Delhi Court May 2005 Judgments

Aps Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT83TriDel

1. The COD application seeking condonation of delay in filing the ROM application, has not been pressed by Id. Counsel and as such the same is dismissed.2. The ROM application had been admittedly filed after the expiry period of six months and as such is time-barred.3. The contention of the Counsel that the ROM application is to be governed by the earlier law under which the period of limitation was four years, cannot be accepted as no such saving clause has been provided -under the amended provision prescribing period of limitation as six months for filing the ROM application. All ROM applications after the amendment, against the final order seeking rectification, are required to be filed within a period of six months. Therefore, the ROM application of the appellants must be held to be time-barred.4. Apart from this, on merits also, the ROM application of the appellants deserves to be dismissed. No apparent mistake of fact or law has been pointed out in the final order. The ground fo...

Cce Vs. Super Cassettes Indus. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal, filed by the Revenue, the issue relates to the eligibility of CENVAT Credit in respect of parts of moulds and parts of V.C.R.2. I heard Shri P.M. Rao, learned DR and Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate. Respondents, M/s. Super Casettes Industries manufacture audio cassettees and video cassettes and avail of the CENVAT Credit of the duty paid on inputs and capital goods. The plea of the Department is that the CENVAT Credit of the duty is available only in respect of those capital goods which are specified in Table below Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944: that Serial No. 1 to 4 of the Table specifies all goods to be capital goods on the basis of headings and subheadings of the Central Excise Tariff. Serial No. 5 mentions that components, spares and accessories of the goods specified at Serial No.1 to 4 will also be capital goods; that moulds have been specified at Serial No. 6 specifically and as such the parts thereof will not be eligible for CENVAT Credi...

Shri Sunil Kumar Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 120(2005)DLT499; [2006(106)FLR566]

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. Rule. The matter has been heard at length and, thereforee, is being finally disposed of.2. This is yet another case where Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) has considered it expedient to prematurely retire a workman, in the face of their own Resolution as well as the mandates of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as `the Disabilities Act') rather than take work from him. The effect is, as in so many cases which have come to Court, that the DTC shall have to pay wages to persons from whom the have taken over, largely due to the obduracy of the Corporation.3. Circular No. PLD-III (Remustering/absorption) 96/2221 dated 11th October, 1996 reads as follows:'It has been decided by the DTC Board vide its Resolution No. 116/96 (Item No. 94/96) that the existing scheme of payment of compensation as circulated vide office order issued vide office order issued vide No. PED-III(Rem...

RiasuddIn Vs. Sheikh Mohd. Arif and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 120(2005)DLT139; 2005(82)DRJ267

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This petition under Section 115 CPC challenges the Order dated 8th July, 2004 passed by the Civil Judge, Delhi in a suit titled as 'Sheikh Mohd. Arif Vs Sh. Riasuddin' seeking to having a notice issued to the Administrator General, Delhi Administration for representing the estate of defendant No. 3 (since deceased) as per the provisions of Order XXII Rule 4A of the Code of Civil Procedure which confers discretion upon the Court to proceed in the suit in the absence of the deceased party or to app(sic)nt the Administrator General.2. By the impugned order dated 8th July, 2004 the Civil Judge has given sound reasons for not issuing notice to the Administrator General, Delhi Administration because the defendant No. 3(since deceased) was merely a proforma party imp leaded to avoid any technical objection. It has been noticed that as per the plaintiff, defendant No. 2 and Shri Prem Singh were the co-owners of the suit property to the extent of 108/136, 14/136 and 14/136 an...

State (Through) Cbi Vs. Sh. Someshwar and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 120(2005)DLT324; 2005(82)DRJ246

H.R. Malhotra, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by the orders of Special Judge dated 26th May,2004 discharging both the respondents-accused of offences under Section 7, 12, 13(2), 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act(hereinafter referred to as the Act), read with Section 120B of IPC, the petitioner CBI has assailed that order by way of filing the revision petition.2. Facts of the case leading to the registration of the case against the respondents-accused are that on 7th November,2001 a FIR was registered against the respondents on the basis of a tape recorded conversation between respondents No. 1 and respondent No. 2 indicating the demand of bribe of Rs. 10 lacs by respondent No. 1 from respondent No. 2 in connection with certain official favor. As per said conversation, a middle-man was to deliver a packet of Rs. 5 lacs in the office of the respondent No. 1 between 3.30 PM and 4 PM and rest of the 5 lacs was to be delivered to the wife of respondent No. 1 at their residence. On receiving sa...

