Delhi Court May 2005 Judgments

C.M. JaIn and Company Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. M/s. CM. Jain & Co. are challenging the imposition of penalty @ 100/- per day for delay in payment of Service Tax and Rs. 200/- for late filing of return.2. Heard Shri. Bipin Garg, learned Advocate and Shri. P.M. Rao learned D.R. The appellants are practising as Chartered Accountants. Service Tax on services of Chartered Accountants was introduced w.e.f.17-10-1998. The learned Advocate has submitted that the delay in filing the return and delay in payment of Service Tax was on account of challenging the constitutional validity of levy of Service Tax on practising Chartered Accountants in the High Court which has granted stay of operation and implementation of Service Tax; that, further, after they came to know about the Order of the High Court dismissing the Writ Petition and for depositing the amount of tax, the appellants had deposited the whole amount of arrears of Service Tax and filed the necessary returns.3. After considering the submissions of both the sides, I observe t...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Square Enviro

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT87TriDel

1. The Revenue has come in appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 89/2004 dated 2-6-2004 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the penalty imposed on the respondents M/s. Square Enviro.2. I Heard Shri P.M. Rao, learned DR and perused the records as no one is present on behalf of the respondents. The Deputy Commissioner had imposed penalty on the respondents who provide the service of interior decorator as they had deposited service tax after delay of several months. The Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the penalty as he found that the documents furnished by the respondents clearly indicated that the close relative of the appellant was under prolonged treatment of heart problems. Commissioner (Appeals) has found the reasons advanced by the Appellants to be sufficient and reasonable on account of which delay is caused in depositing the service tax. Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, provides that no penalty shall be imposable on the assessee for any failure in depositing t...

Shalimar Paper Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)STR22

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Shalimar Paper Mills (P) Ltd. is whether penalty is imposable for non-depositing the service tax and for not filing the returns.2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the appellants. I, therefore, heard Shri Vipin Verma, learned Departmental Representative and perused the records. The Department has imposed a penalty as the appellants did not pay the service tax on the gross amount of freight paid by them for transportation of goods by road in the goods carrier during the period 16-11-97 to 1-6-98. The service tax paid by the receiver of the service was held to be ultra vires the provisions of Finance Act, 1994 by the Supreme Court in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharati v. Union of India . However the Finance Act, 2000 revalidated the levy of service tax on the receiver of service of transport retrospectively. I observe that Explanation to Section 117 of the Finance Act, 2000 which validated the payment of service ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Heera Lal Sabu

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Revenue has filed these three appeals for enhancement of pen-alty imposed on M/s. Heera Lal Sahu, M/s. Davendra Patel and M/s. Anjani Ojha, Respondents.2. When the matters were called, no one was present on behalf of any of the Respondents inspite of notice. I, therefore, heard Shri P.M. Rao, learned Departmental Representative and perused the records. All the three Respondents are provider of taxable service of 'Cable Operator' under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. As these Cable Operators did not apply for Registration with the Department, Deputy Commissioner, imposed a penalty of Rs. 500/- each of the Respondents under Section 75A of the Finance Act, 1994 which has been reduced to Rs. 100/- by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the levy was a new levy and the Respondents had complied with the requirement of law immediately after receiving the notices. It has been contended by the learned Departmental Representative that the imposition of penalty of Rs. 500/- ...

Jagannath Metal Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT221TriDel

1. In this appeal the appellants have contested the confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty on them on the ground that being a SSI unit, they were not required to maintain any statutory record and could maintain simplified record.2. I have heard both the sides. The status of the appellants as SSI remains undisputed. Therefore, they were not required to maintain any statutory record. They were only required to maintain simplified record regarding the movement of goods. The goods were still lying in their factory and there was no evasion of duty by them. As the duty itself was not payable by them, the confiscation of the goods lying in their factory could not be made and the same is set aside. In this regard, the case of the appellants also stands covered by the Tribunal's ORDER in the case of CCE, Meerut-II v. Bhagwati Pvt. (I) Ltd. [Final Order No. A/2126/2004-NB(SM), dated 3-3-2004.] 3. However, penalty is imposable on the appellants for having failed to properly maintain...

