Delhi Court December 2005 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Video Time

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Revenue has filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dropping penalties imposed on the respondents under Sections 75A, 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994.2. The respondents are cable operator and they have failed to file return within time prescribed and did not pay the service tax for the period 16-8-02 to 31-3-2003, Accordingly, show cause notice was issued for recovery of service tax and imposition of penalty. The original authority confirmed the service tax of Rs. 5310/- and imposed penalties of Rs. 500/- under Section 75A, Rs. 500/- under Section 77 and at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day for everyday's late payment of service tax under Section 76 of the Act. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the penalty on the ground that under the Tax Payer Friendly Scheme declared under Board's F. No. 137/39/2004-Cx.4 dated 23-9-2004 in case of assessees who had not complied with the provisions of service tax law, were given immunity from the provisions of ...

Cce Vs. Raipur Rotocast Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT723TriDel

1. This appeal is by the Revenue against the order in appeal dated 22.11.03 wherein the Respondents were allowed Modvat credit on inputs.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the Respondents availed credit as an item H-100 EY grade of polypropylene granules as an input for the manufacture of their final product HDPE/PP bags. A show cause notice was issued on the ground that the appellants have not used this particular grade of granules as input. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the Respondents appeal on the ground that there is a positive finding that this grade of granules are used in the appellants factory. Hence this appeal by the Revenue.3. Heard both sides and perused records. The issue involved in this case is whether the particular grade of the polypropylene granules i.e.H-100 EY can be used by the appellant for manufacture of HDPE/PP Bags or not. In the case of the same Respondent and ...

Saibaba Surfactant P. Ltd., Shri Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC184

1. These appeals are directed against the order-in-appeal dated 5.9.2003 wherein it was held that the appellants are liable to pay the duty and penalty imposed on them are correct.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the preventive officers of the Central excise Department intercepted a vehicle and on verification of the documents found that the serial no.of the invoice was rewritten on a reasonable belief that the vehicle was brought back to the appellants factory for further investigation.On investigation, the authorities found discrepancy in the stock and also a identically serial numbered invoice in the factory of the appellants. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants for confiscation of the seized goods and for demand of the duty on the goods intercepted and also for imposition of the penalty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty and imposed the penalty and also confiscated the goods with an option to redeem the goods on payment...

Shri NaraIn Singh Vs. the Consolidation Officer and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(86)DRJ617

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 9.12.2004 by which he dismissed the writ petition. 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The writ petition was filed for quashing the order dated 25.8.2000 passed by the Collector in an appeal filed by respondents No. 2 to 4 under Section 21 (4) of the East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. The petitioner's holding was in Khasra No. 522 of Village Bamnoli, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi. Consolidation proceedings were initiated and the petitioner was allotted land along with co-owners in a place different from the place where the original land of the petitioner was located. The petitioner filed objections under Section 21 (2) of the Act alleging that there was a tubewell in existence in his original holding and hence he should be allotted the land in the original holding. 4. Under the consolidation scheme it wa...

Delhi Jal Board Vs. Reliable Diesel Eng. (P) Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(3)ARBLR602(Delhi); 127(2006)DLT378; 2006(86)DRJ153

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This petition has been filed seeking the setting aside of the ex parte award dated 18.01.2005 passed by the sole Arbitrator (respondent No. 3). The two grounds taken by the petitioner seeking the setting aside of the impugned award are under sections 34(2)(a)(i) and 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.2. Section 34 permits the setting aside of an arbitral award by the court if the party making the application furnishes proof that the party was under some 'incapacity'. Section 34(2)(a)(iii) permits the court to set aside an arbitral award if the party making the application furnishes proof that such party was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case.3. In order to examine whether the petitioner has been able to make out a case under the aforesaid provisions, it would be necessary to refer to the factual backdrop. By an agreement dated 26.05.1997 ...

