIV KHANNA, J.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
2013:DHC:7686-DB
JUDGMENT