Delhi Court August 2005 Judgments

Central Office, Mewar Palace Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appellants filed this appeal against the order in appeal whereby the refund claim in respect of the Service Tax paid by the appellants was rejected.3. The contention of the appellants is that they are registered with the Service Tax Authority for the following services: The contention is that apart from these services, appellants are also undertaking the Maintenance services, Garage supervision services, Utility services, Legal assistance and advice services etc. which are not covered under the ambit of service tax. The contention is that the Service Tax paid by the appellants on the services which are not covered under the scope of Service Tax are liable to be returned to the appellants.4. Revenue raised an preliminary objection by saying that refund is not maintainable as the appellants are registered with the Service Tax Authority and regularly paying service tax as per the assessment and they had never asked for provisional assessment under Rule 6 of Service Tax Rule and th...

Foto Mec Color Lab Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Appellant file this appeal against the order in appeal whereby the service tax along with interest and penalty was imposed on the appellant. Appellant challenged the order regarding demand of service tax on photography service on the ground that the cost of material is not to be included while calculated the Service tax on photography service. The appellant also submitted that as the appellant had paid the service tax along with interest on demand, before issuance of show cause notice, therefore imposition of penalty is not sustainable.2. The contention of the Revenue is that appellants are collecting a lump sum amount in respect of the Service provided by them. There is no record to show that appellants are selling photographic material separately to their customers. Therefore, service tax is to be leviable on the services provided by the appellants.3. In this case the appellants are providing photography services and photographic services are liable to Service tax from 16.07.2001...

Tik-lig Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT47TriDel

1. The reference made in these appeals earlier to the Larger Bench has been returned by order dated 1-9-2003 to the regular Bench for being heard in the light of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue against the decision of the Tribunal in a group of other matters against which that appeal was preferred to the Supreme Court and later not pressed. It is brought to our notice by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants that the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. D19381/2002 filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai against the CEGAT order No. 1761/01, dated 29-11-2001 (Commissioner of Customs, Chennai v. Vikrant Tyres Ltd.) passed the following order on 17-2-2003 : - "Learned Counsel for the appellant states that she has instructions not to press this appeal. It is dismissed as such".This order is pointed out from 2003 (157) E.L.T. A134. It is also pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellants that an application w...

Foto Mec. Color Lab Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Appellant filed this appeal against the order in appeal whereby the service tax along with interest and penalty was imposed on the appellant. Appellant challenged the order regarding demand of service tax on photography service on the ground that the cost of material is not to be included while calculated the Service Tax on photography service. The appellant also submitted that as the appellant had paid the Service Tax along with interest on demand, before issuance of show cause notice, therefore imposition of penalty is not sustainable.2. The contention of the Revenue is that appellants are collecting a lump sum amount in respect of the Service provided by them. There is no record to show that appellants are selling photographic material separately to their customers. Therefore, Service Tax is to be leviable on the services provided by the appellants.3. In this case the appellants are providing photography services and photographic services are liable to Service Tax from 16.7.2001...

Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. Bombay Burmah Trading Corpn. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT40TriDel

1. The applicant seeks condonation of delay of 15 days in filing the appeal. The same is allowed.2. The appeal is directed against an order allowing cash refund (not Modvat credit) to the appellants. The facts leading to the dispute are that vide Order dated 25-11-2004 the Asstt. Commissioner allowed the refund claim of the appellant, amounting to about Rupees 12.5 lakhs.While effecting payment, the authorities paid an amount of Rs. 25,000/- by cheque and the remaining amount as credit to Modvat/Cenvat credit account. The Appellants challenged that order on the ground that they had already ceased to function, the factory is closed and Central Excise registration returned. It was, therefore, submitted that there is no Modvat /Cenvat credit account for the amount to be credited and they sought refund of the amount ordered to be credited also as cash refund. This application of the Appellants was allowed by the Commissioner. The present Appeal is directed against that order.3. The conten...

