Delhi Court November 2004 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Capital Trust Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)2STR69

1. Revenue is in appeal against that portion of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) by which he has reduced the penalty from Rs. 3200 to Rs. 500 imposed upon the respondent for late payment of service tax. He has observed that the tax is only to the extent of Rs. 210 and Rs. 490 and as such a lenient view is required to be taken.2. I do not find any infirmity in the above view of the Commissioner (Appeals). Revenue's contention that mandatory penalty of Rs. 100 under the provisions of Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 should have been imposed is not being found favoured with inasmuchas it is settled law that the quantum of penalty under a particular section is only the maximum to be imposed and it is the discretion of the authority, to be exercised judiciously, in the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the foregoing, I reject the Revenue's appeal....

Sanchay Finance Co. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)93TTJ(Delhi)153

1. This is an appeal by assessee against the order of CIT(A) relating to asst. yr. 2001-02. The assessee is objecting in not allowing the various expenses incurred on maintaining the establishment at Rs. 73,268 against the interest income and profit on sale of shares at Rs. 1,49,472.2. During the assessment proceedings the AO. noted that the RBI has not granted registration for running the finance activities. Therefore, the interest earned by assessee on money advanced was held as income from other sources and the various expenses claimed in P&L a/c were not allowed to be set off against the interest income as well as profit on sale of shares. The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO. Now, the assessee is in appeal here before the Tribunal.3. After considering rival submissions and perusing other material on record, I find that assessee deserves to succeed in its appeal. I noted that assessee is doing the money lending business since 1990 and the various expenses claimed by ...

Hotel Scopevista Ltd. Vs. Shri Shobhnath Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 116(2005)DLT40; 2005(79)DRJ169

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. After perusing the affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner in addition to the process server's report dated 6th November, 2004, service has been effected and I am further satisfied that the respondent is deliberately evading the service and accordingly the service is deemed to be complete. Since no one appears for the respondent the matter is directed to be proceeded ex-parte against the respondent. Accordingly the matter is taken up today.2. This petition on behalf of the petitioner under Section 24 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(in short the `CPC') seeks transfer of the suits between the parties to the present petition, pending before the District Courts, Delhi as prayed in Paras 11 to 16 of the petition.3. After considering the facts narrated in the petition and after perusing the provisions of Section 24(1)(b) of the CPC permitting the withdrawal of the suit pending in the subordinate courts for disposal before this Court, I a...

Brig Iqbal Singh, Vsm (Retd) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 119(2005)DLT715; 2005(79)DRJ492

ORDER ANDSection 63 MILITARY DISCIPLINEin that he, at New Delhi, on 05 Nov 2000, while holding the appointment of Deputy Director General, Procurement and Progressing Organisation in Master General of Ordnance Branch, Army Headquarters, improperly met Shri Samuel Mathew, a representatives of M/s West End International, a non existent foreign firm, without verifying his antecedents and the products intended to be introduced in the Army by the said Firm.Fourth ChargeArmy Act AN OMMISSION PREJUCIAL TO GOOD ...

Fruit and Vegetable Commission Agents and ors. Vs. Delhi Agricultural ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 115(2004)DLT333

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Prayers made in the petition are as under:-'(a) issue a writ of prohibition, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, restraining respondents No.1, 2 and 3 from displacing/dispossessing the members of the petitioner association from half of the space already occupied and in their possession on the auction-platforms at the Okhla Fruit and Vegetable Mandi;(b) issue a writ of prohibition, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, restraining the respondents no.1, 2 and 3 from enforcing and implementing the Agenda Item No.7 as contained in the minutes of the meeting of the Market Committee held on 23.8.2001 or any other similar resolution/agenda item;(c) issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, quashing and setting aside the resolution of the respondent No.2 at Agenda Item No.7 as decided in the minutes of the Market Committee meeting held on 23.8.2001;(d) issue a writ of mandamus, or in the nature th...

