Delhi Court June 2005 Judgments

Kunal Travels (Cargo) Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The application seeks early hearing of the appeal filed against the Order passed by the Commissioner whereunder the Customs House Agent licence of the applicant was suspended. Upon hearing both sides, we allow the application and proceed to dispose of the appeal at the request of the Counsel.2. The impugned order of suspension has followed the alleged involvement of the applicant in certain customs fraud relating to drawback claim. We find that in the impugned order the Commissioner has discussed in detail the involvement of the agent in filing shipping bills with inflated export value of consignment of rags after declaring the contents as 'High Fashion Ladies Dress'. Prima facie, it is clear from the order that the appellant was not merely processing the papers of the exporter as an agent, but was involved in getting the false declaration accepted. The Commissioner has come to the conclusion that there was nexus between the appellant agent and the exporter and that continuance of ...

Mahabir Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The case was already adjourned four times at the request of the appellant, therefore, are being taken up in absence of the appellant.4. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal whereby the benefit of Modvat credit of Rs. 36,848/- was disallowed and penalty of the equal amount was also imposed under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act and penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules.5. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods and were availing the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of the inputs received by them. The appellant availed the benefit of Modvat credit on the strength of invoices issued by M/s Tara Steel Rerolling Mills. A show-cause notice was issued to the appellant for denial of the credit taken on the strength of two invoices of M/s Tara Steel Re-rolling Mills on the ground that inputs were not received in the factory of the appellant. The vehicles mentioned ...

National Rice and General Mills Vs. Bank of India and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: III(2005)BC243

1. During the course of hearing the main Appeal No. 115/2003 filed by the respondent in Miscellaneous Appeal No, 13/2003, Ms, Rakhi Nigam an Advocate brought to my notice about the Miscellaneous Application No.92/2005 filed on behalf of Stelco International Ltd. as an intervenor in the appeal proceedings. Since this Miscellaneous Application No.92/2005 is also listed along with the other miscellaneous applications, the respondent Counsel submitted before the Court that the applicant is making lot of noise preventing the main appeal which is to be decided and prayed this Court to decide this application and, thus, Miscellaneous Application No. 92/ 2005 is taken up today.2. It is stated by Ms. Rakhi Nigam, learned Counsel for the third party intervenor that the suit filed by the financial institution was decreed pursuant to which the Recovery Officer ! initialed execution proceedings. The mortgaged property was put to auction in the year 2002 and that the property was though put to auct...

Jamshed M. Pandey Vs. Indian Renewable Energy

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: III(2005)BC221

1. This is an application filed under Section 21 of the Act praying this Court to waive the pre-condition of deposit of 75% of the decreetal amount for entertaining the appeal filed against the final order passed by the DRT-I.2. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the OA has been decreed on untenable grounds pursuant to which the decree holder respondent herein has moved the Recovery" Officer for further action.It is also stated though a detailed written statement (WS) along with evidence was placed before the Presiding Officer, DRT-I, the Presiding Officer without considering the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant ordered the OA on untenable grounds. It is urged by the learned Counsel that under the scheme of the Act, when an appeal is to be filed against the decree of the original proceedings, 75% of the decretal amount is to be deposited before the appeal is entertained by the appellate authority. The Counsel says as the applicant has no means to pay the am...

PromaIn Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)281ITR107(Delhi)

1. Under Section 255(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act), the Hon'ble President of Tribunal has constituted this Special Bench consisting of five Members to consider the following question : "Whether the Tribunal has powers to adjudicate upon the issue relating to the validity of the search conducted under Section 132 while disposing the appeal against block assessment ?" 2. Since the above question referred to this Bench for consideration and decision is purely a question of law which can be decided independent of facts of any particular case, we do not deem it necessary to advert to the facts of the case before us at this stage.However, the background in which this Special Bench has come to be constituted can be outlined here. This case was initially fixed for hearing before a Division Bench of the Tribunal, i.e., 'D' Bench, New Delhi. During the course of hearing, it was noticed by the Members constituting the Division Bench that the assessee-company has challenged, inter alia, the va...

