Delhi Court July 2005 Judgments

M.M. Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Del)62; [2005]277ITR204(Delhi)

Swatanter Kumar, J.1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in disallowing the claim of depreciation of Rs. 76,453, even though the dominion in respect of the vehicle was with the appellant-company and the law was settled that the non-registration of vehicle in the name of the assessed, was not a bar for the purposes of claiming depreciation, which according to the assessed-appellant is a substantial question of law and arises in the present appeal from the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated May 18, 2004. The merit or otherwise of this submission would have to be decided keeping in view the facts of the case and thus it will be proper to narrate the basic facts giving rise to the present appeal at the very outset.2. The appellant had filed a return of income for the assessment year 2001-02 declaring income of Rs. 2,04,160. During the relevant financial year, the appellant claims to have purchased a Toyota ...

Cit, Delhi-ii Vs. Khosla Indair Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2005]147TAXMAN602(Delhi)

Swatanter Kumar, J.Vide its order dated 25-8-2003, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-II, New Delhi, holding that the income of the assessed had to be treated as income under the head 'business' and not ,other sources'. It also held that there was no cessation of business, and at best it would only be a lull or a temporary cessation, and affirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). While relying upon the judgment of this court in the case of Indraprastha Steel Industries Ltd v. ITAT : [1973]88ITR138(Delhi) , it was argued that the set of carry forward losses of earlier years was not available to the assessed in the present case as there was cessation of business and also that mere realisation of some income on account of interest, could not be treated as income from business. On this premise, the challenge is raised to the correctness of the order of the Tribunal, which according to t...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Khatima Fibres Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(194)ELT225TriDel

1. These 11 appeals are filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-II against the Order-in-Appeal No. 76-82/CUS/M-II/2004 dated 26-4-2004 and Order-in-Appeal No. 162-165-CUS/M-II/2004 dated 30-7-2004.2. M/s. Khatima Fibres Ltd. filed various Bills of Entry during the period from 4-11-2003 onwards for clearance of waste paper of assorted cup stock, unprinted cup stock, steel mill kraft without oil, milk carton cutting with foil etc., classifying the goods under sub-heading 4707.90 of the Customs Tariff Act 1975 and claiming exemption under Notification No. 21/2002 dated 1-3-2002. The goods were imported in containers at ICD, Moradabad. The Customs Officers on physical examination found that the goods were in the form of rolls of paper and were properly classifiable under Heading 4810.00. Accordingly, assessment order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Moradabad and the goods were assessed to duty under sub-heading 4810.00 denying the benefit of Notificat...

Evershine International Vs. C.C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT919TriDel

1. The appeal and stay petition are in regard to the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) whereunder the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal filed before him on the ground of limitation.2. It is being pointed out that that the appeal had been prepared and sent in time by the appellant's advocate office but by mistake, the envelope was addressed to Additional Commissioner of Customs, ICD and not to the Commissioner (Appeals). It is also being pointed out that the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the office of the Additional Commissioner are both located in the same building and the appeal was received in a central registry which accepts the main for Commissioner (Appeals) also. The appellant's submission that since the receipts are centralized in the office of the Commissioner, the receiving authority should have placed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). If this had been done, the appeal would be on times. The learned Counsel has also relied on the decision of ...

Anand Agro Chemicals (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT175TriDel

1. Heard both sides. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the appeal was dismissed as time bar. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that there was a delay of 797 days in filing the appeal.2. The contention of the appellant is that the adjudication order was passed on 25-9-2000 and the same was pasted at the factory premises of the appellant on 29-1-2001. The contention of the applicant is that as per the provisions of Section 37C(1) which provides the procedure for service of order. The contention of the applicant is that as per the provision of Section 37C of the Act, the order is to be served by registered by AD, and if the revenue is unable to serve through registered AD, then only, the method of pasting can be adopted. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order admitted the fact that the order was not served through registered AD hence the service of order is not valid. On 23-12-2002, the Range Office supplied ...

