Delhi Court October 2005 Judgments

Shri Shambhu Goyal Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant filed this appeal against the adjudicating order passed by Commissioner of Customs whereby penalty of Rs. 2lakhs has been imposed on the appellant under Section 112 of Customs Act.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 23,5,03 certain quantity of edible oil was seized from trucks on the ground that edible oil is smuggled to India from Nepal. A driver of the trucks made a statement that edible oil loaded on the trucks belongs to Rajaram and also stated that some mobile Nos. were given to Shri Vishnujee for further contact and also two numbers mentioned against the name of Shri Rajaram, one of the number is of the factory of the appellant 3. The penalties were imposed on the ground that applicant is partner of Rajaram, therefore, both are involved in smuggling of the vegetable oil.4. The contention of the applicant that he is only a partner in a unit which is engaged in the manufacture of fertilizer and two telephones are installed in their factory which are frequently ...

Nirma Architects and Valuers Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In the present appeal, the appellants are challenging the order-in-appeal dated 28th May, 2004.2. The relevant facts of the case to be considered are that, the appellants are registered under service tax provisions for rendering services as Architect. The dispute of imposition of service tax on the Architects being pending in various High Courts, the appellants did not file any proper returns in time and also defaulted in depositing the service tax. Show cause notice was issued to the appellants for recovery of the service tax short paid for the quarter october to december, 1999 and imposition of penalty under different Sections. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and also imposed penalty under various sections. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty to the amount of the service tax payable by the appellants, but upheld the other penalties imposed on the appellants under various sections.3. The learned advocate for the appellants submits that the all...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Prem Nath Kapur and Sons

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner(Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed a shipping bill for export of Slitting Steel Cutters and also claimed DEPB benefit. The revenue wants to deny the benefit of DEPB by saying that these are not slitting steel cutters. The adjudicating authority after examining the catalogue of the goods exported by the respondent held that the goods in question are cutters consisting of two pieces like two arms of scissors . One arm was used as a base on which the other arm gave the cutting effect and in combination, they are used as cutter under the description 'slitting cutters made of steel squarely covers the goods in question. The revenue filed an appeal against the order-in-appeal which was dismissed by Commissioner (Appeals)after going through the product literature.3. The contention of the revenue is that one of the item which is in dispute i.e. 'Bottom Anvil'. T...

Garrick D'Silva Vs. Jt. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)5SOT132(Delhi)

In consequence of the difference of opinion between the learned Judicial Member and learned Accountant Member of the Division Bench, the Hon'ble President, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has nominated me as Third Member of the Bench, on the following points of difference: 1. Whether deduction on account of housing norm and auto norm made by the employer from the base pay of the assessee in lieu of free housing and transport facility provided in India as per the terms of employment, falls within the definition of perquisite enshrined in section 17(2)(iii) of the Indian Income Tax Act and form part of the base pay and is exigible to tax 2. Whether a profit or benefit earned/acquired by the assessee on account of exercise of stock option, earlier granted, in terms of his employment on subsequent dates and its sale is a perquisite as per provisions of section 17(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act or capital gain Though the facts of this case have been described by the learned Members of the B...

Miss Shefali Pathak Vs. Indian Institute of Technology

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi66; 124(2005)DLT617; 2005(85)DRJ196

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The short question is whether the Petitioner has completed her `Practical Training', which is an essential concomitant of the curriculum for the Bachelor of Technology in Chemical Engineering (B.Tech) from the globally acclaimed and prestigious Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi. The fall-out of a finding in the negative is that the Petitioner may become ineligible to pursue further studies in the Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow to which she has gained admittance. It has been heavily emphasized by learned counsel for the Petitioner that she is a brilliant student; and this fact has not been controverter by learned counsel for the Respondent.2. Annexure P1 is a copy of the 'Instructions to students deputed for practical training during summer - 2005.' The training is compulsory for pre-final year students. It has been specifically stated that the declaration of the Final Year results will depend on the satisfactory completion of this training. It has furt...

