Delhi Court July 2005 Judgments

Akashdeep Papers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant is a registered dealer. On 3.2.1999 the officers of Revenue visited the premises of the appellant, it was found that in their statutory record i.e. RG-23D register, the appellant shown a quantity of 10341 Kgs. of kraft paper as balance stock whereas no such stock was found in the premises. The Director of the appellant informed that due to congestion in the area their godown was overcrowded, therefore, kraft paper was stored at a different place in a separate godown. A show cause notice was issued for reversal of credit of Rs. 38,391/- and for imposition of penalty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty of equal amount.4. The contention of the appellant is that Revenue is not disputing the fact that the kraft paper as mentioned in their record were stored at a different godown. No doubt this godown is not registered with the excise authoritie...

Khandelwal Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT42TriDel

2. The appellants through the present ROM application have sought recall of the order on the ground that the case law cited by the counsel at the time of hearing of the appeal, had not been referred/discussed by the Bench. This very ground has been again reiterated before us by the learned counsel who has further contended that the facts have also not been properly appreciated regarding the non-accountal of the slag cement and its removal in a clandestine manner. After going through the record, we are unable to subscribe to this contention of the learned counsel. The scope of the ROM is quite limited and within its scope, the Tribunal has power only to correct any mistake of fact or law apparent on the face of the record. The facts which are debatable, the law which requires interpretation, cannot be made basis for the recall of the order by the Tribunal, on the ground that these were not applied as per the interpretation/presentation by the assessee. The ratio of the law laid down in...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Primo Pick N Pack

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)STR43

2. The Revenue filed these appeals against the impugned order whereby the interest and penalty imposed on the respondent was set aside. In this case the respondents are liable for Service Tax as goods transport operators. The provisions regarding Service Tax in respect of the goods transport operators were set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharati v. CCE reported in 1998 (112) E.L.T. 365.Thereafter, the provisions regarding Service Tax were amended retrospectively to validate the collection of Service Tax from the service receiver for the period 16-11-1997 to 1-6-1998. As per the provisions of Rule 71A of Finance Act, 2003 the returns in respect of Service Tax are to be filed within six months from the date on which the Finance Bill 2003 receives the assent of the President.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that the returns were filed by the respondents within the prescribed period and the Service Tax was also paid.4. The only con...

Sub-registrar Rewari Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)101TTJ(Delhi)671

1. The AO informed the Addl. CIT, Rewari Range, Rewari that against summons under Section 131 of the IT Act requiring the assessee to be personally present or to file photo copy of a conveyance deed/sale deed, neither any adjournment was sought nor any compliance was made, on three different dates. Subsequently, penalties amounting to Rs. 30,000, for the alleged three defaults, were imposed. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the penalties. The assesses is in further appeal before us.2. The contention of the assessee in the statement of fact has been that the assessee is a State Government Officer. His office is run in the name of Sub-Registrar, Rewari, through its registration clerk. The office has been created under the Indian Registration Act and the Punjab Land Registration Manual. All the Court summons are issued in the name of registration clerk. The summons in question were served in the office. The registration clerk was directed to comply with them. He was not aware- of the procedu...

Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur Vs. Rakesh Mehta, Commissioner, Mcd

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 123(2005)DLT249; 2005(83)DRJ505

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Admit. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the contempt petition is taken up for final hearing.2. This contempt petition under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 CPC seeks initiation of contempt proceeding against the respondent Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Tower Hall, Delhi for non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court in the judgment dated 20th October, 2003.3. After considering the merits of the matter in respect of providing an alternate plot to the petitioner the learned Single Judge of this Court on 20th October, 2003 held as follows:-:-'The question, however, remains as to who has to pay for it. The petitioner certainly does not have to. The MCD and the DDA are two public bodies who must settle their internal claims between themselves. Both the authorities are responsible to the petitioner for providing alternative plot in te...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Aditya Chemicals Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2005)197CTR(Del)241; [2006]283ITR458(Delhi)

