Delhi Court December 2006 Judgments

Pinkline Exim P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Interim stay was granted in this matter on 21-12-04. By this application, Revenue has prayed for vacating the interim relief. The authorised representative for the department submitted that since 180 days have passed, interim relief may be vacated. He draws our attention to the provisions of 2A of Section 35, under which it has been provided that if such appeal is not disposed of within the period specified in the first proviso, the stay order shall, on the expiry of that period, stand vacated. There is therefore no need to make any separate orders....

K.P. Jain, Ips Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(2)SLJ328CAT

(ii) expunge the adverse entries/downgrading in the relevant ACR's of applicant; (iii) direct the respondent to review the case of the applicant under Clause 5.7 of the IPS deputation policy dated 06.04.2000, and thereupon consider the applicant for empanelment as ADGP/DGP, Government of India; (iv) pass any other order(s), which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case.2. At the outset we would like to clarify that we had reserved this case on 31.10.2006 when we were informed that a batch of writ petitions are pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, on the question whether downgrading of ACRs needs to be communicated or not. Therefore, we were awaiting the outcome of those writ petitions. However, till date neither hearing is complete in those cases nor any final decision has been taken in those cases. On the contrary, Counsel for the respondents has produced the judgment dated November 16, 2006 given in Writ Petition (C) No...

John and Sons Colour Lab Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)6STT482

1. The applicant seeks interim stay of the order of the Commissioner dt. 22-6-06 rejecting the refund claim of the appellant of Rs. 51,232/- and directing the appellant to deposit that amount under the head of Service Tax.2. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the Notification No. 12/03-ST dt. 20-6-03 by which the Central Govt, issued exemption in respect of so much of the value of all the taxable services, as is equal to the value of the goods and material sold by the service provider to the recipient of service, from the service tax leviable thereon under Section 66 of the Act, subject to the condition that there is documentary proof specifically indicating the value of the said goods and materials. He also relied upon the decision of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ADLABS v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore reported in 2006 (2) S.T.R. 121 in support of his contention.3. It appears from the record, that the Commissioner has on the basis o...

Saurer Embroidery Systems Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(208)ELT568TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal dated 18^th June 2004, which partly upheld the order-in-original that confirmed the demand, imposition of penalty.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant are manufacturers of embroidered products falling under chapter heading No. 5805.19 of the schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and opted for the discharging the duty liability under the provisions of Rule 96ZH of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and also availed Modvat credit on the capital goods and utilized the same for discharge of the duty liability. A show cause notice was issued for wrong utilization of Modvat credit and demand of the duty and also for imposition of penalty, on the ground that the appellant is precluded from availment of benefit of any other provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Appellant resisted the show cause notice on two grounds i.e. that the benefit of beneficial legislation like Modvat should not be denied ...

Prakash Chandra, S/O Shri Ghaman Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Validity & correctness of order dated 03.4.2003 conveying certain adverse remarks for the period 05.5.1999 to 13.1.2000, partly upheld by higher authority vide order dated 01.12.2004, have been challenged in present OA.2. Factual matrix is that applicant, an officer of Union Territory Civil Services (UTCS for short) joined Government of N.C.T., Delhi in the year 1989 and presently posted as Deputy Director (Education). Vide impugned communication dated 03.4.2003 adverse remarks pertaining to period 05.5.1999 to 13.1.2000 were conveyed. At the relevant point of time, he was posted as SDM, Seelampur, Delhi. Respondent No. 4 was his reporting officer, while respondent No. 5 was reviewing officer.Remarks treated as adverse were against column No. 2 & 3 to the extent, which are underlined therein, reads as follows: Col.2 General Assessment : A laborious who has capacity to work hard. There use to be heavy pressure from public for disposal of SC/ST/OBC cases and signing of affida...