intel Corporation Vs. Naresh Narula

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 126(2006)DLT606

Anil Kumar, J.1. This judgment will decide the suit of the plaintiff seeking restrain against infringement of his trade mark, passing off and rendition of accounts. The suit was filed by Shri Rahul Sethi as attorney of the plaintiff who has signed and verified the pleadings and instituted the suit on its behalf. The suit concerns intellectual property rights of the plaintiff in the trade mark `INTEL' and violation thereof by the defendant by using an identical mark INTEL on his electronic goods.2. The plaintiff averred that on its own and through its subsidiaries, he is engaged in business relating to the fields of computers and parts thereof. Since its inception in 1968, the plaintiff has grown to be a truly global corporation. Plaintiff stated that currently it employs an estimated 78,000 people in its various subsidiary companies throughout the world and its global annual turnover for the year 2003 was in excess of US $ 30 billion. The plaintiff has business operations in excess of ...

Vinod Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 125(2005)DLT129

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the relief claimed is for issuance of directions to the respondent (MCD), to issue or restore trade licenses for selling of nature of cooked food items including non-vegetarian food items at the Petitioner's premises.2. The petitioner is carrying on business in premises at No. 599/36, Main Patel Road, New Delhi. His establishment, a Dhaba was registered with the Chief Inspector, Shop and Establishment on 16.3.1984. He applied for trade license under a special Registration on Scheme, in 1994. Apparently, he was issued the necessary license. According to the averments in the petition, the license so issued was renewed annually. It is claimed that all the approvals were valid up to 31.12.2005. The petitioner avers that in 1986 a Mahavir Temple was constructed, near the vicinity of his establishment. Thereafter, some policy was issued, regulating grant of license and the approvals of a different cate...

Sushil Malik Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appellant filed this appeal against the adjudication order whereby the penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- imposed on the appellant under Section 114 of the Customs Act.3. The appellant is a CHA (Custom House Agent). The brief facts of the case are that on 7-6-2002 one shipping bill was filed for export of the goods declared the same as ready-made garments declaring the value of Rs. 1/19,83,429/-. On examination, goods were found to be of inferior quality and market enquiry, it was found that the goods were only of Rs. 8,00,320/-. The adjudicating authority imposed the penalty on the present appellant who is the CHA on the ground that he is part of conspiracy consisted of Shri Rajan Arora, proprietor of M/s. P.K.M.Enterprises, Shri Dinesh Bhalla and Shri Suresh Goel who tried to export the goods which were overvalued to get a higher amount of drawback." 4. The contention of the appellant is that he is working as a CHA under the name of M/s. Cargo Care one Shri Rajan Arora, proprietor of ...

Swelore Engg. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC353

1. The appeal in this case arises out of Order-in-Appeal dated 22.8.2003 wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Original of rejection of refund claim filed by the appellants.2. The relevant facts of the case for consideration are that the appellants were having two units in the same GIDC separated by a GIDC road. The appellants were registered separately. As per Board's Circular, if two units of the same company are separated by a road permission may be granted to get one registration number. Relying upon such Circular the appellants applied for one common registration certificate. The said registration was granted to the appellants on 18.6.98 wherein the addresses of both the units i.e. plot No. 2109 and 2013 is mentioned. Subsequently the appellants on 1.7.1998 applied for transfer of the Modvat Credit lying in balance in RG23, Part II, in respect of unit at plot No. 2013 into the Credit of RG23, Part II of unit at plot No. 2109. The said request was rejected by the ...

Commissioner of Cus. Vs. Laraon Engineers and Consultant

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT192TriDel

1. The Revenue filed this application for stay of the operation of the impugned order on the ground that the refund claim filed by the respondent was allowed. In the impugned order, the applicant without challenging the assessment order filed the refund which is against the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE v. Flock India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285. The contention of the respondent is that the refund is of the amount, which was deposited in excess due to clerical error. The contention is that the packing charges were mentioned in the Bill of Entry as 5500 EURO instead of 55 EURO as mentioned in the invoice. I find that in this situation when the refund is due to clerical error, prima facie, I find no infirmity in the impugned order, the stay petition is dismissed.2. Further, the Commissioner (Appeals) only remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to decide the refund claim on merit. The appeal filed by the respondent ...