Delhi Court October 2006 Judgments

Rishabh Travels Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 19,30,935/- and penalty of Rs. 41,81,270/-. The demand of service tax was confirmed on the ground that the applicants were providing service as tour operator.2. The contention of the applicant is that they are not tour operator but they are only booking agent and working on commission basis. The contention is that combined order was passed by Commissioner (Appeals) in applicant's appeal as well as Shrinath Tourist Agency and in case of Shrinath Tourist Agency, the Tribunal granted absolutely stay vide order dated 10-5-06 2006 (4) S.T.R. 87 (Tri.). Therefore, the applicants are entitled for hearing of the appeal without pre-deposit of the amount of Service Tax.3. The contention of the revenue is that in the case of Shrinath Tourist Agency, the facts are different. They do not have any tourist permit in their own name and they are simply booking agent. In the present case, the appli...

Speciality Coatings and Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(115)ECC116

1. The case is before us on remand by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh. That order may be read as under: In view of judgment rendered, today, in C.E.A. No. 13 of 2005 (Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-111 v. Machine Montell (1) Ltd. and Anr.), we allow this appeal and set aside the order passed by the Tribunal to the extent and penalty levied on the assessee have been set aside because the duty was deposited before issue of show cause notice and remand the case back to the Tribunal for fresh decision on merits and in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal for further proceedings on 4.9.06.2. We have perused the records and heard both sides. The only issue for consideration is whether penalty is attracted in the present case under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. That section also may be read: Section 11AC - Penalty for short levy or non-levy of duty in certain cases - where any duty of excise has not been levied or...

Prem Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT509TriDel

1. Heard both sides. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 1,54,118/- and penalty. The demand of service tax was confirmed after confirming the applicant is the real estate agent. The contention of the applicant is that they had only introduced the parties and the demand is time-barred.2. The revenue pointed out that the applicants in letter dated 18-12-02 informed that they had received an amount of Rs. 30 lakhs on sale of plot. We find that the demand of service tax was confirmed on the applicant as Real Estate Agent which covers a person who is engaged in rendering any service in relation to sale, purchase, leasing or renting of real estate and includes a real estate consultant. The applicants are admitting that they had received an amount of Rs. 30 lakhs in respect of introduction of two clients for sale of real estate. In these circumstances, we find that it is not a fit case for waiver of demand of service tax. The applicants are di...

Ex Constable Yash Pal Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant has assailed order dated 16.7.2004 whereby he has been dismissed from service with immediate effect by dispensing with the condition of holding of enquiry by exercise of powers under the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India. He has also assailed order dated 24.12.2004 upholding the punishment in appeal.2. The facts of the case reveal that an FIR No.619 dated 15.7.2004 under Sections 341/366/384/511/376-G/34/109/120-B IPC P.S. Kalkaji, New Delhi, was registered against the applicant along with four others, who were arrested on the same date. The allegation against the applicant as evident from the order of punishment appears to have been that he was involved in the incident of alleged extortion and rape in connivance with the others named in the FIR. The applicant did not report for duty on the day following the incident. The disciplinary authority found the involvement of the applicant in such anti social and illegal activities to be most repre...

Hc Suresh Kumar, Pis No. 28824105 Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant, a Head Constable in Delhi Police, has sought quashing of order dated 17.1.2005, whereby a major punishment, following an enquiry, has been inflicted upon him as well as appellate order dated 26/5/2005, whereby on seeking benefit of decision in the case of co-defaulter Constable Narender Kumar v. Union of India in OA-32/2003 decided on 16.9.2003 and on implementation, entailing a minor penalty of censure against Constable Narender Kumar having been rejected to be entertained, are impugned.2. Applicant, along with one Constable Narender Kumar has been proceeded against in a departmental enquiry (DE) for alleged misconduct of accepting illegal gratification detected by PRG team on a finding of guilt by the Enquiry Officer was imposed a major punishment. Applicant has not preferred an appeal against the order. However, Constable Narender Kumar when assailed his punishment order in OA-32/2003, an order passed on 16.9.2003 set aside the punishment with liberty to respondents t...

