Delhi Court April 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 2 of about 169 results (0.023 seconds)Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. J.S. Architect Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT455TriDel
1. Revenue has filed this Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 500/03, dated 8-12-2003 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the penalty imposed on M/s. J.S. Architect Pvt. Ltd. for depositing the service tax late and for late filing of half yearly return.2. Shri R. Santhanam, learned Advocate, submitted that due to serious illness of close relative of the Director, the Service Tax could not be deposited in time; that the entire service tax has been deposited along with the interest; that there was no intention on the part of the respondents not to deposit the service tax; that the serious sickness of close relative and subsequently the Director's own sickness prevented them to deposit tax. Learned Advocate has relied upon the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. ETA Engineering Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai (Tri.)] wherein the Larger Bench of the Tribunal has held that notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994, pena...
Tag this Judgment!Cce Vs. S. Ghosh and Associates
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the penalty of Rs. 87,760/- is reduced to Rs. 40,000/-. The contention of the Revenue is that the provisions of Section 76 of Finance Act 1994 provides that the amount of penalty which is Rs. 100/- for every day during which such failure is being extended upon 200/- per day.However, the penalty under this section shall not exceed the amount of Service Tax.3. In this case, in the impugned order only penalty is reduced from Rs. 87,760/- to Rs. 40,000/-. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. BHEL held that there is discretion with the authority to impose lesser amount of penalty prescribed under the statute. In these circumstances, I find infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. S. Ghosh and Associates
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the penalty of Rs. 87,760/- is reduced to Rs. 40,000/-. The contention of the Revenue is that the provisions of Section 76 of Finance Act, 1994 provides that the amount of penalty which is Rs. 100/- for every day during which such failure is being extended up to 200/- per day.However, the penalty under this section shall not exceed the amount of Service Tax.3. In this case, in the impugned order only penalty is reduced from Rs. 87,760/- to Rs. 40,000/-. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. BHEL held that there is discretion with the authority to impose lesser amount of penalty prescribed under the statute. In these circumstances, I find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Rajeev Mardia Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT275TriDel
1. Despite notice, the applicant has not appeared for hearing.Therefore, the stay application is being decided on the basis of the evidence available on record.2. Shri Rajeev Mardia, applicant has requested for staying the recovery of penalty of Rs. 1 Lakh imposed on him on the ground that there was no allegation against him that he had any reasons to believe or any knowledge that any goods were liable to confiscation or that he was concerned or dealt with any such goods.3. Shri S.M. Tata, Id. SDR pleaded that the applicant was the Managing Director of M/s. Mardia Steel Ltd. The charge of under-valuing the goods by showing the factory gate prices much lower than the prices at which the goods were actually sold has been established against the main company, M/s. Mardia Steel Ltd. Shri Rajeev Mardia being the Managing Director of the Company cannot be unaware of the pricing pattern and sale of the goods at a higher price without payment of appropriate duty. Therefore, he had full knowle...
Tag this Judgment!Cce Vs. S.V. Electronics
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In this case show-cause notice was issued to the appellant for denying the benefit of Modvat credit on capital goods on the ground that they availed depreciation under the Income Tax Act in respect of some capital goods including the duty portion. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed appeals filed by the respondents on the ground that in the revised Income Tax authorities, the appellant excluded the portion whereby the depreciation was not claimed and the assessment returns were accepted by the concerned authorities after due assessment on 4.7.2000 and the assessment was finalized disallowing depreciation and without any objection the depreciation was claimed wrongly.3. The Revenue filed this appeal on the ground that once the appellant claimed the depreciation before the Income Tax authorities they are not entitled for the benefit of credit in respect of capital goods and the revised retu...
Tag this Judgment!Vishwakarma Alloys Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT560TriDel
1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the appellant in spite of notice. Heard ld. SDR. The appellant made a request vide letter received on 20th September 2004 to decide the appeal on merit.In this case the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of the scrap received by the appellant is being denied on the ground, that the scrap is to be shown to be generated at the unit - M/s. Vipul Steel and Agro Industries. On verification, it was found that M/s. Vipul Steel and Agro Industries is not manufacturing any excisable goods and no manufacturing activity is being carried out.2. The contention of the appellant in the appeal memo is that they purchased scrap from the registered dealer and the registered dealer issued modvatable invoices showing this scrap is purchased from M/s.Vipul Steel and Agro Industries and has been cleared on payment of duty.3. The contention of the appellant is that they are purchasers of the scrap from the dealer, therefore, credit cannot be denied and...
