Delhi Court February 2006 Judgments

Anita Malik Vs. A.i.i.M.S. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT136

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. Issue Rule. Mr. Mukul Gupta, learned counsel waives notice of Rule. With consent of counsel for parties, the matter was heard for disposal.2. The petitioner in these proceedings was appointed as Sister Nursing Grade-II on 25.8.1994 by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (hereafter called AIIMS). She was regularised to the post on 29.2.1996. Apparently, she had sought for study leave in order to pursue B.Sc. (Post Certificate Course) on 17.4.2000. The request was however turned down by the AIIMS on 26.4.2000 on the ground that she was ineligible in terms of Rule 50 of the Fundamental and Supplementary Rule (FRSR) applicable to the employer. Two years later, the petitioner again applied for grant of study leave for joining the same course on 20.3.2002. This application was again turned down on 3.5.2002. The AIIMS however indicated that if she sought for extra-ordinary leave without pay, the request would be considered.3. The communication was apparently act...

Jai Rani Vs. Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 127(2006)DLT659

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. CM APPL.664/2006 (under Section 5 of the Limitation Act) Delay condoned. Application disposed of.2. CM APPL. 663/2006Heard counsel. Cause shown is sufficient. RC. S.A. 4/1999 and CM APPL. Nos. 199/1999 and 3400/1999 are restored to their original file and number. Application is allowed and disposed of.RC.S.A.4/1999 and CM APPL.199/1999 and 3400/19993. This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment dated 18.5.1998 passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi in RCA No. 436/1991, whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the appeal holding that there was no infirmity in the judgment under challenge, which appeal was filed against the judgment dated 16.5.1991 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, whereby the learned Controller has allowed the eviction petition of the respondents filed under clause (a) of the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the Act ) by giving benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act and also passed eviction order...

Cit Vs. Hind Pocket Books

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Del)524; [2006]154TAXMAN218(Delhi)

ORDERAdmit. Mr. Beriwal appears for the respondents. With consent, this appeal has been heard for final disposal at the stage itself.2. For the assessment year 2000-01, the assessed claimed a deduction of Rs. 9,44,950 towards expenditure incurred by it on the education and training of Miss Priyanka, daughter of the Managing Director of the company in a University outside the country. The assessed claimed that since Ms. Priyanka had agreed to serve the company after completing her studies and was in reality serving the company, the expenditure incurred on her education abroad was an admissible business expenditure. The assessing officer, however, declined to accept that submission and added back the amount of Rs. 9,44,950 to the taxable income of the company in an appeal against the said addition, the Commissioner (Appeals) concurred with the view taken by the assessing officer and affirmed the addition. A further appeal taken by the assessed to the Tribunal has however succeeded in ter...

Ramesh Anand Vs. Cocord Motors Ltd. and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The complaint of the appellant seeking compensation for having been sold defective Indica Diesel Car of DLX model was dismissed merely on the premise that there was no manufacturing defect in the car and if there was such defect the same could have been ordered to be removed. 2. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. We are sorry to point out that the appellant had visited the garage on more than 33 occasions for removing the defect and there are large number of job cards. Merely because there was no manufacturing defect does not mean that the vehicle sold was not defective. Manufacturing defect in a vehicle saddles the manufacturer with the liability of replacing the vehicle by new vehicle and if the vehicle has such defects that it is taken to the garage time and again such a vehicle comes within the definition of defective goods as defect means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or stand...

Colt Cement Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC456

1. The Central Excise officers visited the factory of the appellants on 7.1.92. On scrutiny of their RG-1 register, they found that no production and clearance of cement was recorded from 26.11.91 as the factory was shown closed. However, there was a balance of 36 bags of cement. 673 bags of cement were packed on 7.1.92 itself but no production report for packing of the cement was found. Therefore, detailed investigation with reference to the record was conducted by resuming their records from their sales office and factory premises. On scrutiny of the records, it was found that the factory has manufactured and cleared cement bags after 26.11.91 without accountal in RG-1 register and without issue of any gate pass evidencing payment of central excise duty despite the fact that the factory was shown closed from 26.11.91. Challan No. 384 dated3.1.92 was showing dispatch of 200 bags of cement to M/s. Rahul Cement Company, Pilibhit and builty No. 3 dated 6.1.92 was showing clearance of 16...