Deepak Vs. the State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 120(2005)DLT146; II(2005)DMC35

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ingredients of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code have not made out in the case of the petitioner. In respect of an offence under Section 304B IPC, there must be unnatural death within seven years of the marriage and it must be shown that soon before her death she was subject to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relatives of her husband for, or in connection with any demand for dowry. In this context, he submits that the allegations, in so far as the present petitioner is concerned, for demand of dowry stop at the point where the petitioner is said to have demanded a Maruti car in place of a motorcycle some time in June 2000. The death of the petitioner occurred on 04.04.2004. The demand made by the petitioner, thereforee, in respect of the Maruti car was not soon before her death. The learned counsel for the State, however, submitted that the death of the deceased occurred due to the demand f...

Ms Mala Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 120(2005)DLT193; 2005(82)DRJ441

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the co-accused Seema has been acquitted in respect of this very FIR. He further submits that the role ascribed to Seema is identical to the role ascribed to the present petitioner. Accordingly, he submits that this is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.2. The learned counsel for the State submitted that while there may be similarity in the roles ascribed to the co-accused Seema and Mala, this in itself would not entitle the petitioner Mala to anticipatory bail. In support of his contention, he referred to the decision of a Division Bench of this court in the case of State (Delhi Administration) v. Som Prakash @ Som Nath @ Somi: 1998 DLS 279 HC and in particular drew my attention to paragraph 21 thereof which reads as under:-'21. We have come to the conclusion that the statements of Prem Wati, Maya Devi and Vijay Kumar, the three eye witnesses recorded in the trial of Jagan Nath in the absence of the acc...

Dharmesh Kumar @ Dharmendra Vs. the State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 120(2005)DLT138; I(2005)DMC876

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The petitioner has been in custody since 28.10.2004 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the prosecutrix were married in the Arya Samaj Mandir on 27.08.2004, a certificate to that effect is placed at page 21 of the paper book. He submits further that a marriage certificate under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Hindu Marriage Act') and particularly Section 8 thereof has been obtained which is placed at page 23 of the paper book. The said registration was done on 03.09.2004 before the ADM / Marriage Officer. The date of birth of the prosecutrix admittedly is 07.08.1986 which would not make her a minor on the date of occurrence of the incident in respect of the provisions of Section 376 IPC. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed to a letter dated 17.09.2004, a copy whereof is placed at page 25 of the paper book which has been written by the prosecutrix to the SHO Anand Vihar Poli...

K.C. Chopra Vs. Rakesh Mehta

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 122(2005)DLT664

ORDERS. Ravindra Bhat, J.WP (C) No. 7616/2005 with CCP No. 770/2004:1. The petitioners herein under Article 226 of the Constitution are seeking order of the Court to restrain the respondent-Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) from converting a children's park situated at E-6 Krishna Nagar, Delhi. The petitioner is a Society, it avers that its members are residents of Krishna Nagar. A heavily populated locality. As per the allegations of the petitioners in the vicinity of the locality there are few parks, hence open space/green areas have to be preserved. Reliance has been placed on a letter dated 11.1.1996 issued by the Government of India. Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment stating that areas developed as 'Green' in the Regional/District/neighborhood parks or other recreational zones in the city should not be converted into other uses. The proposal of the MCD to use the area in question for the purpose of construction of a pump house, to drain out water has been questioned.2. T...

Bhavya Enterprises Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Bhavya Enterprises, is whether they are providing services of advertisement which are chargeable to Service Tax.2. Shri S K Pahwa, learned Consultant, submitted that the appellants are working as the Booking Agent for M/s. Bennet Coleman & Co. Ltd., that they receive advertisements for Times of India newspaper which are in fully prepared classified/displayed advertising from the advertisers and forwarded the same to the newspaper for being published; that they charged from the advertisers as per the rates prescribed by Times of India; that they receive commission on these advertisements; that, initially, they took the registration under Service Tax Rules and paid Service Tax for rendering the services of advertising agency; that, subsequently, they realised that the service provided by them was not in the ambit of taxable service provided by an advertising agency; that they applied for the refund of Service Tax paid by them which...