Delhi Court August 2005 Judgments

Tehri Pulp and Paper Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. There is service tax demand of over Rs. 80 lakhs for the period 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. There is a finding that the appellant was rendering clearing and forwarding agency service during this period to 21 customers. The impugned order has noted that the appellant was assisting in selling of the goods and procurement of order. The finding also mentions that the services rendered by the appellants vis-a-vis procurement of order for interested clients, supplying against tenders, inspection of goods, collection of payments etc. shows that he had directly or indirectly handled the goods and thus, services rendered by them come under the purview of Clearing & Forwarding Agency service'.3. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the appellant had been rendering the service of commission agent and amount received was in that capacity and no service was being rendered in regard to clearing and forwarding. It is also being pointed out that the appellant's clients h...

L and T Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT179TriDel

1. The claim in this appeal of Larsen & Toubro Limited is for payment of interest.2. The appellant had imported certain machinery in 1996 and claimed certain exemption. A bank guarantee was executed in January, 1997.Under order of adjudication dated 13-12-99, the appellant's claim for exemption was rejected. The bank guarantee filed by the appellant was encashed and an amount of about Rs. 1.05 crore was realised on 10-5-2000. The appellant filed an appeal against the order of adjudication, along with stay application. When the stay application came up for hearing before the Commissioner (Appeals), it was submitted that an amount of over Rs. 1.05 crores already remained realised through the encashment of the bank guarantee and Commissioner (Appeals) waived the requirement for further pre-deposit and heard the appeal.The appeal was subsequently allowed under an order dated 28-9-2000 (issued on 3-10-2000). The appellant filed refund application on 8-12-2000 claiming the return of the...

Dynamik Universal Ltd. Vs. Dy Cit Central Circle 18

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)4SOT825(Delhi)

This appeal by the assessee is against the order passed by the CIT(A) for Block Period 1-4-1995 to 22-8-2001.The facts of the case are that the assessee was holding a free hold plot No. 20/4, situated on Gurgaon Mehrauli Road, Sukhrali Chowk, Gurgaon admeasuring 11 Kanals, 8 Marlas equivalent to 6897 sq. yds. M/s Elite Promoters P. Ltd. being a builder, vide Collaboration Agreement dated 19-5-1997 agreed to construct a multi-storied office-cum-commercial complex, consisting of two basements, Ground and Seven floors (presently known as "Palm Court") as its own cost and expenses, after obtaining all necessary Government's approvals on equal sharing ratio i.e. 50% of saleable area. Accordingly, Plan bearing No.1155ME dated 3-9-1997 for construction of "Palm Court" Project was submitted to Municipal Committee, Gurgaon, Haryana and subsequently vide their certificate bearing No. 2363 dated 11-5-2000 the requisite Completion Certificate was issued to them. Simultaneously other certificates ...

India Glycols Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(176)ELT290TriDel

1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the appellant in spite of notice. A copy of the notice was also issued to the Consultant of the appellant. In these circumstances, the appeal is being taken up in absence of the appellant.3. The appellant filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of MODVAT credit was denied in respect of the Iron and Steel products such as MS Angles and Bitumen, components and parts etc.4. The contention of the appellant in the appeal memorandum is that Iron and Steel products are used in the fabrication work. The bitumen is used for waterproofing in foundation and the components parts are of electrical items and are used at various places for electric control functions.5. The contention of the Revenue is that the capital goods as per the definition of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 ar machines and machinery used in the manufacture of final product or the parts, spare compone...

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Krishan Kumar Madhok

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 123(2005)DLT329; 2005(84)DRJ149

Vijender Jain, J.1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 11.2.1997 by which the objections against the award filed by the appellant were dismissed. In the appeal before us the appellant has restricted his grievance with regard to grant of interest by the Court as well under the Award made on 20.9.2000.2. Briefly stating the facts, certain disputes arose between the parties and the matter was referred for arbitration and an interim Award was made on 30.6.1988. The interim Award did not grant any interest and it was left to the appellant to calculate the amount due on said claims by the Arbitrator. That interim Award was challenged by the respondent by way of filing objections on 11.2.1997. On the objection of the respondent the learned Single Judge of this Court vide its order dated 11.2.1997 held as under:'In view of the foregoing reasons, I consider appropriate to remit the matter relating to the above claims of the Arb...