Lakshmi Cement Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides. The assessee filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In this case, the Modvat credit was disallowed in respect of the explosives used in the mines.2. Both sides submit that the issue is settled by the Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E., Jaipur v. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Limited . We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case held that credit in respect of explosives which are used outside the factory is not admissible under Rule 57AB and in view of the above decision of the Supreme Court we find no infirmity in the impugned order whereby demand is confirmed in respect of the explosives which are used outside the factory. The only contention of the appellant is that the Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to such credit and on an appeal filed by revenue, Hon'ble Supreme Court reversed that finding, hence the appellants are not liable to pay any penalty. In view of the submission made by the appellants, we find t...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Flex Engineering Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)STR208

1. Revenue is in appeal contending that the Commissioner (Appeals) was in error in setting aside the service tax demand of about Rs. 46 lakhs.3. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the said service tax demand upon a finding that the respondent had entered into a work contract with M/s.Flex Chemicals Ltd. and the work contract cannot come under the purview of service rendered by a 'Consulting Engineer', as contended by the Revenue Commissioner (Appeals) observed as under : 21. In the present case, I find that the appellants have entered into a work contract with M/s. FCL and the same does not come under the purview of the "Consulting Engineer". The design drawing in question involved in whole process is incidental/essential to the execution of the work contract. The drawings were made for their own purpose, for the execution of the work contract. Following the ratio decided by Hon'ble CESTAT in the Daelim Industrial Co. case (supra), I allow the appeal.During the hearing of the case, the ...

Bir Singh Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(1)SLJ118CAT

1. Applicant impugns respondents' order dated 24.03.2005 and seeks reinstatement with all consequential benefits. Applicant, who was enrolled as a Constable in Delhi Police on 28.12.1978 was raised to the rank of Head Constable. While posted at Police Station, Maya Puri on 01.01.2003, applicant on account of some difficulty in performance of his beat duties, requested Inspector Rajinder Singh Dahiya (Respondent No. 4), who was functioning as Station House Officer at the relevant point of time, to change his duty in view of his age, which was not acceded to. When request for general duty was not accepted to and when the applicant was shifted to another beat duty, representations were made by the applicant to the higher officers.2. On 15.4.2003, an explanation was sought from the applicant by the S.H.O. as to his failure to arrest an accused in FIR No. 93/2003 and he was further directed to check the buses from 5.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. On completion of such duty, when such a misbehaviour...

Dr. Mukesh Kalra Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(1)SLJ46CAT

1. By virtue of the present original application a challenge has been made to an order passed by respondents on 15.2.2005 whereby the Applicant has been transferred to Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital (for short GTB) from Maulana Azad Medical College (for short, MAMC) in the capacity of Professor (Orthopaedics).2. By an order dated 21.2.2005, operation of the aforesaid order had been stayed.3. Briefly stated applicant, who was earlier on deputation to Bahrain, belongs to the cadre of Central Health Services of the Government of India. At Bahrain, it was detected that the applicant was suffering from skin cancer and due to non-availability of facilities for proper treatment, he was repatriated back to India in his parent cadre and was posted at Jipmer, Pondicherry. As the treatment for the ailment of the applicant was only available at AIIMS, he was, therefore, transferred from Pondicherry to MAMC on 19.12.2004.4. By an order dated 27.1.2005 issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare...

Smt. Meera Mishra Vs. Directorate of Education and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 121(2005)DLT416; 2005(84)DRJ547

Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. The Petitioner herein had earlier approached the Delhi School Tribunal in terms of Appeal No. 47/1994 which was disposed of by Judgment dated 16.7.2002. Respondent No. 2 herein was the first Respondent in those proceedings, and the principle of rest judicata would squarely militate against it. The operative part of the Judgment reads as follows:The next relevant objection, raised by the Respondent No. 1, is in para 3 of the written statement wherein they have stated that at no stage services of the Appellant had been terminated ever by the Respondent No.1 and by the Managing Committee of the Jain Shishu Niketan Primary School. The Appellant was still working as a Teacher in the same School. They have filed photostat copies of the documents like the Attendance Register and the Leave Applications given by the Appellant on 7.9.95.In the rejoinder, the Appellant has stated that after she filed the appeal before this Tribunal, the Respondent No.1 agreed to withdraw the...