Delhi Court January 2006 Judgments

Rajasthan Textiles Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)9STT528

1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal dated 28-9-2004 wherein the refund claim of the appellants has been rejected. The appellants are availing the services from goods transport operators and they were directed to pay the Service Tax of Rs. 5,34,637/- for the services received by them from goods transport operators for the period 16-11-1997 to 2-6-1998. The appellants paid the service tax on 12-11-2003. The appellants filed the refund claim on 28-11-2003 for the said amount on the ground that they are not covered under the category of 'people liable to pay service tax' on the services received from goods transport operators. Show cause notice was issued to the appellants for the rejection of the refund amount. The adjudicating authority vide its order-in-original dated 21-6-2004 rejected the refund claim filed by the appellants. On an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) also came to the concurrent finding and rejected the appeal of the appellants.3. The learned advocat...

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Brakewel Auto Components (i) Pvt.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The respondents herein are Receiver of Consulting Engineering Services from M/s. ASK Technika Corpn., Japan, with whom they entered in the technical agreement for know how of design of plan layout, guidance for manufacturing process, quality test, installation of equipment etc. The respondents paid the technical know how fees on 1-7-98 in consideration of the technical assistance to M/s. ASK Technika Corporation. Hence, show cause notice was issued for recovery of Service Tax on the fees paid by respondents and proposing to imposition of penalty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of the Service Tax along with interest and also imposed penalty. On an appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order-in-original on the ground that the period of dispute is prior to 28-2-99 when Service Tax rule was amended to provide that in the case of a person who is non-resident or is outside from India and does not have any office in India, the Service tax thereon shall be paid e...

Cce Vs. Gmtd, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)8STT384

1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal dated 19.11.2004 wherein the penalty imposed on the respondents has been reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are the respondents are Government of India Undertaking company and had provided internet access service to the customers during the period 16th July, 2001 to 31st May, 2003. The respondents were liable to pay service tax on this internet access service, which they failed to do so. Show cause notice was issued to the respondents demanding the service tax for the period and also seeking to impose penalty and charging interest. The adjudicating authority vide its order dated 30th March, 2004 confirmed the demand and also imposed equivalent penalty and also directed the respondents to pay interest. The respondents paid the service tax confirmed and preferred an appeal to the appellate authority. The appellate authority considered the submissions made by the respondents and r...

Ashiana Cargo Services Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-original dated 21st April, 2005 wherein the CHA Licence was suspended under Regulation 20 of CHA Licencing Regulations, 2004.2. The brief facts that arise for consideration are : The appellants are holding CHA Licence No. 11/97 issued to them under CHA Licence Regulation. The appellants herein procured G-Card in the name of two persons. These persons were found to be utilizing the said G-Card fraudulently to export prohibited narcotic drugs in connivance with M/s V.K. International Pvt. Ltd. This was detected by the Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch of the Customs Department.Accordingly, a show cause notice for suspension of his Licence under Regulation 20 of CHA Licencing Regulations, 2004 was issued. The adjudicating authority after granting personal hearing came to the conclusion that CHA Licence has to be suspended as per the provisions of Regulation 20(2) of CHA Licencing Regulations, 2004 and suspended the Licence and d...

Sriram Cables Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Common issue is involved on these appeals, therefore, are being taken up together.3. The appellants made import of Fibre Glass Roving and claimed the benefit of Customs Notification No. 23/98, dated 2nd June, 1998 which provides concessional rate of duty of fibre glass roving for the use of manufacture of telecommunication Grade FRP Rods (Fibre Reinforced Plastic Rods). The show cause notices were issued to the appellants demanding duty in respect of Roving on the ground that the same is not used in the manufacture of Telecommunication Grade FRP Rods.4. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed the penalties.5. The contention of the appellants is that the Fibre Glass Roving imported by them is used in the manufacture of Telecommunication overhead cables and all the goods manufactured out of the imported goods are supplied the telecommunication department. As per the specification given by the telecommunication department in respect of self supporting PVC Drop ...

