Delhi Court November 2006 Judgments

Ashiana Security Service Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)9STT425

1. The appellant seeks interim stay and waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the show cause notice was issued only in respect of security agency's services whereas in the impugned order, the appellant was treated as man power recruitment and supply agency by virtue of providing sweepers and loaders, which could not have been done.3. It appears from the show cause notice, which admittedly was not replied, that it was alleged that in the half-yearly return filed by the appellant under Section 70, discrepancies were noticed and it appeared that the appellant had provided services to the tune of Rs. 9,07,100/- and paid service tax only on the amount of Rs. 58,000/-. It was alleged that the appellant had collected Rs. 8,54,941/- in addition to Rs. 58,000/- as shown in ST-3 returns and, therefore, the appellant was liable to pay service tax amounting to Rs. 48,449/-. The appellant had not...

Gopsons Papers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)8STT199

1. The appellant challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the order-in-original, by which the appellant was ordered to pay a penalty of Rs. 51,481/- under section 76 of Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994 and a penally of Rs. 1,000/ under section 77 of the said Act.2. The learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out from the Government of India, Central Board of Excise & Customs letter dated 17-12-2004 thai in Para 5.6, it was provided that "in case of omission in payment of service tax or procedural lapse by persons liable to pay service tax on the goods transported by road, committed before 31st December, 2005, the consequences should be limited to recovery of tax with interest, payable thereon. No penalty should be imposed on such defaulters unless the default is on account of deliberate fraud, collusion, suppression of facts or wilful mis-statement or contraventions of the provisions of service tax with intent to evade payment of service tax". There is no findi...

Madhya Pradesh Polyproplene Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC502

1. Heard both sides. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the Evaporation Boat which is used with the machine is entitled for the credit as capital goods. The credit was denied on the ground that Evaporation Boats are not refractory material.2. The contention of the appellant is that they are engaged in the manufacture of metallised BOPP film. For metallising plain BOPP film, coating is carried out in a special machine where the plain BOPP film is allowed to pass in a hallow cavity with a high degree of vacuum in presence of metallic vapours. For generation of metallic vapours, metal is heated and thereafter was allowed to be cooled so that vapours are able to deposit the BOPP film which is being passed through vacuum chamber. The generation of metallic vapour is achieved by localised heating in the bottom of vaccum chamber of the metallic wire by placing it in a heated small container of a material which is capable of withstanding high temperatures of 1500 oC. A small contain...

Management of Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. the Presiding O ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 137(2007)DLT419

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By This writ petition, the petitioner challenged the Award dated 9.1.2002 passed by the Industrial Tribunal III directing the petitioner to absorb 64 workmen on regular basis in proper pay scale and allowances in the establishment. These 64 workmen were employees of respondent No. , a security agency, engaged by the petitioner for security of its building and plants.2. The undisputed facts are that all the 64 workmen who sought absorption and regularization, were engaged by respondent No. Sentinal Securities Services Limited (hereby after called the 'Contractor') to work as security guards at the premises of the petitioner for watch and ward and for fire protection and vigilance. These workmen raised industrial dispute alleging that the work being done by them was of a perennial nature and the contract entered into between the petitioner and the Contractor was a camouflage and they were entitled for regularization in the petitioner's organization. They pleade...

Deen Dayal Sharma Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2007(113)FLR485]

J.M. Malik, J.1. The parties have locked horns over the question whether a pensioner's medical bills should be reimbursed even if he contributes and becomes member of the scheme after the treatment The petitioner retired from service on 31.12.2004. The petitioner suffered sudden severe heart attack on 11.07.2005. He was taken to Jaipur Golden Hospital, an approved one, immediately. He was treated and the above said hospital issued a bill in the sum of Rs. 1,29,360/-. The same was paid by the petitioner. The petitioner also incurred expenses on medicines in the sum of Rs. 2591.85. The total sum paid by the petitioner is Rs. 1,31,992/-. The petitioner became a member of CGHS scheme and was issued an identity card by the MCD for the treatment of the petitioner and his family under the monthly pension scheme on 27.07.2005. However, when he submitted the bills before the MCD, they refused to reimburse the same. 2. The respondent has hotly contested this writ petition. Learned Counsel for th...

