Delhi Court December 2005 Judgments

R.B. Jodhamal Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)8STR331

1 These ROA applications have been filed on the ground that on the date these appeals were posted as per roster in Court No. IV before the Hon'ble Mr. P.S. Bajaj, Member (Judicial), however, these appeals were taken up for decision by the Hon'ble Vice-President, Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram although these appeals were not listed in the roster before her. Therefore, the Advocate for the applicants was not in a position to appear before the Hon'ble Vice-President, Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram when the case was called and the appeals were decided ex parte in the absence of the Id. Advocate stating that none appeared for the applicants.2. I find that when the case was not listed before the Hon'ble Vice-President, Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, the Advocate of the applicants could not be blamed for non-appearance. In such a situation, opportunity of hearing not being given to the applicants has adversely affected them. In the circumstances, both the orders of the Tribunal are recalled and the appeals will co...

Garments Craft Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants were manufacturing processed man-made and cotton fabrics with the aid of power and steam. On 2-1-91, central excise officers visited their premises and found that they had neither taken licence nor were paying central excise duty on clearances of the said goods. Therefore, certain quantities of fabrics were seized and total duty liability of Rs. 7,40,833.07 was assessed by the Central excise officers. The appellants thereafter deposited the said amount in the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur on 21-1-91 vide TR-6 Challan. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants proposing to confiscate the seized fabrics, appropriating the amount of Rs. 7,40,833.07 voluntarily deposited by them towards duty liability and for imposition of penalty.The case was adjudicated confiscating the seized goods but allowing to be redeemed on payment of a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, imposing a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- and appropriating the amount of Rs. 7,40,833.07, which was voluntarily deposit...

National Textile Corporation (Delhi, Punjab and Rajasthan) Ltd. Vs. Su ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]144CompCas771(Delhi); 127(2006)DLT391; 2006(104)ECC81; 2006LC81(Delhi); (2006)IILLJ504Del; [2007]77SCL45(Delhi)

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. These writ appeals have been filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 18.10.2005 in WP(C) No. 9887-91, 18396-18536/2005.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of the learned single Judge and hence we are not reproducing the same except where necessary.4. The writ petitioners (respondents herein) are employees of the National Textile Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the NTC'). They are challenging Office Memorandum dated 13.1.2005 issued by the Ministry of Textiles, Government of India, purporting to review the rehabilitation scheme of several units of NTC in cases where BIFR had already sanctioned a rehabilitation scheme.5. The petitioners are also challenging the letter dated 20.4.2005 issued by the General Manager (Textiles) of the NTC (DP&R;), whereby instructions have been issued to five units of NTC (DP&R;) Region directing the General Mana...

Poorvanchal Caterers and anr. Vs. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2006)BC547; 126(2006)DLT674

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. Though the grievance of the petitioner is about the award of a contract for Train No. 4005-06 Lichchvi Express, it emanates from the grievance of the petitioner with respect to Train No. 2707-2708 Andhra Pradesh Sampark Kranti Express for which respondent No. 4 was the highest bidder but was allegedly wrongly awarded the contract by a letter dated 22/24.10.2005.2. In terms of Clause 7.1 of the bid documents respondent No. 4 was required to deposit the annual license Fee in respect of Andhra Pradesh Sampark Kranti Express within a period of seven days time. Clause 7.1 and 7.2 of the bid documents read as under:-7.1 Acceptance of award of license and submission of Security Deposit:Successful parties would be given 7 (seven) days time, or less time as the case may be, from the date of issue of the letter of award of license for payment of the Security Deposit and the first Installment of license fee and to convey his acceptance of award of license. In case License...

