Delhi Court January 2006 Judgments

C.C.E. Vs. Vijay Lakshmi Poly Fabrics

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC52

1. Assessee and revenue are in appeal against the same order. Both the appeals were taken up together and are disposed of by this common order.2. Impugned order has confirmed duty demand of Rs. 3,68,690/- and imposed an equal amount of penalty. There is also demand of interest.3. Short levy demand has been confirmed on the ground that appellant had clandestinely produced and cleared the excisable goods without payment of duty to the extent confirmed in the order. The main evidence of the revenue are (a) Production/Roll Weighment Register and (b) Challan books recovered from the appellants premises during a visit of the Excise officers on 21.10.98. Both these private records one indicating production and the other indicating sales were for different periods.4. The contention of the appellant is that production register was maintained by some labourer and the assesee had no responsibility for the register. It has also been argued that revenue had no examined the person who kept the regi...

B.L. Mantri and Associates (P) Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants are holder of certificate of registration of the service of Consulting Engineer. They submitted their half yearly return for the half year ending September, 02 on 10.2.03 although due date of submission of return was 25.10.2002. Show cause notice was issued to them for imposition of penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act for delay in payment of service tax and under Section 77 for late filing of the return. They have collected the service tax for the services provided by them during the period from 4/02 to 9/02 but they credited this amount to the Government on 8.2.03.2. It was argued for the appellants that during the period from 25.12.01 to 25.10.02, the main reason for late payment of service tax was due to changeover of staff looking after; this work. However, from their own statements, it is clear that Shri Gajendra Singh joined on 11.5.02 and for filing the return, the due date was 25.10.02. There was sufficient time for him to know the manner of depositin...

Winsome Spinners Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants, M/s. Winsome Spinners, have filed an appeal against the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 13-6-2000 which denied Modvat credit in respect of two items, namely, (i) fibre glass insulation which maintained the desired humidity/temperature conditions while spinning; and (ii) storage tank placed for storage of diesel oil required for running the diesel generating set being essential item for running the factory. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that these goods do not bring about any change in any substance for manufacture of the final product and they cannot be considered as integral part of plant, machinery etc. He, therefore, denied the credit.2. In addition to that, the appellants had grievance against the decision of the Deputy Commissioner vide his Order dated 9-7-1996 in which it was held that the Modvat credit of Rs. 15,000/- availed by the appellants was done so without duplicate copy of the invoice. Hence credit was denied to them.3. The le...

ito Vs. Alfred Allan Advertising

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)8SOT312(Delhi)

TDS No. I /Del./04 is an appeal by the revenue, while TDS No.209/Del./03 is an appeal by the person responsible for deduction of tax at source while making payment, hereinafter called "the appellant" and both these appeals are directed against the order dated 7-10-2003 of Commissioner (Appeals)-IX, New Delhi relating to the financial year 2001-02. These appeals arise out of the order passed under section 201 and 201(IA) of the Income Tax Act.The appellant is a partnership firm. It is an accredited media agency engaged in the business of production of audio/video serials, films, compaign materials or works. For the financial year 1999-2000 the appellant filed return of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) in Form Nos. 26C and 26K. On examination of such return of TDS filed by the appellant, the assessing officer noticed that the appellant had paid a sum of Rs. 47,94,842 to M/s. Teletrack Advertising Bombay (TAB) Pvt. Ltd. and it had deducted TDS on such payment at 2 per cent plus surcharge und...

Kameshwari Finance and Leasing Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)109ITD173(Delhi)

1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dt. 18th Dec., 2000 of CIT(A)-II, New Delhi, relating to the asst. yr. 1997-98.2. Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, provides for establishment of a Board called Securities & Exchange Board of India, hereinafter called SEBI, to protect the interests of the investors in securities and development of securities market. The Board has powers to issue regulations/guidelines/ directions to carry out the intents and purpose of the Act. One such regulation issued by SEBI in connection with public issue of shares DIP series provides in Section L as follows : (a) Equity capital to be subscribed in any issue to the public by the promoters, i.e., those described in the prospectus as promoters, directors, friends, relatives and associates should not be less than 25 per cent of the total issue of equity capital upto Rs. 100 crores and 20 per cent for the issue above Rs. 100 crores. In the case of FCDs, one-third of issue amou...

