Delhi Court May 2005 Judgments

Kuldip Singh Gill Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT373TriDel

1. Indian Oil Corporation needed to transport for the employees of the Corporation. Therefore, it appointed a contractor for providing that service as and when required, ex-plant/terminal and to the point fixed by the Corporation. Shri Kuldip Singh Gill was one such operator, during the period 1-4-2000 to 28-2-2001. The Corporation paid Shri Kuldip Singh Gill about Rs. 18.7 lakhs for transport operation under the contract. The vehicle used was matador.2. On 19-3-2001, the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Jalandhar issued a Show-cause Notice contending that the service rendered by Shri Kuldip Singh Gill was "Rent-a-cab operator's services" which attracted Service Tax at the rate of 5%. Accordingly, a duty demand of over Rs. 93,000/- was raised in the Show-cause Notice, this service tax demand was confirmed in adjudication and upheld in appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Jalandhar. The present appeal is directed against that duty demand.3. The contention of the ap...

United Vanaspati Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal which has been filed by the appellants against the order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the denial of the Modvat credit to them availed and utilised, in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of the finished goods before the issuance of the Notification No. 16/96-CE dt. 23.7.96 exempting the goods i.e.vegetable products from payment of duty. This issue already stands settled in favour of the appellants by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Rajkot v. Ashok Iron & Steel Fabricators reported in 2002 48 RLT 789 wherein it has been observed that when the credit has been taken and utilised by the assessee before the final product becomes exempt from duty, the same cannot be ordered to be reversed. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The law laid down in the case of Raghuvar (India) Ltd. v.. CCE reported in 2002 140 ELT 280 refered by Ld. JDR, is not of any help to the revenue. In that case also it has been observed that...

Anand Metal Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT119TriDel

1. These appeals are filed by the Revenue against the common Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cups, shields, medals, trophies etc. of brass. The appellants filed declaration at that time declaring the classification under Tariff Sub-Heading 9506.00 of Central Excise Tariff as 'sports goods'. Show cause notice was issued to the appellants for classifying the impugned goods under sub-heading 7419.99 of the Central Excise Tariff as 'other articles of copper'.2. The contention of the appellants is that these medals, cups, shields, trophies etc. are awarded in relation to the sports competition for the performance. Therefore, these goods are classifiable under sub-heading 9506.00 as sports goods accessories. The appellants also relied on the decision in the case of Commissioner (Sales Tax) whereby the assessment for the purpose of sales tax was done considering the cups, ...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Lotto Interseas

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT123TriDel

1. Heard the learned SDR as none appeared for the respondent. Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs whereby the benefit of Notification No.26/2000-Cus. in respect of the goods imported by the respondent was allowed.2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent had imported 7,46,000 pcs. of Energy Saving Compact Flourescent Lamp (CFL) and declared that the imported goods of Sri Lankan origin claimed the benefit of Notification No. 26/2000-Cus. - Revenue wants to deny the benefit of the notification on the ground that there was some discrepancy in the declaration declaring one of the wattage of the of imported lamps.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) in that impugned order held that certificate produced by the respondent was got verified by the DRI and it was found that the goods in question are of Sri Lankan origin and allowed the benefit of the notification.4. The only contention of the Revenue is that the respondents in th...

Punjab and Sind Bank Vs. Jefferson Bolts India Pvt. Ltd.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: III(2005)BC130

1. This Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 3.6.2004 made in I.A. 708/2004 by the Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Delhi imposing a cost of Rs. 10,000/-.2. On behalf of the appellant, Mr. Rajeeve Mehra, the learned Counsel for the appellant (plaintiff in the O.A. 876/95) mainly stated that the Tribunal, though competent to impose cost as provided under Section 35-B of the CPC, is not justified in directing the party to remit the same in favour of the Registrar of the very same Tribunal. It is stated by the learned Counsel that the cost so awarded is in the nature of compensatory, and as such the Tribunal could not have directed the cost to be paid by way of demand draft in favour of the Registrar. Counsel drew the attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 35-A of the CPC, and stated that there is no ambiguity in those provisions and, therefore, the order of the Tribunal to the extent of imposing the cost though justifiable, the Tribunal could not have directed...