Tag this Judgment!Ms. Lily Thomas Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 119(2005)DLT606; 2005(82)DRJ154
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. By this common judgment, the above seven writ petitions are being decided as common factual and legal issues arise for consideration in these writ petitions. WP(C) 176/2004 i.e. Ms Lily Thomas v. State of Maharashtra and Ors is treated as the lead petition in which arguments were addressed by Ms. Lily Thomas, Advocate, who is the petitioner herself and also by the counsel for the petitioners in other writ petitions.2. For facility of reference, the facts in detail in the lead case and the submissions made therein are being noticed. As regards other writ petitions, individual or peculiar facts as also particulars of the premises are noticed.A. WP(C) 176/2004 (Ms. Lily Thomas v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.(i) Petitioner, an Advocate by profession and resident of room No. D-148, Sirmur Plot, New Maharashtra Sadan, K.G Marg, New Delhi, by this writ petition seeks quashing of notice dated 24th September, 2003, issued by the Estate Officer and Deputy Special Commission...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Rakesh Brothers
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(2)ARBLR257(Delhi); 120(2005)DLT186; 2005(82)DRJ147
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. By way of the present objection petition, Municipal Corporation of Delhi has challenged the award dated 3.8.2004 published by Sh. Amarpal Singh, the sole arbitrator appointed by the Commissioner, MCD to decide the disputes raised by the respondent/claimant. 2. Vide his award dated 3.8.2004, learned arbitrator has allowed in favor of the claimant the following:-a) Claim No.1 - Rs. 12,381/-b) Claim No.2 - Rs. 1,68,000/-c) Claim No.4 - Rs. 1,34,729/-d) Claim No.5 - Rs. 1,18,235/-e) Claim No.6 - Rs. 1,00,000/- Interest has been allowed @ 9% per annum on the sum awarded with effect from 28.5.2001. Counter claim of MCD has been rejected.3. Claimant was awarded the work for construction of 100 dwelling units for Safai Karamcharies in E-Block, Nand Nagari, JJ Colony, Phase-1, Delhi vide award No. D/EE-X/93-94/TC/43 dated 12.11.1993. Completion period was 15 months reckoned from 10 days after issuance of work order. Relevant date of commencement of the work was 19.11.199...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Sikand Vs. Sesaka Advertising and Marketing
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 119(2005)DLT658; 2005(83)DRJ325
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This second appeal by the appellant/original plaintiff challenges the order of the learned Addl. District Judge, Delhi dated 30th August 2001 in RCA No. 37 of 1998 against the order dated 23rd September 1998 passed by the Civil Judge, Delhi in suit No. 188 of 1998. The appellant who was the plaintiff had set up the following case:a) that it was running a proprietorship concern providing coordination services in relation to fashion show and other cultural activities.b) the respondent/defendant was in the work of advertising and marketing services and the appellant was on a friendly terms with her;c) that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was provided by the plaintiff to the defendant for choreography and direction for organizing a show under the banner 'The Spirit of Jodhpur' on 21st December 1994 at Jodhpur;d) that as per letter dated 5th December 1994 the respondent agreed to provide choreography and direction for a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/-;e) that this estimate of Rs. 1,30,000/- ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Daulat Ram and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 120(2005)DLT353; 2005(82)DRJ391
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. This application is preferred by the claimant under Sections 151 and 152 of Civil Procedure Code for modification or clarification of the judgment dated 26.03.1999.2. The Union of India issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 27.01.1984. After following the procedure laid down in the Act, a declaration was made under Section 6 of the Act on 24.09.1984 for the lands situated at Village Amber Hai. After following the procedure laid down in the Act, the Land Acquisition Collector (in short `LAC') awarded a compensation @ Rs. 13,000/- per bigha and Rs. 11,000/- per bigha for the land in categories `A' and `B' respectively. The claimants being aggrieved and not satisfied with the amount of compensation determined by the LAC made an application under Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court thereforee was required to determine the fair market price and other benefits in LAC No. 7/93 and ultimately ...
Tag this Judgment!