Delhi Court December 2006 Judgments

State Vs. Sidhartha Vashisht and ors. Overruled

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(93)DRJ145

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Vide our judgment dated 18th December, 2006 in Crl. A. 193/2006, we had held respondents Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma guilty for an offence under Section 302 IPC, Section 201/120B IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. We had also held respondents Amardeep Singh Gill and Vikas Yadav guilty for an offence under Section 201/120B IPC. All three of them are present in court today in custody.2. We have today heard the parties on the question of sentence. It is argued on behalf of Sidharth Vashisht @ Manu Sharma that this was a murder which was in the heat of passion. It was not premeditated nor committed in a brutal manner. It is also argued that the convict is not a habitual criminal or incorrigible and that it cannot be said that he cannot be reformed. Counsel submits that law does not envisage vengeance but cares for reformation. He submits that the law would be satisfied if a sentence of imprisonment for life is inflicted upon this convict.3. Counsel arguing on b...

Nice Telecommunication Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)8STT159

1. In this case, the appellant availed Cenvat credit on mobile telephone used in rendering their output services. The central excise audit party advised them to reverse the said Cenvat credit because mobile phones were not installed in the premises of the appellant. As such, the appellant, as per direction of the audit party, deposited Rs. 41,211/- vide TR-6 challan dated 18.1.2006. Subsequently, the appellant filed refund claim of the said amount which was rejected by the adjudicating authority. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal.3. The learned advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that the present case is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Indian Rayon & Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Bhavnagar 2006 (4) S.T.R. 79 (Tri.-Mumbai) 4. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund on the ground that mobile phones were not installed in the premises of the appellant, following the guideline of the Board circular dated 23.6....

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Afcons Pauling Joint Venture

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(212)ELT392TriDel

1. In this stay application, the Revenue prays for the stay of the order in appeal dated 31st July 2006 made by the Commissioner (Appeals) in which the Commissioner has held that the appeal was not maintainable since the order of the Assistant Commissioner was made in compliance of the order of the High Court. It appears from the record that the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court had directed by its order made on 24-9-2004 passed in C.W.P. No. 5557/2004 that, the Assistant Commissioner, who was present before the Court and who conceded that the interest allowed to the petitioner was not in conformity with the judgment of that Court in Kandhari Beverages Ltd. v. Union of India will pass a fresh order in accordance with the said judgment. The High Court in their order made it clear that the relief allowed to the petitioner shall be subject to the outcome of the S.L.P.pending before the Apex Court in the Kandhari Beverages case against the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High C...

Bharti Hexacom India Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)9STJ69CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs. 2,79,675/-.2. The applicant deposited Service Tax erroneously in respect of Port Charges. Subsequently, they filed refund claim on the ground that in terms of Board's Circular No. 46/09/2002-ST dated 08.08.2002 and 16.08.2002, no Service Tax was leviable in respect of Port Charges. The Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise sanctioned the refund claim following the order of the Tribunal in the applicant's own case vide order No. 08/2003-NB-A dated 08.07.2003. Thereafter, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the applicant calling upon them to show cause as to why the refund claim of Rs. 2,79,675/- sanctioned and paid by the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise should not be treated as erroneously granted and the same should not be recovered from them under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. In the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise rejected the refund claim sanctioned by the Asstt. Co...

invincible Security Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)9STJ90CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. The applicants filed two stay applications for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 6,92,302/- and penalty to the extent of 50% of the amount of service tax.2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicants are engaged in the business of providing security services and registered with the central excise department. The applicants provided security services to BSNL but they were reluctant to pay service tax on the invoices raised by the applicants. BSNL deducted service tax amount on the invoices raised by the applicants and deposited the same at their bank. BSNL has issued various certificates to the applicant evidencing the fact that the service tax of the said amount was deposited by them. Show cause notices were issued to the applicants demanding service tax as well as for non-fling of the return during the material period. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of service tax and also imposed penalty of equal amount along with interest. In the...

