Delhi Court January 2006 Judgments

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Amba Steels

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal, the appellant challenges the order of remand made by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The adjudicating authority had demanded Service Tax amounting to Rs. 5,75,000/- from the respondent under Section 73 read with Section 71(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 along with interest at the appropriate rate under Section 75. Further, equal penalty was imposed under Sections 75A, 76, 77 and 78 of the Act on the ground that the respondent had received an amount of Rs. 1,55,00,000/- in the form of ad hoc advance reflected as 'Other Income' in the PLA Account of the year 2001-02 which amount was received in terms of an agreement dated 20th July, 2001 between the respondent and the contractor. The appellate authority found that the adjudicating authority had neither considered the relevant Circulars of the Board nor the ratio of the relevant judgments. It was also held that the adjudicating authority did not consider the submissions made by the present respondent and, therefore, the ord...

Ajanta Fabrication Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Ajanta Fabrication challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 31-3-2005. In the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) had concluded that the appellants come under the purview of service tax as advertising agency. The appellants have contended in their appeal petition that they are a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture and sales of hoardings, sign boards and signages and that they were awarded a tender by Uttaranchal Tourism Department to manufacture and affix signages at specified places. The appellants were required to manufacture signages as below : Board Painted with High Quality Stoving Enamel Paint by Spray Process, writing/drawing of the given matters by department as per colour choice, for prominent display, important information shall be laminated with engineers grade refractive sheets ... please collect the details of the materials to be written on signages, colour schemes to be used and list of places, where these...

Yash Pal Sodhi S/O I. Dass Sodhi Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Through this OA applicant has sought promotion to the post of Office Superintendent Grade-I (OS-I) (Rs.6500-10500) from the date of its vacancy, besides release of dual charge allowance from 1998.2. Earlier on applicant had filed OA No. 3094/2002, which was disposed of vide order dated 27.11.2002 directing respondent No. 2 to consider applicants representation dated 14.9.2002 and pass an appropriate speaking order within a period of three months. Respondents have passed such orders vide Annexure A-1 dated 14.2.2003 rejecting applicants claims. As regards promotion to the post of OS-I, respondents have stated that applicants ACRs for the years 2000-01 and 2001-02 are not found up to the mark, and also that his working report for the current year, i.e., 2002-03 was also not found satisfactory. As regards applicants entitlement for dual charge allowance it has been stated that there are five posts of clerks as per sanctioned strength and all of them are manned. As such, applicant had ...

Suni Manoj Mathew and anr. Vs. Bses Rajdhani and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007ACJ156; 126(2006)DLT570; 2006(86)DRJ575

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The prayer in this Writ Petition is for the grant of compensation in the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- owing to the untimely death of late Manoj Mathew owing to the negligent acts of the Respondents. The undisputed facts are that late Manoj Mathew met with a fatal accident on 17.6.2002 at the I.I.T. Flyover, opposite Satnam Taxi Stand. He was rushed to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). He was driving his motorcycle at the time when he encountered his death. He died within six hours of the accident. The Petition has been filed by his wife and son.2. Respondent No.3 is the Commissioner of Police. The only grievance against this Respondent pertains to the timely recording of the First Information Report (FIR). It now transpires that the criminal proceedings are underway against Shri Mudrax Parashar, owner of MSS Bijlee Bharti, having his office at Y 2A, Phase-II, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi. No liability can be fastened on the said Respondent No.3 or ...

P.T. Dhara Dutt Vs. P.N. Nagpal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 126(2006)DLT293; 2006(86)DRJ409

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. SAO 40/1997 is directed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal, in RCA No. 954/1995 dated 06.10.1997 whereby the learned Tribunal has allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Rent Controller dated 20.10.1995 and directed the parties to appear before the Rent Controller and proceed in accordance with law.2. Facts of the case are that the Landlord-respondent filed RCA 954/1995 under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act impugning the order dated 20.10.1995 passed by the Additional Rent Controller dismissing the Execution Petition seeking warrants of possession due to non-compliance of the judgment dated 26.04.1970. It was contended before the Tribunal that the aforesaid judgment was hypothetical and also that the requirement of notice had been met and that the tenant was well informed of the demand raised by the Land DO. It was also contended that the judgment dated 26.04.1970 stands fully complied with and that the impugned order of the DRC dated 20....