R.K. Bhatia Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(84)DRJ258

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule D.B. With the consent of the both the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. The issue involved in the present writ petition relates to the pay and allowances of the petitioner in respect of the period from 15th February, 1986 which is the date of retrospective promotion of the petitioner until 26th September, 1987, the date when the petitioner joined the post of Second in Command (2-I-C) in the Border Security Force. 3. The order of 3rd September, 1987 in so far as the petitioner is concerned reads as follows:-'To Dated the 03 Sept, 1987The Deputy Director (Accounts)Pay and Accounts DivisionDte Genl, Border Security ForcePushpa Bhavan, New Delhi 110 062Subject: PROMOTION OF DEPUTY COMMANDANTJOINT ASSISTANT DIRECTORS TO THEGRADE OF SECOND-IN-COMMAND(OFFICIATING) IN THE BSF 'REGARDING. Sir, I am directed to convey the sanction of the President to the appointment of the following Deputy Commandants/ Joint Assistant Directors or equivalent on prom...

Suleman Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 123(2005)DLT206; 2005(84)DRJ94

T.S. Thakur, J.1. Two precise questions fall for consideration in this batch of cases. These are :-(i) Can a fresh declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 be issued by the competent authority after an earlier declaration made under the said provision is either found or declared to be legally invalid; and(ii) If a second declaration under Section 6 of the Act is not legally barred, can the period during which a competent court has stayed further action or proceedings in pursuance of the preliminary notification be excluded while computing the period referred to in the first proviso to Section 6 ?2. The questions arise in the following factual backdrop :-3. In terms of a notification dated 30th June, 1988, land measuring 72 bighas situate in Khasra No. 1151/3 min (new) [old Khasra No. 1665] of village Mehrauli, New Delhi was notified for acquisition under Section 4 read withSection 17(1) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act. This was followed by a declaration dated 1...

Bush Boake Allen (India) Ltd. Vs. Mehtajee and Company and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2006)BC427

Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. Plaintiff-Bush Boake Allen (I) Ltd. filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 27,70,832/- under the provisions of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the `Code') Plaintiff is a Company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office at 1-5 Seven Wells Street, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai-600016 and has a Regional Office at Delhi. The suit has been instituted, signed and verified by Shri T.T.P. Shaheel, Regional Manager who has been duly authorised by the Board of Directors of the plaintiff-Company. The plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacture, marketing and sale of flavours and fragrances and have been the oldest in the industry having been in operation since Mid 1800s. Defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm with defendant No. 2 and one Shri Satish Chugh as its partners. After the death of Mr. Satish Chugh, his wife defendant No. 3 became a partner of defendant No. 1 and have been conducting the bu...

Greaves Limited Vs. Sandeep Dawar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)142PLR22

Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,08,646.59 (Rupees one crore eight lakh ninety-eight thousand six hundred forty-six and fifty-nine paise) under the provisions of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This suit was instituted on the averments that the plaintiff is a limited company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at 1, Dr. V.B. Gandhi Marg, Mumbai. It also has its registered office at New Delhi. The plaintiff-company deals in various machinery items, materials, etc. and enjoys a high reputation and enriched status in the business circles. Mr. Mahinder Kumar Jain, the Deputy Manager in the company, who is stated to be conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case had been authorised by the Board of Directors vide resolution dated 29th January, 1999 to sign and verify the pleadings and file the present suit in this Court. He also holds the General Power of Attorney dated 3rd February, 1999 in ...

Indian Airlines Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(3)SLJ461(Delhi)

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The petitioner-Indian Airlines was initially incorporated as a corporation under the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Air Act, for short).2. Under Section 45 of the Air Act, the petitioner had framed regulations relating to terms and conditions of service of its officers and its employees.3. As per the writ petition in and around 1978, the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) wrote to the petitioner about its intention to proceed with certification proceedings under the Industrial Employees (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the Standing Orders Act, for short) in respect of the service regulations made by the petitioner. This was objected to by the petitioner on the ground that the Standing Orders Act was not applicable to it. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) as certifying authority under the Standing Orders Act overruled this and other objections in its order dated 24th June, 1980 and held that the petition...