Delhi Court October 2006 Judgments

Bhagyashree Steel and Alloys Pvt. Vs. Commr. of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against Order, in Original dated 27th July 2005 that confiscated the imported consignment with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine and also imposed a personal penalty on the appellant.2. The relevant fact that arise for consideration are the appellant imported 12 container of HMS scrap on High Sea Sale basis from M/s.Aztec Exim Pvt. Ltd. and filed bill of entry before the Deputy Commissioner of Custom, Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, New Delhi.The appellant enclosed all the relevant documents like bill of lading, pre-inspection certificate, packing list etc. along with the bill of entry. The revenue authorities found that the pre-inspection certificate was issued by M/s. Gulf International Co., Kuwait and since the said company has been delisted as an accredited inspection agency, the consignment was put to 100% examination and was found to be as declared. Despite this, the authorities issued a show cause notice to the appellant f...

improvement Trust Vs. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal arises out of the order of Commissioner, Hissar, passed on 18-3-2004, under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by which registration sought by the assessee was refused. The assessee has taken up 9 grounds of appeal, the 10th is residuary in nature, which does not require any decision from us. The grounds are factual and argumentative in nature and, therefore, the grounds are not in accordance with ITAT Rules. However, the Learned Counsel of the assessee pointed out that ground Nos. 1 and 9 are the substantive grounds, the determination of which will dispose of the appeal. Ground No. I is against the refusal of registration under Section 12AA and ground No. 9 is against condonation of delay in filing the application for registration.2. In the order, it is mentioned that the assessee applied for its registration under Section 12AA of the Act on 1-10-2003. It is further mentioned that the assessee was established under and governed by the provisions of Punjab Town I...

Dy. Cit Vs. Beer Shiva Educational Social

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)103ITD403(Delhi)

1. This appeal arises out of the order of CIT (Appeals)-II, Dehradun, passed on 11-11-2004. The corresponding order of assessment was made by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Haldwani, under the provisions of Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 14-11-2002. The revenue has taken up only one substantive ground of appeal to the effect that the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in directing the assessing officer to allow exemption under Section 11 to the assessee, which was found to be existing not for the charitable purpose, but for the purpose of profit. Therefore, it was prayed that the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) may be set aside and that of the Income Tax Officer may be restored.2. From the order of the Income Tax Officer, it is seen that the assessee bad shown gross total income of Rs. 2,72,49,129. It was claimed that a sum of Rs. 2,42,99,578 was applied under Section 11 towards the charitable purpose and the balance sum of Rs. 29,49,551 was d...

Up State Sugar Corp. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(115)ECC114

1. This appeal is directed against the order in appeal dated 19.7.04 that set aside the order in original which granted the appellant benefit of modvat credit on welding electrodes, plain plates, joints, channel, etc.2. Considered the submissions made by both the sides. As regards to modvat credit on welding electrodes, the issue involved in this case is whether the credit is allowable to the appellants on the welding electrodes as input or capital goods. It is not very clear from the record that the appellant has availed the modvat credit on welding electrodes as capital goods or as an input. If the credit availed is as an input, the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in Central Excise Reference No. 9/2002 will come to the rescue of the appellant. As such, since the issue has to be decided by the lower authorities whether the credit is availed on welding electrodes as input or capital goods, the order in appeal to the extent it relates to denial of credit on...

Cce Vs. Sadashiv Structurals Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(115)ECC121

1. This appeal is filed against the order in appeal dated 14.9.2004 that set aside the order in original vide which confiscation of the goods was ordered, with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine and penalty was also imposed.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the Preventive officers of Central Excise Commissionernate visited the factory of the respondent on 17/18.11.2003. During the physical verification of the finished goods and inputs, which was conducted in the factory premises, the officers noticed a discrepancy of non-accountal of finished goods of 20.500 MTs of Galvanized steel pipes. On a reasonable belief that this quantity was kept with intention to clear clandestinely, they were seized. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent proposing confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine and also imposed penal...