Vantage Security Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)8STJ427CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. The applicants filed three stay applications for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 9,05,040/- and penalty to the extent of 50% of the amount of service tax.2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicants are engaged in the business of providing security services and registered with the central excise department. The applicants provided security services to BSNL but they were reluctant to pay service tax on the invoices raised by the applicants. BSNL deducted service tax amount on the invoices raised by the applicants and deposited the same at their bank. B$NL has issued various certificates to the applicant evidencing the fact that the service tax of the said amount was deposited by them. Show cause notices were issued to the applicants demanding service tax as well as for non-fling of the return during the material period. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of service tax and also imposed penalty of equal amount along with interest. In t...

Nirulas Corner House (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Service tax demand has been made in the instant case by treating the appellant as a management consultant in regard to 'Sagar Ventures'.3. The contention of the appellant is that the agreement essentially was a management agreement and not a consultancy service agreement. We have been taken through various terms of the agreement and the learned Counsel for the appellant has shown that the appellant is engaged to manage, sell and supervise the sale of food items. The appellant also supplies the materials or indicates the sources from whom the materials are to be procured.4. It is also being pointed out that from 2003 when franchises became liable to service tax, the appellant is being treated as a franchises and service tax is being allowed under that heading.5. The learned SDR would point out that the agreement, in particular clause 8(1) relates to technical assistance, advice on setting up of all the control systems, selection of staff and training etc. According to him, these wou...

Capston Rubber India Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The duty demand is being challenged, inter alia, on the ground of limitation. The submission is that the appellant had declared full facts while claiming small-scale exemption and therefore, there is suppression or mis-declaration of facts.3. The duty demand is for the financial years 2003-04 and 2004-05. Show cause notice was issued by relying on the proviso to Section 11A, which allows issuance of demands during the extended period of five years.4. The relevant factual information (for eligibility to exemption) was the value of 'aggregate clearance' of goods for home consumption in the preceding financial year. In the claim for the year 2003-04, filed by the appellant on 14-4-2004, the appellant declared the value of clearance of PVC and TPR soles as about Rs. 93 lacs and of rubber sheets as about Rs. 3.9 crores. The clearance of rubber sheets was also qualified as "wholly exempted". Exemption was available if the aggregate value of clearance of all excisable goods for home consu...

Navodhya Fabrics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(113)ECC609

2. The appellant M/s. Navodhya Fabrics Ltd., Ludhiana imported polyester filament yarn consignments during the period November, 2002 to May, 2003. The imports were in terms of DEEC licence, and were duty free. The obligation cast on the appellant was to use the same filament yarn in the manufacture of polyester fabrics and to export the fabrics.The appellant had executed bonds with the Customs for fulfilment of that obligation.3. The appellant claimed that the export obligation remained satisfied in the light of certain 'deemed' exports. These were supplies made to M/s. Spectrum Silk Mills, Surat, which was a 100% export oriented unit and that the fabrics were used by that unit for export production. The supplies were made to M/s. Spectrum Silk Mills during the period January, 2003 to March, 2003.4. The aforesaid supplies to M/s. Spectrum Silk Mills were stated to be made under 23 truck transport GRs. Customs authorities at Ludhiana undertook investigation into the said supplies. It w...

Raghuveer Metal Indus. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(104)ECC545

1. The matter is before us today on remand by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan.2. The dispute is about the taxability of services rendered by the applicant. It is being pointed out that the services rendered by the applicant would not fall in the category of 'clearing and forwarding agent' inasmuch as the procurement of orders, collection of payments and collection of statutory forms, do not, in any way, constitute clearing and forwarding. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Larsen and Toubro reported in 2006 (3) S.T.R. 321 (Tri.-L.B.).3. Prima facie, the appellant is right in its contention that the aforesaid services rendered by it do not part take of the services rendered by a 'clearing and forwarding' agent. The stay application is, accordingly, allowed and recovery stayed till disposal of appeal.4. Our earlier stay order dated 9-10-2006 shall remain modified accordingly....