Ess Aar Exports Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)95TTJ(Delhi)1083

JUDGMENT ASSESSMENTNotice under section 143(2)The AO issued several notices under section 143(2) which were returned with either postal remand "left without address" or on refusal of the assessee to receive the same. Finally, notice under section 143(2) was claimed to have been served on the assessee through affixture, made by the notice server and witnessed by the IT Inspector. On non-response to the said notice, assessment was framed ex parte under section 144. The assessee challenged the assessment contending invalidity of notice.Held: There was no evidence of any independent person having been associated with the identification of the place of business of the assessee. There was also no evidence that the process server or the inspector had personal knowledge of the place of business of the assessee and was thus, in a position to identify the same. Thus, service of notice was not valid and consequently the assessment made pursuant to the invalid notice was bad in law.1. These three ...

Smt. Shashi Jai Krishna Vs. the Land Acquisition Collector and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(82)DRJ383

Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The Petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raising a challenge to the notification dated 24.10.1961 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the award dated 9.12.1983 arising from the said notification. The Petitioner claimed the following reliefs in the Writ Petition :-'(a) issue a writ of certiorari or such other appropriate writ, direction or order to quash the award No. 75/83-84 dated 9.12.1983.(b) issue a mandamus to the respondents directing them to desist from taking any action under the Land Acquisition Act with relation to the petitioner's aforesaid lands.(c) issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ, order or direction quashing the entire proceedings for acquisition relating to the acquisition of the petitioner's lands measuring 20 bigas 6 bids was in village Mehrauli.ANDin the alternative(d) issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order or direction di...

Yum! Restaurants India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2005)196CTR(Del)435; 122(2005)DLT370; 2005(83)DRJ102; [2005]278ITR401(Delhi)

Swatanter Kumar, J.1. Whether the Maxim Audi Alteram Partem, if at all and to what extent is applicable to the proceedings before the Assessing officer while passing a direction as contemplated under Section 142(2A) of the Income-tax Act (for short `the Act).2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the necessary facts are : The petitioner claims to be part of Yum Group which was incorporated on 19th March, 1994 as a Private Limited Company in the name and style of KFC India Holding Private Limited w.e.f. 28th August, 2002 commonly it is known as Yum! Restaurants (India) Pvt. Ltd. which globally operates and runs restaurants under the brand name of `KFC' and `Pizza Hut'. The petitioner-company is regularly assessed to income-tax from the assessing year 1995-96 onwards. The petitioner has five sources of income i.e. (i) initial fee (ii) continuing fee, (iii) SCM fee, (iv) territorial fee and (v) stewardship fee. Petitioner has been following its mercantile system of accounting in carrying on it...

Jashbir Singh Vs. the Director (inmas) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 121(2005)DLT411; 2005(83)DRJ315; [2005(107)FLR167]

Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. This order shall dispose of the writ petition, which is filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and order dated 20th February, 2003, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No.2343/2002, which was filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground.2. While the father of the petitioner was working as Technician-B-Grade, he died in harness on 16th March, 2000 leaving behind his widow, one son and four daughters. However, three daughters of the deceased were given in marriage during the life time of the deceased himself. After the death of the deceased, an application was filed by the widow of the deceased praying for compassionate appointment of the petitioner. The said application was processed and after due consideration thereof, the said request was rejected by order dated 8th March, 2001 on the ground that the widow of the deceased owns a house and is not dependent on he...

Hindustan Roller Supply Co. Vs. State of Utter Pradesh and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2006)BC290; 119(2005)DLT602; 2005(83)DRJ334

Rekha Sharma, J.1. The short question, which arises in this appeal is whether the suit filed by the appellant for recovery of Rs.4,94,824/- was barred by the law of limitation. The learned Additional District Judge, who tried the suit has held the same to have been instituted after the expiry of the period of limitation. The appellant feels it was filed within the period of limitation.2. Before we come to the point in issue, it is necessary to refer to a few facts.3. The appellant was into the business of supply of road rollers on hire basis. Two such road rollers were supplied by it to the Executive Engineer Construction Div. I, LNV, Faizabad, UP after an agreement in respect thereto dated 25th March, 1996. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement the hire charges were to be Rs.600/- per day commencing from the day of handing over of the road rollers at Faizabad. The hire was to continue till the road rollers were handed back to the appellant. This agreement was extended by an...