Delhi Court April 2005 Judgments

Shri Sandeep Chopra Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(103)ECC33

1. Heard. The controversy in this appeal lies in narrow compass and the appellant has very strong case merit, therefore, pre-deposit of the penalty amount in question is waived.2. Learned Counsel has requested that the appellant itself may be disposed of as no duty dispute is involved. The request of the Counsel is allowed. I have gone through the record and heard the learned JDR and the Counsel.3. Learned Counsel has contended that no penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act could be imposed on the appellant being not improper of the goods. The appellant, according to the Counsel only placed order for purchase of Brass Scrap Honey, with the importer M/s. Jerry Merry Exports Pvt. Ltd., and had nothing to do with mis-declaration of the goods by the importer.4. On the other hand learned JDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order and contended that the appellant tried to examine the goods while lying in the warehouse and as such penalty has been rightly imposed on hi...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Chopra Brothers

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT381TriDel

1. Revenue has filed this Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 251/03 dated 30-6-2003 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that M/s.Chopra Brothers, respondents are not providing the services as Clearing And Forwarding Agent.2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the respondents nor there was any request for adjournment inspite of notice of hearing having been issued to them. I, therefore, heard Shri S.Bhatnagar, learned Departmental Representative and perused the records.The respondents received Tea from Tea Company/wholesale dealers and sell the same as per rate fixed by Tea Company/wholesale dealers kept proper accounts of such sale and charged commission for sale. The Assistant Commissioner, under Order-in-Original No. 156/ST/2001 dated 11-1-2002, has held that the respondents are working as Clearing and Forwarding Agent as they have been appointed by the Tea Company and the letter of agreement also contains terms and conditions for receiving, storing...

Corning S.A. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Corning S.A. the issue involved is whether bar of unjust enrichment is applicable to the refund of Customs duty paid by them in excess.2. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that during the period 1997-2000 the goods imported by the Appellants were assessed to duty provisionally and they were directed to clear the goods on payment of extra duty deposit @ 5% of the duty till 1998 and 1% duty thereafter; that after conducting the investigation by the Special Valuation Branch, the Dy. Commissioner, under Order-in-Original No.10/2000 dated 18.4.2000, ordered that the invoice price was to be raised to the price indicated in the price list subject to quantity discount and all provisional assessment to be finalized accordingly; that after finalization of all bill of entry, they filed a refund claim in respect of duty paid in excess by then which has been rejected by applying bar of unjust enrichment. The learned Advocate further submitted that th...

Salem Starch and Sago Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)STR26

1. The applicant seeks stay of the impugned order dated 30-12-2004 praying for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 29,90,044/-.The only contention raised before us in support of the application is that the applicants even if considered as consignment agent under Section 65(16) of the Service Tax Act (sic) are not rendering taxable service within the meaning of Sub-section 72(J) thereof in relation to the Clearing and Forwarding operations.2. Prima facie, it appears from the record that the goods of the Members of the applicants' Society are received in the premises of the Society and sale is conducted by the Society on behalf of the Members in respect of such goods with an obligation on the buyer whose bid is accepted and confirmed by the owner of the goods to take away the goods from the premises of the Society. It would, prima facie, appear that no clearing and forwarding activity was carried out in the process of sale of the goods of the Society. The applicant has, therefor...

G.D. Tewari and Co. Vs. Dda and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(2)ARBLR241(Delhi); 120(2005)DLT225; 2005(85)DRJ601

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. DDA has filed objections to the award dated 19.5.1996 passed and published by Sh. K.D. Bali who was appointed as a sole arbitrator to decide the disputes raised for adjudication by the contractor. Dispute pertained to a contract under which contractor was to construct 590 SFS flats at Vasant Kunj including the work pertaining to scooter garages and internal development vide agreement number 14/HD-II/84-85.2. Since all and sundry objections have been taken to the award pertaining to each and every claim awarded, it would be advisable to deal with the objections claim-wise.3. But before that, a brief preamble of the facts. Work was awarded to the contractor on 17.12.1984 at a cost of Rs.1,77,18,245/- which was 50% above the estimated cost of the work, being Rs.1,17,53,397/-. Stipulated date of start of work was 27.12.1984. Completion date was 26.12.1985. Work was actually completed on 31.7.1989. Time was extended without levy of compensation.4. Contractor had 11 s...