P.M. Diesels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Thukral Mechanical Works and the Intellectu ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 127(2006)DLT323; 2006(32)PTC269(Del)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Appellant filed an appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent directed against an order dated 5th July 2005 passed by a learned Single Judge in CM No.14450 of 2004 in CW No.19632 of 2004 declining an interim stay to the Appellant. When we took up the appeal for consideration on 14th December 2005 we felt that disposal of the appeal and the writ petition would require consideration of the same facts and submissions and, thereforee, directed that both the appeal and writ petition be heard together on merits. We heard learned counsels for the parties on 16th December 2005 and 3rd January 2006 when judgment was reserved. This decision will dispose of the appeal as well as the writ petition.2. The issue concerns the interpretation of Section 46(1)(b) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (the Act) and we agree with learned counsel for the Appellants that the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (the Board) has erroneously interpreted the said provision. We,...

Shanta Bhagati W/O Late Shri Makhan Lal Bhagati Vs. Delhi Development ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 127(2006)DLT120; 2006(88)DRJ41

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Appellant is aggrieved by the judgment order dated 30th August 2005 passed by a learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 1861 of 2005 whereby even though the writ petition was allowed, the Appellant was directed to pay interest to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) @ 12% per annum.2. We are of the view that the grievance of the Appellant is justified and the appeal deserves to be allowed since there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to award interest to the DDA.3. The Appellant's husband was registered with the NPRS Scheme, 1979 floated by the DDA for allotment of an MIG flat. In 1980, the Appellant's husband changed his residence and this was admittedly intimated to the DDA. Unfortunately, though not unsurprisingly, the concerned officer of the DDA did not take note of the change of address.4. In a draw held in 1999, the Appellant's husband (who had since passed away) was allotted a flat but intimation thereof was sent at the earlier address with the r...

Constellation Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. P.E.C. Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(1)ALD(Cri)54; [2006]132CompCas162(Delhi); 127(2006)DLT733; 2006(87)DRJ558

ORDERJ.P. Singh, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the summoning order dated 14.2.2003 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi in Criminal Compliant case No. 478/1/2002 under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. I have heard Mr. V.K.Shali learned counsel for the petitioners on admission and have gone through the impugned order as well as copies of the documents placed on the file.3. As per complaint the brief facts are that the respondent-complainant company is a Government of India Enterprise. Accused No. 1 through its duly authorized Directors approached the complaint-company in April 2000 with a proposal for import of 1000 CBM Indonesian Meranti from one M/s PT. BUMITUMBUH PERKASA, INDONESIA and requested the complainant to import the goods on their behalf and promised to lift the goods as per agreement and to make complete payment thereof. The complainant was to give post dated cheque ...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hemla Hoziery Dyeing and Printing Mills ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]286ITR646(Delhi)

1. Rule 24 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 inter alias provides that if on the date fixed for hearing, the appellant does not appear in person or through an Authorised Representative when the appeal was called on for hearing, the Tribunal may dispose of the appeal on merits after hearing the respondent. Rule 25 similarly empowers the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal after hearing the appellant if the respondent does not appear when the appeal is called on for hearing. ITA Nos. 4703 and 4081/1997 which happen to be cross-appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessed were heard and disposed of on merits by the Tribunal by its order dt. 13th Nov., 2003. A perusal of the said order would show that while ITA No. 4703/1997 filed by the Revenue was allowed, ITA No. 4081/1997 filed by the assessed was dismissed. The assessed thereafter moved MA No. 179/2005 seeking recall of the said order and restoration of the appeals. The Tribunal has by the order impugned in this appeal allowed the said applicati...

Exim Concept Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT647

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 19.1.2005.2. We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same, except where necessary.4. It appears that Duty Free Replenishment Certificate license had been granted to M/s Alpha Overseas and M/s Gunja Impex in the month of November, 2002. The petitioner/appellant is stated to have purchased these licenses from those parties. Thereafter these licenses have been cancelled by respondent No.2. It is alleged that the cancellation was done without an opportunity of hearing. 5. In paragraph 2 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that a show cause notice was issued to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner firm, namely, M/s Alpha Overseas and M/s Gunja Impex respectively to show cause as to why the licenses issued in their fav...