Shri Dharampal and anr. Vs. Shri Ramesh Minocha and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 116(2005)DLT199; 2005(80)DRJ391

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This is an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed by the plaintiff in the suit seeking restraint on the defendants from alienating selling or disposing of suit property i.e. property bearing No. 23, Road No. 20, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. The plaint avers as follows:-(i)The plaintiffs Dharam Pal and Harbhajan Singh, both are sons of Shri Kartar Chand and the suit property was let out by Shri Kartar Chand to defendants No. 1 and defendant No. 2. The defendant No. 2 is the wife of defendant No. 1. It is stated that the property has been illegally transferred in the name of the defendants No. 1 who was the original tenant of the father of the plaintiffs on Rs. 1,000/- per month. (ii) That the father of the plaintiffs Shri Kartar Chand was a resident in Malaysia like the plaintiffs and had consequently let out the single storey structure to the defendants. Both the plaintiffs are 50% owner of the property, having derive...

Sanyukt Nirmata Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(2)ARBLR546(Delhi)

O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. Heard.2. It is pointed out by the learned counsels for the parties that parties invoked arbitration clause and the appointing authority appointed Shri S.C. Kaushal, SE (Arbn.)-II as arbitrator on 27.10.1995. However, arbitration proceedings made no headway and then Shri S.K. Malhotra was appointed as arbitrator in August 1996. He also did not make much progress in the arbitration proceedings and he was succeeded by Shri Som Dev at the end of October 1998. Shri Som Dev was associated with this work, so he declined to proceed with the case and returned the arbitration record to the appointing authority. Thereafter Shri N.K. Sharma, SE (Arbn.)-I at that time was appointed as arbitrator vide letter dated 18.11.1998. Shri N.K. Sharma, has already retired from the service. It appears from the record that these officers are not really interested in doing arbitration work. In this case more than ten years have been passed but no progress has been made in the adjudication of ...

Indian Airlines Vs. Dr. Subrata Sinha

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The appellant is domestic airlines run by the Government of India. Government servants are forced to take the services of the appellant airlines merely because the appellant happens to be a public enterprise. Respondent has suffered at the hands of the appellant because of compulsion of travelling by the appellant-airlines for official purpose. In spite of having a confirmed and with OK status ticket from Delhi to Bangalore, he was left high and dry when he on reaching the airport was told that due to heavy booking his ticket has been cancelled. 2. Vide impugned order dated 13.9.2004 the District Forum granted only Rs. 5,000/- though respondent claimed Rs. 50,000/- as compensation amount for the mental agony suffered by the respondent besides the cost of the ticket of Jet Airways purchased by him for reaching his destination. Still the appellant is aggrieved and has assailed the order by preferring this appeal. 3. The respondent who is Head of Bio Chemistry D...

Oswal Yarns Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants have made a prayer for decision on merits.Accordingly, I have heard the learned JDR and have gone through the impugned order.2. The appellants refund claim of Rs. 11,622/- has been rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment by observing that subsequent giving of credit notes to their buyers would not amount to the situation as the duty incidence has not been passed on to their Customers. The Tribunal in the case of CCE Jaipur II v. Adarsh Guar Gum Udyog - 2000 (120) ELT 139 (T) has held that once that duty was collected from the customers at the time of clearance of the goods, issues, issue of credit notes at the subsequent stages would not alter the position. To the same effect is the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Grasim Industries (Chemical Division) v. CCE Bhopal 2000 (153) ELT 694 (Tri-LB).3. Inasmuch as the issue stands decided against the appellants in the above referred decision, I find no justification to interfere with the view...

Airport Authority of India Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT223TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal, file by M/s. Airport Authority of India relates to refund of Customs duty claimed by them.2. Shri D.N. Mehta, learned Advocate, mentioned that the Appellants has imported 4 Aerobridges for modernization of Airport in April, 2002; that as the Appellants were not aware of the Notification No.21/2002-Cus, dated 1.3.2002 providing partial exemption from payment of duty in respect of the goods imported by them, they cleared the goods without availing the benefit of the Notification; that Serial No. 232 of the Notification provides partial exemption subject to the condition that the importer, at the time of importation, produces to the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner, a certificate from an officers not below that rank of a Deputy Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Civil Aviation, to the effect that the imported goods are required for the development of Airport in India and that the importer, at the time of clearance, produces a certif...