Delhi Court November 2006 Judgments

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. U.S. Choudhary

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC28

1. This application for statement of the case to the Hon'ble High Court has been filed by the Revenue against the Final Order No.A/1074/98-NB(S) dated 20th October, 1998 . The I have considered the submissions. I have perused the record. The provisions for levy of Service Tax in Section 65(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 which defines taxable service as service provided to an investor. If a broker sells shares to another broker the latter cannot be treated as an investor. The brokers of the same exchange do not have to pay service tax for transactions between themselves but if the transaction is between a member of one stock exchange with a non-member broker who is of another stock exchange service tax is stated to be chargeable. The difference is justified by the department on the ground that the latter transactions involve charging of brokerage which is not the case in the case of transactions between members of the same exchange. I do not agree that the charging of converts the latter ...

Wild Expedition Tours and Travels Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)8STT229

1. The applicant has also filed an appeal challenging the order of Commissioner (Appeals) made on 3-8-2006 and has sought for the benefit of the exemption available under Notification No. 21/03-ST dated 20-11-2003. Under the said notification, taxable services specified in Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994 is exempted from the whole of service tax, if the same is provided to any person in respect of which payment is received in India in convertible foreign exchange. The learned Counsel representing the appellant pleads on the basis of a certificate in form No. 10CCAE dated 14-7-2005 made under the provisions of income tax law that the payment received by the appellant could be directly linked to the convertible foreign exchange received by their client and hence they are eligible for the benefit of the said exemption. The learned authorized representative of the Department however contends that the applicant is an input provider and that admittedly the payments received by them...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Hfcl (Wireless Div. Unit-ii)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Since the goods were damaged during the process of manufacture, the observation of the Commissioner (Appeals) that no duty can be demanded since it would be payable only on finished goods, appears to be correct warranting no stay of the impugned order. The application is, therefore, rejected....

R.K. Sharma S/O Shri B.R. Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Whether an official promoted based on DPC recommendations against "purely temporary post sanctioned for Census of India - 2001" is entitled to be "adjusted" against regular vacancies arising subsequently, overlooking the mandate of statutory Recruitment Rules (RRs), is the issue raised in present application? (a) Two applicants and respondents 3 & 4 were permanent Senior Geographers in the Office of the Registrar General, India, Ministry of Home Affairs. Applicants were senior to said respondents, as they were appointed based on direct recruitment on 03.02.1983, while respondents 3 & 4 were promoted on 23.2.1984 and 28.1.1988 respectively. Registrar General, India has a legal obligation for conducting census once in every 10 years for which temporary posts are created in different cadres for certain duration. Vide Notification dated 29.03.2001 applicants as well as respondents 3 & 4, based on DPC recommendations dated 30.10.2000, were appointed by promotion, in a tempor...

Shri S.K. Sharma Vs. the Secretary-cum-director

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this O.A., applicant has challenged Memorandum dated 11.7.2005 whereby charge sheet has been served on the applicant with the following allegations: Sh. Satish Kumar Sharma S/o Sen Sharma R/o H. No. 210, Hakikat Nagar, Mall Road, Delhi while posted as UDC in HQ of Dte. of Employment, GNCT of Delhi a public servant in discharge of his official duties by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise prepared and put the forged documents, removed the original papers from the personal file Sh. Banari Lal, after entering into criminal conspiracy with senior officers, in order to enable Sh. Banarsi Lal to get his full salary for the period of his unauthorized absence from 23.3.92 to 23.8.93. Thus he caused undue loss to Govt. exchequer, and to the Directorate of Employment in particular and for the undue gain to Sh. Banarsi Lal & other official of Dte. of Employment Govt. of NCT of Delhi.Thus, the said Sh. Satish Kumar Sharma failed to maintain absolute integrity and conducted himself in ...