Mahadev Corporation Vs. Allahabad Bank

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(1)ALD(Cri)40; 120(2005)DLT135; 2005(82)DRJ428

H.R. Malhotra, J.1. These three revision petitions arise out of similar orders passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate on the application moved by the petitioner/accused for recalling the summoning orders earlier issued against them for commissions of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). There were three cheques which were dishonoured and thereforee necessity arose for the complainant to file three separate complaints against the petitioner/accused.2. Since similar question arises in all the three revisions petitions, thereforee , these three petitions are being disposed of together by one common judgment. Brief facts as emerges from these files are that the petitioner company was allowed cash-credit facility by the respondent bank and accounts in this regard being Account No. CC-500219 was opened by the respondent bank. As on 4th December,1995 an outstanding balance of Rs. 83,38,616.10 was shown in the accounts agai...

State Vs. Ravi Kant Sharma and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 120(2005)DLT213; 2005(82)DRJ412

H.R. Malhotra, J.1. This revision is to assail part of the order dated 13th December, 2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, making a schedule for recording of evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while fixing such schedule made two sets of prosecution witnesses for the purposes of the their evidence; one for formal witnesses and another for lengthy witnesses. The Additional Judge was of the view that since it was not possible to curtail and curb the lengthy cross examination and thereforee ordered that examination of chief of lengthy witnesses would be recorded first in April and May, 2005 and their cross-examination would follow in July, 2005. This part of the order is being challenged by way of filing the revision petition.2. I have heard learned Special Public Prosecutor on behalf of the petitioner and also counsel for the respondent. Section 137 and 138 of the Evidence Act deals with the aspect of examination of witnesses. Read...

S.L. Raina Vs. Sunil Bhatt

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 120(2005)DLT701; 2005(82)DRJ565

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'Article 227') challenges the Order dated 12th December, 2002 allowing the application for amendment filed by the respondent/defendant before the Additional District Judge, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'ADJ') in Suit No. 38 of 2001 titled 'S.L. Raina v. Sunil Bhatt'.3. While noticing the fact that the trial had already commenced, and that the entire evidence of the plaintiff/petitioner herein had already been recorded and the case was fixed for respondent/defendant's evidence, the amendment sought by the defendant was nevertheless allowed on the view of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge that since the plaintiff's suit was for possession and damages, the plaintiff/petitioner was required to prove his ownership in respect of the property in dispu...

G.T. Auto Inds. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT203TriDel

1. In these two appeals which have been preferred against the common Order-in-Appeal, the issue relates to the duty liability of appellant No. I and in respect of the goods manufactured by them and imposition of penalties on both the appellants i.e. M/s. G.T. Auto Inds. and M/s.V.T. Cottage Inds.2. I have heard both the sides and gone through the record. Appellant No. 2 received an order from Rail Coach Factory for supply of carline and Body Side Pillar and got the same manufactured out of the raw-material namely Blank supplied by the Rail Coach Factory. The work was got done by appellant No. 2 on job work basis from appellant No. I.The duty liability has been contested by appellant No. I on the ground that their activity of Punching, Notching, Bending in case of carline and edge bending in case of Body Side Pillars did not amount of manufacture. Both the authorities below have recorded the concurrent findings that these activities amounted to manufacture as new products/articles came...

Rochees Watches Ltd. and ors. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(197)ELT218TriDel

1. The above captioned appeals have been directed against the common order-in-Original vide which different amounts of duties with penalties had been confirmed against the appellants by the adjudicating authority.2. Proceedings against all the appellants were initiated on the strength of a common show cause notice dated 21.5.2003 under which the duty demand based on the shortage of inputs/finished goods and clandestine removal of the same was raised and penalties were also proposed to be imposed on them. The adjudicating authority had confirmed the duty demand and imposed penalties as detailed in the impugned order against all the appellants.3. In this appeal, Company M/s. Rochees Watches Ltd (in short 'RWL') is the appellants. The learned counsel has contended that there is no tangible evidence on the record to substantiate the charge of clandestine removal of the goods during the period in dispute by this company and as such the impugned order confirming the duty with penalties dese...