Acts/Rules/Orders: Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 2, 2(a),2(24), 2(45), 3, 4, 4(1), 5, 6, 14, 22(1), 22(4), 23(1), 23(2), 34(2), 64, 72, 80, 139, 39(1), 139(2), 139(3), 148, 153(1), 260A, 271, 271(2) and 271A ; Finance Act, 2002; Income Tax Act, 1922 - Sections 2 and 28(1); Finance Act, 1988; Finance Act, 1951 - Section 2(7)Cases Referred: Elphinstone Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (1955) 28 ITR 811 (Bom); Dy. CIT v. Aditya Chemicals Ltd., (2001) 70 TTJ (Del) 953; CIT v. Prithipal Singh & Co., (1990) 183 ITR 69 (P&H;) : (2001) 249 ITR 670 (SC);P.R. Basavappa & Sons v. CIT, (2000) 243 ITR 776 (Kar); CIT v. India Sea Foods, (1976) 105 ITR 708 (Ker) : TC 50R.148; CIT v. C.R. Niranjan, (1991) 187 ITR 280 (Mad) : TC 50R. 1014; CIT v. Jaora Oil Mill, (1981) 129 ITR 423 (MP) TC 50R.486; CST v. Shri Krishna Engg. Co., (2005) 2 SCC 692; Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan, (2004) 10 SCC 1; CIT v. R. Ochhavlal & Co., (1976) 105 ITR 518 (Guj); Shammo Vishnu Parulekar v. D.M., Thana...

Ajay Fotedar Vs. State of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 124(2005)DLT176

B.C. Patel, C.J. 1. The present appeal is preferred against the order made by the learned single Judge in WP(Crl) No. 1230/2001 decided on 12.11.2003, whereby the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed FIR No. 308/2001 which was registered for offence under Sections 406, 420 and 120B IPC at Police Station Ashok Vihar, Delhi.2. The petition was styled as an Article 226 as of the Constitution, but in a sense it was a petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code (hereafter referred to as the 'CrPC'). Section 482 CrPC reads as under:-'Section 482. Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.'3. Learned single Judge on examination of the material has found that there was an agreement between the parties to carry on business of manufacturing an...

Chander Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 122(2005)DLT517; 2005(83)DRJ481

B.C. Patel, C.J. Background1. The present appeal is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and was listed before this bench in view of the order made by a Division Bench on 17th March, 2005. The Division Bench hearing the matter expressed an opinion that the decision of this court in case of Union of India v. Rajiv Gupta and Ors. : 96(2002)DLT225 (DB) requires reconsideration where in an identical situation the view was taken that the State is liable to pay interest as it was a statutory liability even for the period for which interest was waived by the claimant. This view was expressed without considering the decision of the Apex court in the case of State of Assam and Anr. v. Jitendra Kumar Senapati and Ors. reported in : [1981]2SCR850 . The Division Bench in view of the decision of Apex court in case of Jitendra Kumar Senapati (Supra) expressed the view that the Larger Bench should consider whether there can be waiver of interes...

Jai Kaushal Trading (P.) Ltd Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This is an appeal against Adjudication Order No. ADJ/1267/AD(HGS) /B/2003/4111 dated 18-9-2003 passed by Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate imposing a penalty of Rs. 11,00,000 on the appellant for violation of provision of section 8(3) read with section 8(4) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 on alleged failure of the appellant to submit proof of import of goods against remittance of foreign exchange. 2. In this appeal short question of import of goods against remittance of foreign exchange including filing of proof thereof has arisen where authorized banker has issued two letters dated 21-10-2004 and 6-7-2005 confirming filing of proof of documents against import of goods. Hence, this appeal is taken up for final disposal on merits. 3. Appellants counsel has filed written submissions which are taken or record but written submissions are not received from respondent despite expiry of permitted weeks time. Hence, the following order is delivered without further waiting...

AmstrIn Pharma Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The dispute is about Central Excise Valuation of two medicines manufactured by M/s. Amstrin Pharma Pvt. Ltd. and supplied to M/s.Abbott Laboratories (I) Limited. Up to 21.3.2000, the sale price of M/s. Abbott Laboratories (I) Limited was being adopted as the assessable value for payment of Central Excise duty. From that date, the manufacturer started assessing their medicines based on sale price to M/s. Abbott Laboratories (I) Limited. In the proceedings before the lower authorities, it has been concluded that sale price of M/s. Abbott Laboratories (I) Limited should continue to be the assessable value.3. The submission of the appellant/assessee is that they were supplying the medicines to M/s. Abbott Laboratories (I) Limited against negotiated prices. It is being emphasized that since excise is one manufacture, assessable value can have relation only to the transaction value between the manufacturer and the first buyer and that sale price at later tiers of trade are of no concern ...