Rajesh K. Gupta S/O Shri D.C. Gupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through t ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. As the question involved for consideration & determination is same in this bunch of cases, we propose to decide them by this common order.For brevity, facts are delineated from OA No. 1284/2006.2. The basic challenge has been made to order No. 69 of 2006 dated 31st May, 2006 of CBDT, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, vide which a large number of officials in the grades of Additional/Joint Commissioners of Income Tax have been posted/transferred from one region to another region. The primary contention raised has been that applicants had not completed 8 years in Class 'A' station either in Delhi or in Mumbai. Transfers of Group 'A' officials including the level of Commissioner is governed by the Transfer/Posting Policy notified by the Respondents in the year 2005 known as "Transfer/Placement Policy for Group 'A' Officers of the Indian Revenue Service, Central Board of Director Taxes - 2005". According to applicants, impugned transfer/posting order is not in consonance ...

S.K. Katyal Through L/H Mrs. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)111TTJ(Delhi)8

1. This appeal by the assessee for block assessment period 1st April, 1990 to 17th Nov., 2000 is directed against order of CIT(A), New Delhi dt. 28th June, 2004.2. Assessee in the memo of appeal has raised many objections against addition of Rs. 13,79,000 as income from undisclosed sources and assessed under Section 158BC of IT Act. However, the main objection raised was that search in the case of the assessee carried under Section 132(1) was concluded on 17th Nov., 2000 when Panchnama was prepared and restraint order was issued against the assessee. The limitation to make and complete assessment started from the above date and accordingly order under Section 158BC was to be passed before 30th Nov., 2002. The same was passed on 30th Jan., 2003 and was hopelessly out of time. It was contended that no seizure was effected on 3rd Jan., 2001 and , therefore, question of issuing any Panchnama on the above date did not arise. In fact in the so-called Panchnama issued on 3rd Jan., 2001, it i...

Sh. H. Syama Sundara Rao Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007CriLJ2626

Hima Kohli, J.1. The present proceedings for contempt have been initiated against the petitioner, who appears in person, pursuant to our orders dated 5th October, 2006. In the course of proceedings held on the said date, Mr. B.L. Wali, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 drew our attention to a notice dated 28th April, 2006 issued by the petitioner, Mr. H. Syama Sundara Rao to Mr. Wali. In the said notice, the petitioner leveled a series of allegations against the counsel for the respondent and cast aspersions on him. The notice issued by the petitioner states that the counsel has made a mockery of the judiciary and the High Court; has indulged in grave professional misconduct and has deliberately misled the High Court. In the last para of the notice, the petitioner has stated that he gives three days' time to the counsel to take corrective steps, failing which the petitioner shall initiate appropriate action against the counsel before the High Court or before the Bar...

Mahan Traders Through Sh. Jaswant Singh and Shri Ram Singh, Partners V ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(4)ARBLR320(Delhi)

Anil Kumar, J.1. This order shall dispose of the appeal filed by the Petitioners under Section 37(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the dismissal of his application under Section 16 of the Act seeking adjudication of the issue relating to settlement of accounts of the dissolved firm by the Arbitration Tribunal.2. Brief facts to appreciate the controversies between the parties are that Petitioners and respondent had partnership in terms of a deed of partnership dated 1.9.1985. The partnership deed had an arbitration agreement incorporated in Clause 15 which is as under:15:- That all the disputes and questions in connection with the partnership or this deed, arising amongst the partners shall be transferred to arbitration and its decision shall be binding on all the partners. 3. The partnership was at will and could be dissolved by giving two months notice in writing to other partner.4. Sh. Amar Singh, respondent filed an arbitration application being AA No. 256/20...

Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. State Bank of Patiala

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2007)BC264; [2008]81SCL461(Delhi)

Reva Khetrapal, J.1. The short question which arises for decision in the instant case is whether the bar created by Sections 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act (1 of 1986 as amended by Act No.12 of 1994) will apply to a suit invoking a bank guarantee, executed by the bank to secure payment for supply of goods to an industrial company which stands referred to the Board for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (for short BIFR).2. The facts are in a very narrow compass:(i) A summary suit under Order xxxvII Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 was filed by the plaintiff - M/s Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited against the defendant - State Bank of Patiala praying for a decree in the sum of Rs.40,83,759.82 (Rupees forty lakhs eighty three thousand seven hundred fifty nine and paise eighty two only) together with further interest on the principal sum of Rs.33,36,792.10 (Rupees thirty three lakhs thirty six thousand seven hundred ninety two and paise ten ...