New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. the State Trading Corporation of India ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 126(2006)DLT191; 2006(86)DRJ157

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The controversy in this batch of appeals is rather narrow and although we agree with the final direction given by the learned Single Judge remanding the matter back to the assessing authority to re-determine the rateable value of the properties in question, we are of the view that on the legal aspects, there has been an error committed by the learned Single Judge which needs to be rectified.2. LPA No. 413 of 2003 [arising out of WP (C) No. 7152 of 2001] was taken up as the main case and the facts pertaining to only this appeal are discussed.3. The admitted position is that the property owned by the respondent that is, Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan in Tolstoy Marg was constructed after 1st December, 1988 on which date the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Rent Act) was amended. In terms of Section 3(d) of the Rent Act, it was not to apply to such premises for a period of ten years from the date of completion of construction.4. It was stated before us by learned counsel for ...

Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Maharashtra Vs. Sanjay Pandey, Ex ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(3)SLJ68(Delhi)

Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Maharashtra against the respondents challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 1st March, 2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal allowing the Original Application filed by respondent No. 1 before the learned Tribunal.2. Respondent No. 1 on his passing the Civil Services Examination of the Indian Police Service was allotted Maharashtra cadre and he joined as an Indian Police Service Officer in 1986. He was sent on Central deputation to Special Protection Group some time in February 1999. He was relieved to return to his home cadre on 10th April, 2000 and he joined his home cadre. On 4th December, 2000 he sent a letter to his Appointing Authority, viz., the President of India, New Delhi through the Union Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi and also through the Govt. of Maharashtra which reads as follows:Sub: Resignation from the Indian ...

Shefali Pathak Vs. Indian Institute of Technology

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT156

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 24.10.2005 in WP(C) No. 18268/2005. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and hence we are not reproducing the same except where necessary.4. The respondent is a statutory body constituted under the Indian Institutes of Technology Act, 1961. The respondent is providing education in the field of engineering and technology. It is offering a number of degree courses at the undergraduate, postgraduate and other levels, amongst which is the Bachelor of Technology course in Chemical Engineering, to which admissions are made through a Joint Entrance Examination. 5. The appellant/writ petitioner appeared in the Joint Entrance Examination in the year 2001 and successfully qualified the same and was admitted to the Bachelor of Technology course in Chemical Engineering (2001-2...

Abc Paper (Formerly Amrit Paper) Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In these two applications for condonation of delay, the applicants are seeking condonation of delay of 11 months on the ground that the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (appeals) was not received by them and they came to know about the order only when recovery proceedings were initiated against them. Then they obtained the copy of the order dated 30.9.2003 passed by the Commissioner (appeals), on 19.11.2004 and immediately filed the appeal. It is, therefore, pleaded that since the order of the Commissioner (appeals) was not communicated to them, the delay in filing of the appeals may be condoned.2. On behalf of the Revenue, it was pleaded that the impugned order was sent to them by speed post as it is apparent from the dispatch register of the Commissioner (appeals). However, whether the address was correctly written cannot be verified from the dispatch register. The claim of the Revenue is that the since the order was not received back, therefore, it should be treated as...

C.C.E. Vs. Seil Financial Services Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. We have heard Shri S.N. Prasad, learned Senior Departmental Representative and Shri Ashok Sagar, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents.2. Commissioner (Appeals) has granted benefit to the respondents on the ground that the various types of oil storage tank and chimney on which duty was demanded by the original adjudicating authority cannot be held to be excisable goods inasmuch as the same came into existence while being embedded to the earth. As such by relying upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. v. CCE goods to be non-excisable. Appellate authority also observed that in any case the assessee cannot be held to be the manufacturer inasmuch as the goods were actually fabricated by sub-contractor upon whom contracts were placed by the assessee. The demand has also been held to be time-barred on the ground that t...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Suman Satellite

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The respondent M/s. Suman Satellite are provider of taxable service of cable operator as defined under Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994.The respondents had provided cable service to 105 customers and they were charging Rs. 200/- per month for the service from each of their customers during the period 16.8.02 to 31.3.03. They did not pay service tax and did not file ST-3 return for half year ending 30.9.02 and 31.3.03 under Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 and also did not take registration. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued to them for recovery of service tax and imposition of penalty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the differential service tax of Rs. 226/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 500/- under Section 75A, Rs. 1,000/- under Section 77 for not filing the return and penalty at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day for every day's delay for not paying service tax within time under Sect...