Ramesh Kumar, S/O Shri Kishan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant seeks quashing of order dated 15.02.2006 issued by DRM's Office, New Delhi, vide which he was directed to report back for duties at DRM Office Moradabad, stating that there existed no vacancy of Pharmacist in grade of Rs. 4500-7000/- at present in DRM Office, New Delhi. It is further recited therein that "as and when the vacancy of Pharmacists in Gr. Rs. 4500-7000 is available, your office will be advised accordingly as per priority".2. Admitted facts of the case are that applicant was appointed as Pharmacist Grade-III w.e.f. 01.10.1997 and has been working in Moradabad Division of Northern Railway. As he belongs to Sonepat Distt.(Haryana), he applied for inter-Divisional transfer from Moradabad Division to Delhi Division in July 2005. DRM, Moradabad forwarded his request to DRM, New Delhi vide communication dated 15.7.2005. On 24.8.2005, DRM, New Delhi required DRM, Moradabad to process his application and accordingly sent service book etc. for necessary action at their ...

Vijesh Gupta Vs. Gift Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)107TTJ(Delhi)261

1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dt. 9th Dec, 2002 of the learned CIT(A)-XIX, New Delhi, relating to asst. yr.1997-98.2. The assessee is an individual. He owned property bearing No. C-155, Mahendru Enclave, Delhi. This property measures 200 sq. yds. The property also consisted of one room measuring 2.9 sq. mts. or 35 sq.ft. This property was sold by the assessee under an agreement dt. 25th April, 1996 for a sale consideration of Rs. 2,35,000. This property had been purchased by the assessee on 10th Feb., 1992 for a consideration of Rs. 80,000. The assessee filed return of income for asst. yr.1997-98 wherein he had disclosed the capital gains on sale of the aforesaid property. The same was accepted by the AO in proceedings under Section 143(3) of the IT Act. The AO, however, initiated proceedings under the GT Act by issue of a notice under Section 16(1) of the GT Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). According to the AO, the property had been sold by the...

Silicon Graphics Systems (i) (P) Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)106TTJ(Delhi)1153

1. These cross-appeals by assessee and by Revenue are directed against order of learned CIT(A)-XI, New Delhi, dt. 25th March, 2003.2. We shall first deal with appeal of the assessee. The assessee company is carrying on the business of developing, manufacturing, selling and servicing computer system and software. It also renders technical assistance and services for use outside India in connection with the use, purchase, sale, import, export, lease or distribution, licence, design, manufacture of any computer machines, etc. It also provides consultancy services outside India related to the preparation and maintenance of accounting, strategical, scientific information and reports, data processing programming, systems analysis and machine services for solving and aiding commercial, industrial, scientific and research problems, and for all other related business. During the year, the assessee incurred an expenditure of Rs. 55,64,715 on advertisement and publicity, trade shows and other mi...

Uop Llc Vs. Additional Director of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)108ITD186(Delhi)

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-XXIX, New Delhi, dt. 1st Dec., 2005.2. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are as follows. The assessee in the present case is a company incorporated in United States of America. It is in the business of supply of engineering design and process technology to the petroleum refining, petrochemical, gas processing and chemical related industries. The services incidental to the said supply right from the setting up of the unit as well as its start up and initial phase of operation to achieve the performance to UOP specifications are also rendered by it to the customers as an integral part of transfer of process technology as well as supply of engineering design. During the year under consideration, the assessee had supplied engineering design as well as process technology and had also rendered all the services incidental thereto as indicated above to the Indian customers, viz., Indian Oil ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Modern Steels Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(116)ECC237

1. The appellant challeges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) by which the order of the adjudicating authority disallowing cenvat credit of the total amount of Rs. 4,42,296/-, as proposed in the three show cause notices, and imposing penalty of the like amount as well as charging interest, was set aside.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in Simbhaoli Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2001(135) ELT 1239(Tri.-Delhi), in which it was held that if the items were used in the construction of the wall or any part of the plant structure as construction material, that part should be disallowed. However, if the same material is used for raising structure to support various machines parts, then they will be covered by explanation to Rule 57Q.3. As per the show cause notices, during the period between 2003 and October 2003, the noticee had wrongly taken and utilized credit of central excise duty paid by them at 16% on receipt/purchase of CTD bars, angle,...