Cce Vs. Mordi Textile and Processors Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Appellants filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the demand of duty on account of denial of MODVAT credit is set aside.3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods and were availing the CENVAT credit in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of final product. The respondents availed certain inputs from M/s. Bhilwara Melba under the invoices showing payment of duty.The respondent's availed credit. A show cause notice was issued to the respondents for denial of the credit on the ground that M/s. Bhilwara Melba was not required to pay full duty as the goods were exempted under the conditional notification.4. The Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. However.Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand.5. In this case the respondents taken credit on the strength of invoices issued by the manufacturer of the inputs and the manufacturer has the choice to avail the benefit of conditional notification ...

Bharti Cellular Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellants in the present case were paying the Service Tax in respect of the services provided by the appellants. The appellants filed a Return from October, 1998 to March 1999 i.e. Half Yearly Return as provided under Rule 7 of the Service Tax Rules 1994. During this period for the month of October, 1998 and January, 1999, the appellants paid less Service tax than the payable.For the remaining months, the appellants paid excess amount of Service tax than the Service Tax due.2. In the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) held that wherever the appellants paid excess amount of Service Tax they can file return and wherever the appellants paid less amount they have to pay.3. The contention of the appellants is that if the excess amount is to be adjusted against the short payment, there was no demand. The appellants relied upon the provisions of Rule 7 of the Service tax whereby ...

Mukesh Mittal Vs. Seema Mittal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 121(2005)DLT289; II(2005)DMC169; 2005(82)DRJ621

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges the orders dated 10th November, 2004 granting interim maintenance to the respondent/wife in an application filed under Section 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi(hereinafter referred to as the `ADJ') in HMA.No.289 of 2003 titled 'Mukesh Mittal v. Seema Mittal' and also dismissing the petitioner's application under Order XI Rule 12 and 14 read with Section 151 CPC filed in HMA.No.289/03 seeking direction to respondent/wife to to furnish the copies of income tax returns of the year 2002-2004 in her possession.2. The facts of the case in brief are:-(a) that the petitioner/husband and the respondent No.1/wife got married on 3rd March, 1991. Three children (1 son and 2 daughters) were born to them. One son tested HIV positive and died. One of the daughters was given in adoption and the other namely Disha, respondent No.2 is with the respondent No.1. Diffe...

Madho Prasad Vs. Ram Kishan and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 121(2005)DLT384; 2005(82)DRJ696

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as the `Article 227') challenges the Order dated 4th May, 2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi(hereinafter referred to as the `ADJ') in Suit No.211/03 titled 'Madho Prasad v. Ram Kishan' declining the petitioner/plaintiff's prayer under Order I Rule 10 CPC for addition and deletion of the parties.2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the property admeasuring 2866.06 sq. yds. forming part of Khasra No.52 situated in village Masoodabad, Najafgarh, Delhi. On 14th June, 1998, the respondents along with their associates are said to have visited the above said property with an object to encroach, trespass and take forcible possession of the same. The petitioner could only identify the respondent Nos.1,3,5 and 6 and certain other persons, namely respondents 2 and 4 who accompanied them were imp leaded as defendant Nos.2 and 4 in the suit No.211/03 filed by the petition...

Shri Imtiyaz Iqbal Pothiawala and Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. All the appeals are filed against the common adjudication order, therefore, are being taken up together.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 8.3.2000, 575 Gold bars valued at Rs. 3,09,35,000/- and Indian currency of Rs. 21,00,000/- was recovered from the Jeep. The Jeep belongs to Shri Imtiyaz Iqbal Pothiawala. The appellant could not produce the proof of legal import of goods. Therefore, gold were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act on the reasonable belief and the same is liable for confiscation under the provisions of Customs Act. The currency of Rs. 21 lakhs was also seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act on the reasonable belief and the same is sale proceed of smuggled goods and is liable for confiscation. Shri Imtiyaz Iqbal Pothiawala claimed the Gold and Currency on the ground that he has purchased the gold from M/s. Paras Bullion and M/s. Pawan Jewellers of Ahmedabad. The appellants also claimed the Indian currency seized by the Customs authority on the ground...