In Re: Bharat Steel Tubes Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 121(2005)DLT65

A.K. Sikri, J.1. CA No. 1168/2002 is filed by the three applicants who claim that they are the owners of the property bearing Municipal No. 16, Friends Colony (West), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the demised property'). Smt. Ram Pyari Sethi, their mother and predecessor-in-interest of this property, had granted lease of this property to Bharat Steel Tubes Pvt. Ltd. (now in liquidation) (hereinafter called as 'the company') vide written deed dated 11th June, 1965. The property was meant for personal office of the Managing Director Mr. Raunaq Singh and a guest house. The tenancy commenced from 1st April, 1964 for a period of five years ending on 31st March, 1969. Rent of the demised premises was fixed at Rs. 2,000/- per month. The demised premises were, however, not vacated by the company after the expiry of the contractual period of tenancy.2. Some time in the year 1990, the company became sick and consequently it made reference before the Board for Industrial and Financial Re...

Dcm Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Praxis Consulting and Information Serv ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2005)4CompLJ586(Del)

A.K. Sikri, J.1. DCM Financial Services Ltd. has filed this petition under Section 439 read with Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act seeking winding up of Praxis Consulting and Information Services (P) Ltd., which is the respondent company (hereinafter referred to as the 'company'). Case of the petitioner is that on 14 December 1996--inter-corporate deposit of Rs. 16 lakhs was given by the petitioner to the company on its request by means of following cheques--(i) Rs. 6 lakhs vide cheque bearing No. 813289(ii) Rs. 7 lakhs vide cheque bearing No. 158595.(iii) Rs. 3 lakhs by means of cheque No. 158596.2. All these cheques were drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank. According to the petitioner, the company had agreed to pay this amount together with interest @ 30 per cent per annum and in case of default, penal interest @ 2.5 per cent per month, over and above the agreed rate of interest, was also payable. However, the respondent did not fulfill its commitment to remitting back the said loa...

Atul Commodities (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. From the earlier decisions of the Tribunal pointed out to us by the learned Counsel, it appears that there is a conflict of opinion on the question whether second-hand photocopiers are in the nature of consumer goods or capital goods. In the appeal No. C/221-226/03/NB(A), decided on 8.6.2004, it was categorically held that the item in question cannot be considered as consumer goods. Again vide Final Order No. 18/05/NB-A dated 31.12.04, similar view was taken as reflected in paragraph 8, referring to the earlier decision of the Tribunal reported in 2005 (180) ELT 84 (Mum).2. By Final Order No. 347-352/05-NB-A, the Bench of this Tribunal has taken a contrary view on the basis of the DGFT's Policy Circular 20 (2004-2009) dated 23.2.2005 holding that second hand photocopiers are in the nature of consumer goods. We have gone through the said Circular and are of the view that there is a conflict of opinion inasmuch as the said Circular is in context of paragraph 5.1 of the Policy. It wou...

Jugender Sharma Vs. the Secretary, Delhi Administration, Govt. of Nati ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 119(2005)DLT537

B.C. Patel, C.J.1. Learned single Judge after considering all the submissions made by the appellant herein on 17.1.2005 dismissed WP(C) No. 2190/2004 against which the present appeal is preferred.2. Substance of the contention is that the date on which the vacancy fell, the appellant being qualified on that date, he ought to have been considered. According to the counsel, it is not open to the school to change the qualifications and they could have changed it only after filling the existing vacancy. The respondent school, an unaided private school, which is having independence in such matters, has enhanced the qualification. It cannot be said that any wrong is committed if a decision is taken to enhance the educational standards nor it can be said that the school has no power to raise the qualifications of teachers.3. Learned single Judge has rightly held that it should be the endeavor of every educational institution to enhance educational standards and this cannot conceivably be achi...

Madan Lal JaIn Vs. Smt. Kaushalaya Devi Ahuja

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 119(2005)DLT488; 2005(82)DRJ443

O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. Through this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the eviction order dated 15th July, 2004 passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi in R.C.A. No. 42/2004 thereby affirming the eviction order dated 25th May, 2004 passed by learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi in Eviction Petition No. E-18/2002 under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) on the ground of non-payment of rent, it being a case of second default. 2. Appellant herein was a tenant under the respondent in respect of two shops bearing private Nos. 2 and 3 on the ground floor of the property bearing No. IX/6558, Nehru Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi - 110 031. In the para No. 11 of the eviction petition, it was mentioned that monthly rental of shop No. 2 is Rs.96/- and that of shop No. 3 is Rs.103/-. It was alleged that tenant/appellant was in the arrears of rent with effect from 1st January, 2001 in respect of...