Ramesh Kumar and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. MA No. 587/2006 for joining together under Rule 4(5) of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, is allowed.2. 92 applicants (skilled workers) in this OA seek quashing of communication dated 19.10.2005 to the extent which deny them arrears of pay. Though they have been made entitled to fixation of pay in pay scale of Rs. 950-1500/- with effect from the dates of their initial appointment, but on notional basis, and actual arrears from date of filing of OA. Applicants No. 11 and 75 are the legal heirs of Shri Bhim Singh and Vishwa Nath respectively, who died in the meantime.3. It is not disputed that 27 similarly situated officials filed OA No.1657/2000 M.S.A. Khan and Ors. v. UOI and Ors. seeking extension of benefit of Tribunal's order dated 05.02.1993 in OA No. 1436/1990, order dated 13.07.1993 in OA No. 347/1989 & OA No. 147/1989 as well as Arbitration Award with all consequential benefits. The said OA was disposed of vide order dated 27.03.2001 directing Respondents to consider their re...

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Kalyan Mitra Trust

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)106TTJ(Delhi)241

1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A), dt. 13th Jan., 2006 for the asst. yr. 2002-03, in the matter of order passed under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 wherein following grounds have been raised by the Revenue: 1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the additions holding that the trust is existing for charitable purposes but the fact is that the assessee who was receiving fee for letting out the wedding hall in the garb of donation/corpus donation and wherein the persons who were the alleged donors to the corpus themselves also do not know for what purposes they have been giving fee as corpus, other than the fact that they have utilized the services of the hall of the assessee for their celebration purposes. 2. The order of the CIT(A) be set aside and that of the AO be restored.3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a charitable trust and carrying on charitable activities in the shape of meditation...

Smt. Bimla Gupta Vs. North Delhi Power Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 134(2006)DLT174

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The writ petitioners in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenge electricity bills issued by the North Delhi Power Co. Ltd ( hereafter referred to as NDP L) on allegations of dishonest abstraction of electricity (DAE).2. The petitioner in WP. 6104 of 2006 has a business in the premises A-11 Lawrence Road Industrial area New Delhi. These premises are served by electricity connection being K. No. 3210 3131842. The business is carried out in the name and style M/s Ajanta Food Industries. The petitioner in WP 8463 of 2006 too, is carrying on business in the same premises; in its case, it is manufacturing plastic pellets. The electricity meter in question in its premises is No. 321006015972. The meters in both the writ petitions were installed in 1988. 3. Sometime in April 2003, pursuant to an agreement or understanding entered into between the four industries situated in the same premises mainly A-11 Lawrence Road, a 400 KW transform...

Harbans Lal Vs. Smt. Santosh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(92)DRJ689

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In this appeal, under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage, the correctness of an order of the learned Additional District Judge, dated 14-3-2002 dismissing a petition moved under Section 13(1)(i)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, by the appellant husband (hereafter 'the Act') has been challenged.2. The parties were married to each other according to Hindu rites, on 13-11-1982. Both parties were divorcees before the marriage; the appellant had three sons from the previous marriage, and the respondent had no issues from her previous marriage. Three daughters were born out of the wedlock. The allegation in the divorce petition was that the respondent wife had developed illicit relationship with one Shanti, when he (the appellant) was posted in the Delhi Airport, as a Delhi police personnel. It is alleged that the respondent used to sleep with, and have sexual intercourse with the said Shanti, particularly when he was away on night duty at the airport. This, it wa...

Sony India (P.) Ltd. Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)206CTR(Del)157; [2007]288ITR52(Delhi)

S. Muralidhar, J.1. This writ petition seeks the following reliefs:(a)A writ of Certiorari or Writ, order of Direction in the nature of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India quashing Instruction No. 3 of 2003 dated 20.5.2003, issued under Section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to the extent it requires compulsory reference to Transfer Pricing Officer to determine arm's length price where the aggregate value of international transactions exceeds Rs. 5 crores.(b)A writ of certiorari or writ, order of direction in the nature of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India setting aside assessment order dated 21.3.2005 and directing Assessing officer to exercise his powers ignoring the Instruction No. 3 of 2003 dated 20.5.2003.Background Facts2. The petitioner Sony India (P) Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sony Corporation of Japan. It was ...