Lake City Service Centre Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 7.5.2005 wherein the Order-in-Original imposing penalty was upheld.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant was a dealer of Indian Oil Corporation and was rendering services of C & F agent. The C & F agent category was included in service tax net from 16.7.97 and since the appellant started this C & F agent service for Indian Oil Corpn. from October, 1999 they were required to get themselves registered under the provisions of service tax and discharge their tax liability. The appellant did not do so and the department summoned the appellant in November, 2003 and directed them to produce the documents to assess the liability of service tax.3. The appellant during the pendency of the proceedings deposited Rs. 91,000/- with the department. Show cause notice was issued to the appellant for recovery of the amount of service tax for the period October, 1999 to December, 2003. The adjudicati...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Planners India (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)8STT129

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 25-8-2005 wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal of the respondents in respect of penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, but upheld other penalties which have been imposed on the respondents.2. None appeared on behalf of the respondents but there is request to decide the matter on merit and the written submissions are sent which are on record. Considered the submissions made by the learned DR.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his Order-in-Appeal has come to the following conclusion: The act and omission the part of appellant was in contravention of the provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of Service Tax. The case specifically attracts the provisions of Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and they are liable for penal action under the said section. However, the Assistant Commissioner in his Order-In-Original has also imposed penalty under Section 76...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Tulip Network

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 30th August, 2005 wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the penalties imposed on the respondents by the adjudicating authority.2. None appeared for the respondents despite notice. Considered the submissions made by the learned D.R. and perused the record. In this case the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the penalties imposed under Sections 75A, 76, & 77 in his Order-in-Appeal in Para 4 which is reproduced below: I have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case, and I have considered appellants submission given in ST-4 application. The main contention of the appellant's is that the service tax levy was a new levy and as soon as they came to know, about this liability they obtained the Registration certificate, discharged the liability and filed the S.T. 3 returns. Further I find that the cable operator is a small firm, run by a handicapped person with a small turnover of Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 70,000/-...

Cce Vs. Industrial Army

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(107)ECC592

1. The issue involved in this case is regarding escapement of service tax, on services provided by the respondent under the category of security services. The respondents did not file service tax return, did not take registration and delayed the payment of service tax to the Government. Show cause notice was issued to the respondents demanding service tax and on adjudication the demand was confirmed and penalty was imposed under different sections. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) came to the conclusion that the respondents' case squarely falls under the Extra-ordinary Tax Payer Friendly Scheme as declared by the C.B.E.C. vide their Circular letter No. 137/39/2004-Cx.4 dated 20.9.2004, he allowed the appeal in respect of penalties imposed on the respondents, recalculated the service tax amount and directed the respondents to pay the same along with appropriate interest.2. None appeared for the respondents despite notice. Learned D.R.submits that their appeal is directed against th...

Winstar Electronics Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When this appeal was called none appeared for the appellant. No proper reason was filed for absence of appellant or his representative.It was merely mentioned by proxy advocate that advocate of appellants had gone out of the station. No request for adjournment was filed. We, therefore, do not find reasonable ground for adjourning the case and accordingly deciding the case after hearing the learned Authorised Representative of the Department.2. Show cause notice was issued to the appellant demanding duty of Rs. 2,64,250/- and proposing penalty on them on thg eround that they have misdeclared the value of the consignment for 21000 pieces of watch cases with metal band imported under Bill of Entry No. 1273 dated 11-9-97. During investigation Shri O.P. Agarwal, Proprietor of the appellant firm stated that he declared the CIF value of the goods as per invoice received by him from the supplier. On investigation, it was found that the supplier of the goods had declared much higher export ...