Anurag Malik Vs. Sh. Amit Malik and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(3)ARBLR591(Delhi); 126(2006)DLT114

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The two execution petitions have been filed both for execution of the award dated 03.06.2001 of Sh. B. M. Khurana, Sole Arbitrator. Objections have been filed to the execution and the said objections were heard at length. On the last date of hearing, the parties had taken some time to see whether some amicable settlement would be possible taking into consideration the nature of dispute being a family dispute. That has not been done possible and thus the matter has to be decided on merits.2. The two decree holders who have filed the execution are Mr. Amit Malik and Mrs Kamlesh Malik. Smt. Kamlesh Malik is the mother of Mr Amit Malik and Mr. Anurag Malik. The objections have been filed by Sh. Amit Malik. The award has been made and published under the Arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). No objections to the award under Section 34 of the said Act have been filed by the parties. However in the objections filed to the ...

K.M.A. Caterers Vs. Indian Railway Catering and Co.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)144PLR32

Markandeya Katju, C.J. 1. The Respondents invited bids for catering services in train No. 6501-02, Bangalore-Ahmedabad Express. 2. The Petitioner submitted his bid and in the accompanying document, it was stated that the bid was for Rs. 9,50,000/-. However, in words the bid amount was written as Rupees Ninety Lakhs Fifty Thousand only. On this basis, the Respondents sought to award the contract to the Petitioner for Rs. 90,50,000/-. 3. The Petitioner went back on the bid amount on the ground that he had committed a human error. The Petitioner then filed the present writ petition seeking the award of the contract in his favor on his bid of Rs. 9,50,000/-. It is now stated by learned counsel for the Respondent that the tender has since been cancelled and fresh bids are now being invited. To this extent, the writ petition is infructuous. 4. During the dependency of the writ petition, the Respondent sought to blacklist the Petitioner for backing out of the bid. The Petitioner was issued a ...

Sqn. Ldr. Shkul Tyagi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 126(2006)DLT621; 2006(86)DRJ1

H.R. Malhotra, J.1. The petitioner, a Helicopter pilot in Indian Air Force currently having attained the status of Sqn. Leader seeks premature retirement from service on the ground of extreme hardship because of matrimonial discord between the petitioner and his wife as according to him they have hardly lived together, both being employed, former in Indian Air Force and latter as a dental surgeon in Haryana State Services. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to the respondents to retire the petitioner from service on the ground of conjugal disharmony.2. Brief facts, necessary to deal with this writ petition are as under:-(a) The petitioner was selected as pilot officer in the Indian Air Force after successful training and was commissioned in the year 1993 and rose to the rank of Sqn.Leader having specific duties of flying helicopter.(b) In the year 1996, the petitioner married Dr.Mamta Tyagi who was employed with Har...

Shyam Lal Vs. India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 126(2006)DLT322; [2006(109)FLR106]; (2006)IILLJ706Del

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 08.10.2004, by which he has dismissed the Writ Petition.2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the Order dated 19.07.2004, (Annexure P1 to the writ petition) by which the representation dated 31.05.2004 was rejected. The petitioner also prayed for a mandamus directing that he be treated to be still an employee of respondent No. 1, ITDC, and to direct it to post the petitioner anywhere in the country. The petitioner also prayed for a direction to respondent No. 1 to withdraw the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) amount from the Standard Chartered Bank (SCB), Preet Vihar, Delhi. 4. The petitioner joined the service of the respondent on 16.04.1982 as a Junior Stenographer, and he was promoted as Senior Stenographer, and thereafter as Assistant Manager vide order dated 19.04.1993. 5. The respondent No. 1 ...

Suresh Jindal Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 126(2006)DLT49

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The nature around us is colourful and diverse. It is but natural that man saw, studied and unravelled nature and its laws. The great physicists Dr. R.P. Feynman gave a wonderful description of what is 'understanding the nature'. Suppose we do not know the rules of chess but are allowed to watch the moves of the players. After some time we make out some of the rules. With the knowledge of these rules we may try to understand why a player played a particular move. However, this may be a very difficult task. Even if we know all the rules of chess, it is not so simple to understand all the implications of a game in a given situation and predict the correct move. Knowing the basic rule is, however, the minimum requirement if any progress is to be made.2. By partially watching a game we may guess at a wrong rule. The experienced player may make use of a rule for the first time and the observer of the game may get surprised. Because of the new move some of the rules gu...