i.C.M. Airport Technics Vs. International Airport Authority of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(1)ARBLR146(Delhi)

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.IA No. 9835/1994 (Under Sections 30 and 33 of The Arbitration Act, 1940)IA No. 10400/1994 (Under Section 15 of The Arbitration Act, 1940)1. The respondent International Airport Authority of India, entered into an agreement with the petitioner on 12.01.1984 for supply, installation, testing and commissioning of a pallet / container storage and handling equipment at the International Cargo Terminal Building at the new International Terminal Complex at Delhi Airport. Disputes arose between the parties in respect of the work to be carried out and the payments to be made and as a result of the same, the Chairman of the respondent appointed Justice P.N. Khanna (Retd.) as the Sole Arbitrator as per the arbitration clause between the parties. The Sole Arbitrator has made and published his Award on 15.03.1994. In terms of the Award, some of the claims of the petitioner had been accepted, while others had been rejected.2. The respondent herein has filed objections under Sec...

City Palace Electronics and ors. Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 126(2006)DLT324; 2006(86)DRJ741

ORDERJ.P. Singh, J.1. These petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the summoning order dated 16.11.2004 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi and for quashing of the complaint and the proceedings emanating there from. I have heard Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned counsel for respondent and have gone through the impugned order as also copies of the documents placed on the file.2. Briefly the facts are that M/s. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. filed a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against M/s. City Palace Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and its Directors S. Shri Vijay Kumar Chabra, Dinesh Kumar Chabra and Rajinder Kumar Chabra. It is alleged in the complaint that accused No. 1 is a multi-brand dealer and was one of several hundred authorized dealers of the complainant. Complainant supplied its Sony and AIWA products to accused No. 1 an...

Ram Jethmalani Vs. Subramaniam Swamy

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi300; 126(2006)DLT535; 2006(87)DRJ603

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Needless to state, to appreciate an action for libel or slander, knowledge of the facts constituting the backdrop against which the battle of words was fought is essential. Briefly stated, origin of the present suit are the proceedings which commenced pursuant to a notification dated 23.8.1991 issued by the Central Government under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.2. Justice M.C.Jain Commission of Inquiry was constituted under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 with the mandate to make an inquiry with respect to the following matters :-'(a) The consequences of events leading, and all the facts and circumstances relating to, the assassination of Shri Rajiv Gandhi at Sriperumbudur (other than the matters covered by the terms of reference for the Commission of Inquiry headed by Shri Justice J.S.Verma);(b) Whether any person or persons or agencies were responsible for conceiving, preparing and planning the association and whether there was any con...

Fatehpuria Vidyut Udyog (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC123

1. The relevant facts which arise for consideration in this appeal is that the appellants are manufacturer of transformer and repair old transformer sent to them by the Electricity Board. For the manufacturing transformer the appellants availed the Modvat credit on the DPC wires purchased by them on payment of duty. These wires were converted into coil and these coils are used in the new transformer as well as in the repair of the old transformer. When the appellants cleared new transformer he does so on payment of appropriate duty on the transformers, when the appellants clear the repaired transformer he does not pay any duty, but pays duty on the copper coil which is manufactured in his factory from the duty paid DPC coil. The department issued a show cause notice to the appellants for the denial of the Modvat credit on the DPC copper wire used by the appellants for the manufacture of coils which were used subsequently in transformer which were repaired and cleared without payment o...

Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. Control Textile Co. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal whereby the benefit of Notification No. 5/99 & 6/2000-C.E. was allowed to the appellant in respect of the goods which were manufactured out of inputs regarding which no proof regarding payment of appropriate duty has been produced.3. The respondents are engaged in the process of cotton yarn and were availing the benefit of Notification No. 5/99-C.E., dated 28-2-99 & 6/2000, dated 1-3-2000. The notification provides exemption from payment of duty of their final product if the goods are manufactured out of yarn on which appropriate duty of excise has been paid and no credit has been taken in respect of such duty.4. The contention of the Revenue is that two show cause notices were issued to the respondent for denial of benefit of the notification.However, on slowing the proof regarding payment of appropriate duty in respect of inputs used in their final product the benefit of notifications were allowed and the benefit was d...