Kameshwari Finance and Leasing (P) Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)101TTJ(Delhi)461

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 18-12-2000 of Commissioner (Appeals)-II, New Delhi, relating to the assessment year 1997-98.2. Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, provides for establishment of a Board called Securities & Exchange Board of India, hereinafter called SEBI, to protect the interests of the investors in securities and development of securities market. The Board has powers to issue regulations/guidelines/ directions to carry out the intents and purpose of the Act. One such regulation issued by SEBI in connection with public issue of shares DIP series provides in section L as follows : (a) Equity capital to be subscribed in any issue to the public by the promoters, i.e., those described in the prospectus as promoters, directors, friends, relatives and associates should not be less than 25 per cent of the total issue of equity capital upto Rs. 100 crores and 20 per cent for the issue above Rs. 100 crores. In the case of FCDs, one-thi...

Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)100TTJ(Delhi)400

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee taking the following grounds of appeal : (1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the authorities below have erred both on facts and in law in imposing and sustaining the illegal levy of penalty of Rs. 7,00,000 under Section 271(1)(c),of the IT Act when there can be no allegation of concealment whatsoever against the appellant and hence the penalty is liable to be set aside and quashed and declared as unsustainable in law. (2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the authorities below have erred in drawing adverse inferences against the assessee ignoring the bona fide nature of the conduct of the assessee and the fact that all legitimate taxes have been duly paid and any point of doubt or debate in regard to the interpretation of the statutory provision and the possibilities of divergence of opinion between the assessee and the Revenue cannot by themselves justify any allegation of mala fide conduct against the ass...

H.L. Warkoo Vs. Kashmir University and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 127(2006)DLT333

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In these writ proceedings, the petitioner has claimed directions to the respondents, i.e. the Kashmir University and the Resident Commissioner, Jammu & Kashmir, to release all pending amounts towards General Provident Fund arrears from 1.1.1999 to 31.5.2000, with Gratuity, Leave Salary, Special Medical Allowance benefits. A consequential direction to pay interest at 18% on the amounts withheld has also been claimed. 2. The facts necessary for purposes deciding this petition are brief. The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in the Respondent University's Math Department. He was promoted as Reader on 1.9.1983. He had opted for GPF-cum-Pension Scheme; the amounts were being credited to the GPF Account in the Jammu & Kashmir Bank. The amounts deducted from petitioner (tm)s salary as also the contributions of the Respondent University were to be deposited in the Bank and the University was maintaining fixed deposits for the purpose.3. On account of unrest and turmoi...

Microforms Inc Vs. Girdhar and Co. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT238; 2006(32)PTC157(Del)

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The plaintiff's grievance of violation of its copyright in the artistic works applied to upholstery fabrics and the allegation of an attempt to pass off the goods of the defendants as that of the plaintiff has given rise to the present litigation.2. The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the laws of the USA and is stated to be engaged worldwide in the business relating to manufacturing, marketing, selling and exporting of upholstery fabrics directly or through its subsidiaries and affiliates. The brand name of the plaintiff is stated to be Microforms. The business of the plaintiff is stated to have commenced in the year 1926 and the plaint states that on the upholstery fabrics are printed, unique and original artistic works which are conceptualized and drawn/printed by either its employees or other persons who have assigned the copyright in the works to the plaintiff. More than 1000 people are stated to be employed by the plaintiff and a global annual tu...

Triveni Oil Field Service Ltd. Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Commission

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi331; 2006(1)ARBLR360(Delhi); IV(2006)BC429; 128(2006)DLT541; 2006(87)DRJ482; (2006)143PLR46

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 seeking a prayer that this court should make an order of reference to the Arbitrator. When this matter came up before this court on 18.08.1999, an objection was taken by the learned counsel for the respondent that this court would not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. In view of the objection taken by the learned counsel for the respondent the following preliminary issue was framed:-Whether this court has territorial jurisdiction, if not to what effect?2. The counsel for the parties have agreed that this issue be decided and if the issue is decided in favor of the petitioner meaning thereby that this court has territorial jurisdiction, then the application may also be disposed of on merits. The counsel for the parties have advanced arguments on this understanding.3. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the respondent issued invitations to bid on 09.0...