M.P. JaIn and Sons Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)7STT214

1. Appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the demand of service tax was confirmed and penalty is imposed.2. The appellants are not contesting the demand. The appellants are only challenging the order to the extent where penalty is imposed on the appellants.3. The contention is that the Government of India issued a Scheme which was extended up to November, 2004 and as per Scheme, if service provider got registered before November, 2004 and pay the service tax, no penal action will be taken against such service provider. The contention is that in pursuance to this Scheme, the appellants got themselves registered and deposited due service tax along with interest.4. The contention is that in view of this Friendly Tax Payer Scheme, the appellants are not liable for any penalty. The appellants also relied upon the decision in the case of Dewal Tours & Travels & CCE, Jaipur-II, reported in 2006 (3) S.T.R. 518 (T) : 2006 (5) STJ-559 whereby the Tribunal after r...

Rajbala (Legal Heir And Widow Of Vs. Union Of India (Uoi) Through It'S

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant, widow of Late Shri Daya Nand, who died on 11.11.1998 in harness, leaving behind applicant & 4 minor children ( 3 daughters, aged 12, 7 & 5 years & a son aged 1 year & the fifth child born in January, 1999), in this application seeks compassionate appointment against any Group 'D' post with consequential benefits.2. This is the second round of litigation. Earlier she had filed OA No.3056/2004, which had been disposed of vide order dated 18.07.2005 with following observation and direction: 7. In view of the above facts, respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant sympathetically and as per rules. Her claim for compassionate appointment on any post for which she is considered suitable should be considered. The respondents are also directed to pass a speaking and a reasoned order within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after considering the eligibility of the applicant as well as her financial conditions. 8. The...

Shri Kali Charan (Retd. Addl. Vs. Government of India, Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

It is most humbly prayed that the respondents be directed to withdraw this show cause notice dated 10.3.04 and subsequently withdraw their impugned order dated 29.12.04 immediately which is illegal, unlawful and unwarranted against the law of land. Previous services rendered in a recognized school from 12.8.67 to 12.8.69 may please be counted as admissible by Government of India and High Court of Delhi. That all the retiral benefits be released accordingly as per the orders of the Hon'ble President of India as has already been calculated as various times by the respondents. The arrears of pay accrued to the applicant since suspension and full pensionary benefits accrued to him thereafter be released immediately as the applicant virtually of the road just as: (5)Counting of back service from August, 1967 to August, 1969 besides full pension with all the arrears accrued till date. The documents kept for security may kindly be released.2. It is submitted by the applicant that he retired ...

V.K. Pathak S/O Late Shri Pooran Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicants by virtue of the present OA have challenged seniority list of Office Superintendent Grade-I insofar as position of applicants No. 1 and 2 vis-vis respondent No. 7 is concerned. They have further sought a declaration to the effect that applicants Nos. 1 and 2 are senior to respondent No. 7 and also sought consideration for promotion to the post of Chief Superintendent against the upgraded posts. It is also sought that official respondents be directed to declare applicants No. 3 to 6 are also entitled to be considered for promotion to the higher grade against the upgraded posts in general vacancies with all consequential benefits.2. Brief factual matrix transpires that applicants No. 1 and 2 were promoted as Office Superintendent Grade-I on 29.5.1995 and applicants No. 3, 4 and 5 were promoted as Office Superintendent Grade-II on 28.12.1993, 20.1.1995 and 28.12.1993 respectively and applicant No. 6 was promoted as Head Clerk on 11.5.1993. Respondent No.7, who is a schedule...

T.N. Vohra Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)108TTJ(Delhi)601

1. These are cross-appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the order of the learned CIT(A)-XXVI, New Delhi, dt. 7th June, 2004 for asst. yr. 2000-01 in the matter of order passed under Section 148/143(3) of IT Act, 1961 wherein following grounds have been taken by the assessee and the Revenue. ITA No. 3144/Del/2004 (Assessee's appeal): 1(a) That the reassessment proceedings are bad in law since there was no escapement of income which is chargeable to income-tax. 1(b) That the notice under Section 148 is bad in law since the case was reopened on wrong facts as the reasons adopted by the AO for the issue of such notice are that the appellant had not shown income from property at 1st floor, RZ-293-A, Mahipalpur, New Delhi, in the year under appeal (i.e., asst. yr. 2000-01), whereas in the earlier years, he had shown rental income from this property are totally wrong facts. When the assessee had no rental income from 1st floor of Mahipalpur office during the asst. yr. 1999-2...