Sushil Kumar Uppal Vs. Shankar P. Jethani and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 137(2007)DLT245; 2009(93)DRJ266

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 31.5.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The impugned order was, in turn, passed in a revision petition filed by the complainant against the order of the trial court dated 22.11.2005 whereby the trial court dismissed the complaint of the petitioner and did not issue summons to the accused. By virtue of the impugned order, the trial court order dated 22.11.2005 was set aside. The revision petition was allowed and the trial court was directed to summon the petitioner as an accused under Section 406 IPC and to proceed in accordance with law.2. Reading the impugned order as well as the order passed by the trial court, it appears that both the courts have proceeded on the basis that there was a subsisting partnership between the petitioner and the respondent. It is now stated before this Court by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner himself was not the partner in the f...

J.K. Woolen Industries Vs. Shri Surinder Pal Kapoor

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(93)DRJ202

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.CM 13570/2005 in CM(M) 448/20021. For the reasons stated in the application the application is allowed and the petition is restored to its original number by recall of the order dated 16th September, 2005 dismissing the petition for non-prosecution.CM(M) 448/2002 & CM 905/20022. The respondent/landlord filed a petition under Section 14(1)(b), (c), (d) & (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958(hereinafter referred to as the said Act) against the petitioner/tenant. The respondent filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to amend the petition to incorporate the relief of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises under Section 14(1)(e) of the said Act. This amendment application, however, was not decided and the evidence of the landlord began. At that stage it was insisted that the application should be taken up and decided first. The application has been allowed in terms of the impugned order dated 24t...

Bses (Y) Power Ltd. Vs. Neeraj Kumar

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. While disposing of a batch of large number of CM (M)/writ petitions bearing Nos. 819, 1022, 1197, 1305, 1540, 1565, 1567, 1588, 1616, 1627, 1629, 1630, 1631, 1632, 1633 and 1634/2006 filed by BSES challenging various orders passed by this Commission involving theft of electricity or dishonest abstraction of energy (DAE) as contemplated under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Delhi High Court has passed the following order, which is dated 8.11.2006: These petitions have been entertained only on account of the fact that the Consumer Courts were exercising jurisdiction in respect of the disputes relating to theft of electricity or dishonest abstraction of electrical energy even though a learned Single Judge of this Court in Delhi Vidyut Board v. Devendra Singh and Anr., 130 (2006) DLT 156, has held that the issue of theft/dishonest abstraction of electrical energy does not fall in any of the sub-clauses or Sub-section (c) of Section 2 of the Consumer...

Pankaj Oil Trading Corporation Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(115)ECC286

1. The appellant challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent that it imposes reduced penalties under Sections 76 and 77 from Rs. 1,59,258/- to Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 15.100/- to Rs. 4,000/- and confirms the penalty of Rs. 1,59,258/- imposed by the adjudicating authority under Section 78 of chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant was a service tax provider in the category of 'Clearing and Forwarding Agent' registered under Section 69 of the said Act having registration number CFA/AHD-I/131 dated 18.2.2002.2. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 7.11.2002 alleging that the noticee was receiving the goods (lubricants) from the premises of their principal IOC Limited, Mumbai, warehousing these goods, providing security for them and maintaining the account for the receipt and dispatch of the same. It was also alleged that the appellant was providing these services both as Dealer Operated Lube Godown (DOLG) and thereafter as an ad hoc CFA (clearing...

Shabudhin, S/O Shri Jai Mal Vs. the Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. As the issue raised in these 3 applications, viz. 126, 409 and 428 of 2006 is common in nature, same were heard together are disposed of by this common order.2. MA 353/2006 filed under Rule 4(5) of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 for joining together is allowed. The reliefs prayed for are that respondents be directed to pay them salary at par with regularly appointed persons discharging same and similar duties as well as direction to respondents to provide them leave as well as medical facilities at par with regular employees and further to direct respondents to release their salary on monthly basis, in future.3. In November 2000, respondents invited applications for appointment on contract basis to various posts of para-medical staff. Applicant No.1 applied for post of Lab Assistant and was appointed in said capacity in Guru Gobind Singh Hospital vide Memorandum dated 21.11.2000 in pay scale of Rs. 3200-4900/- with usual terms and conditions. Applicant No.2 was appointed as Lab Techni...