Central Office, Mewar Palace Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal whereby the refund claim in respect of the Service tax paid by the appellants was rejected.3. The contention of the appellants is that they are registered with the Service Tax Authority for the following services: The contention is that apart from these services, appellants are also undertaking the Maintenance services, Garage supervision services, Utility services, Legal assistance and advice services etc. which are not covered under the ambit of service tax. The contention is that the Service tax paid by the appellants on the services which are not covered under the scope of Service tax are liable to be returned to the appellants.4. Revenue raised a preliminary objection by saying that refund is not maintainable as the appellants are registered with the Service Tax Authority and regularly paying service tax as per the assessment and they had never asked for provisional assessment under Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules and th...

Durga Steel and Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The duty demand is in respect of M.S. Bars and Rods etc. made from rails, wheels, fish plates etc. purchased from the railways. The Appellant claimed exemption under Notification No. 202/88 which was rejected in the impugned order. Learned Counsel of the Appellant has submitted that this issue had come up before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Lakshmi Rolling Mills and others and the High Court was pleased to hold that such materials purchased from the Railways should be presumed to be duty paid and the products made therefrom were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 202/88. It is also being pointed out that this judgment was taken up in Appeal before the Supreme Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to dismiss the Appeal. Thus, according to the learned Counsel, the issue remains covered in favour of the Appellant.2. Learned Senior Departmental Representative submits that a similar issue in relation to Notification No. 74/65 had come up before the...

Chhattar Singh and ors., Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 122(2005)DLT543; 2005(83)DRJ614

B.C. Patel, C.J.1. These appeals are concerned with the land situated in Katwaria Sarai, which was acquired vide notification dated 24.10.1961 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the said Act' ). Declaration was issued under Section 6 of the said Act on 06.01.1964 and Award No. 1738 was made and published on 13.10.1964 awarding compensation for two blocks of land @ Rs.2,500/- per bigha and Rs.1,500/- per bigha. The claimants aggrieved by the same preferred a reference under Section 18 of the said Act and the said reference was decided vide LAC Case No. 408-A/1988 on 27.01.1990 determining the market value of compensation at Rs.12,000/- per bigha. The claimants still not satisfied have preferred the above-said appeals. There are some cross appeals also filed by the Union of India.2.The contention of learned senior counsel for the claimants is in a limited compass. Learned senior counsel submits that Mehrauli Village was what was earlier...

Court on Its Own Motion Re: State Vs. Pradeep

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 122(2005)DLT527; 2005(83)DRJ491

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. A reference dated 08.01.2003 has been made by the Juvenile Justice Court, Delhi, whereby the court has sought information on the following points:-1. As to whether the Court should discharge the accused though the discharge application was moved on the false grounds duly forwarded by the prosecution on completion of the investigation, or the court can direct in accordance with law to the investigating agency for the further investigation in proper manner within the appropriate provisions of law after filing of charge sheet in the court and also after non-compliance of the directions of conducting the TIP.2. It is further requested to guide the court officers as to whether the court can sent the complainant for the purpose of TIP by marking it to the Ld. Link magistrate on its own to ascertain as to whether recovery can be connected with the complainants of theft particularly in the circumstances when there is no application moved by IO for conducting TIP for the reason...

Kartar Singh Giroh Vs. Air India and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 122(2005)DLT541; 2005(83)DRJ611

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. By way of WP(C)2437/1989, the Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to duly consider the Petitioner for the vacancy which arose in the year 1986 in the post of Assistant Accounts Officer in the Air India. The Petitioner also prays for writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to consider the Petitioner for promotion, eschewing the uncommunicated adverse entries from consideration as also writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to apply the Reservation Policy contained in the Government of India Circulars, for filling up the vacancy of Assistant Accounts Officer in Air India in the year 1986.2. The brief facts of the case, as has been stated in the Writ Petition, are as under :'(a) The Petitioner is working in Air India as an Accountant. He belongs to Scheduled Case. His next promotion has to be to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer. As a matter of fact, the Petitioner was selected for promotion in the year since the Petitioner was on ove...