Delhi Court February 2006 Judgments

Cce Vs. Shri Kamlesh Kumar Agrawal, Prop.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(104)ECC589

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-appeal dated 27.10.2004 wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the Order-in-Original which imposes service tax and penalty on the respondents.2. The relevant fact that arise for consideration are that the respondents is registered as service tax payer under the category of Rent A Cab service and were discharging the tax liability. The department found out that during the year 2001-02 the respondent being operator issued a bill on his personal name for Rs. 2423/- as service provided for renting a Cab. It is on this amount that service tax liability was worked out as not being paid and the same was demanded.The respondent paid the service tax liability along with interest. The adjudicating authority imposed penalty on the respondent. On an appeal the appellate authority quashed the penalty and also set aside the demand of service tax which was confirmed. Hence, this appeal.3. The respondent is absent despite notice. Considered th...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bhojpur Club

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this case the respondents, registered as Mandap keeper, did not discharge their service tax liability for the period 1.4.97 to 30th June, 2002. Show cause notice was issued to the respondents and demand was confirmed against them and penalty imposed under various sections.The respondents discharged the service tax liability along with appropriate interest. Considering this fact the Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the penalties imposed on the respondents vide his Order-in-Appeal dated 17.11.2004. The department is in appeal against the said order of dropping of the penalties against the respondents.2. None appeared for the respondents despite notice. Considered the submissions made by the learned D.R. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) in his Order-in-Appeal has dropped various penalties imposed on the respondents relying upon the Board's Circular dated 23.9.2004. The relevant findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) are as under: (i) I find that there are a catena of decisions of vario...

Auto Transport Services Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(107)ECC84

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 3.8.2005 wherein the appellate authority has upheld the Order-in-Original imposing penalty on the appellants.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants are providing services of transportation and loading of coal from rail yard to their client. The appellants vide their letter dated 28.11.2003 sought clarification from the department, whether such coal handling services provided by them would come under the purview of service tax. The office of the Suptd. of Central Excise vide their letter dated 22.12.2003 informed the appellants that services provided by them would get covered under the category of cargo handling agent service and they are liable to pay service tax. The appellants on their own calculated the service tax liability for the period 16.8.2002 to 31.12.2003 and discharged the duty liability on 31.1.2004 and interest payable thereon was also paid on 23.2.2004. The appellants were i...

Mcd Vs. Dena Bank

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 127(2006)DLT673; 2006(87)DRJ564

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 8.2.1996 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi in PP Act Case No. 535/1995, whereby the learned Judge has allowed an appeal under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction and Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, which appeal arose from the order of the Estate Officer dated 6.4.1992 passing an eviction order in respect of the premises bearing Shop Nos. 48, 49, Lodhi Road, Municipal Market, New Delhi and directing payment of Rs. 1,14,000/- as arrears of license fee due up to 17.8.1989 and for subsequent period at Rs. 12,000/- per month till the premises is vacated.2. The facts of the case as have been noted by the learned Estate Officer are as follows.i) that shops No. 48-49 Lodhi Road Municipal Market, New Delhi are Municipal property and as such are public premises as defined under Section 2 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.ii) that these shops were allotted to the respondent on...

i Bilt Technologies Ltd. and Shri Dinesh Khetan Vs. Telecommunications ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2006)BC12; 2006(1)CTLJ168(Del)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The facts of the case, as initially presented to us by learned counsel for the Petitioner seemed rather startling, but on hearing learned counsel for the Respondents, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the writ petition, which deserves to be dismissed.2. The Department of Agriculture and Co-operation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India intends to develop a Kisan Knowledge Management System (the System) on a turnkey basis. For this purpose, the Department appointed Respondent No.1 Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. (for short TCIL) as their consultants.3. For implementation of the System, TCIL invited an Expression of Interest some time in March, 2005 from qualified and experienced information technology vendors. On an evaluation of the Expressions of Interest received by it, TCIL short-listed a few vendors including the Petitioner.4. Thereafter, TCIL invited a Request For Proposal for implementing the System from the short-listed vendo...

Dr. Satish Kumar Bhargava Vs. M.S., G.T.B. Hospital and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT221; 2007(1)SLJ413(Delhi)

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.CM No. 1689/20061. After hearing learned counsel for parties, this application is allowed and applicant Dr. Raj Pal is imp leaded as respondent in these proceedings.W.P.(C) 1349/2006 and CM No. 1143/20061. Issue Rule. With consent of learned counsel for parties, the writ petition was heard for disposal.2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved against an order dated 4th January, 2006 by which in supersession of a previous order, his assignment as Head of the Department (HOD) of Radiology in the Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital (hereafter called the Hospital ) was restricted and (Dr. Raj Pal who has been imp leaded in these proceedings today) was assigned as an Officer In-charge of the Medical Equipment. The petitioner also claims to be aggrieved by a subsequent order issued during pendency of these proceedings on 25th January, 2006 by which Dr. Rajpal was declared as Head of the Department of Radiology of the Hospital.3. The management of the Hospital is under a dual contro...

Chamanlal Yadav Vs. K.L. Johar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 127(2006)DLT705; (2006)143PLR40

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. RSA 11/1996 seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 07.10.1995 of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Delhi whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal being barred by time and also gone on to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the order dated 30.11.1993 of the Civil Judge, Delhi disposing of the suit by an ex-parte decree was valid as the appellant herein was aware of the pendency of the suit and deliberately chose not to appear before the trial court.2. Vide order dated 01.02.1996 the following question of law has been formulated:-Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings recorded in the impugned judgment of the lower appellate court, that the appellant/defendant had refused service of summons and had knowledge of the suit and the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 30th November, 1993, are perverse3. Facts of the case as noted by the Senior Civil Judge are as follows:-A suit was filed against the appellant-defendant for permane...

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Anuj Sharma and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2006)ACC8; 2007ACJ640

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal should not have awarded Rs. 5,19,418 towards loss of earning capacity, Rs. 1,00,000 on account of permanent disability and Rs. 75,000 on account of pain and suffering.2. The appellant has not disputed in his arguments compensation of Rs. 4,50,000 awarded towards reimbursement of medical expenses.3. I have considered the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant. In this regard the relevant findings of learned Tribunal in para 20 and part of para 21 of the impugned award are reproduced below:(20) The medical condition of the claimant was further explained by Dr. Amitabh Goel, PW 4, from Metro Multispeciality Hospital, Noida (U.P.). He categorically testified that due to the brain injuries, the speech power of the patient has been irreparably affected and he cannot speak fluently. It is pertinent to mention here that the claimant has been under regular medical ...

Bhawani Flour Mills Ltd. Vs. C.C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(109)ECC16

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 17.2.2005 wherein Order-in-Original rejecting the refund claim of the appellants was upheld.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants imported parts of flour mill machinery and classified the same under Customs Tariff Heading 8437.90. The department sought to classify the product under 8479.89. Pending the dispute the appellants deposited the duty payable on such goods sought as classified by the department, and took up the matter of classification in the higher forum. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the claim of the appellants' product under Chapter 8437.90. The said appeal stands finalized.Subsequent to the Order-in-Appeal in their favour the appellants preferred a refund claim of the duty paid. The said refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority on the ground that the appellants have not proved by substantial documentary evidence that incidence of duty has not been passed on...

Aquamall Water Solutions Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC183

1. Heard both sides. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty.2. In this case the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Water-Filter-cum-Purifier, Water Cooler-cum-Purifier components and were clearing the bulk of their production to their subsidiary holding Company and the applicants were also clearing the parts of their production independent to their customers. The Revenue confirmed the demand on the ground that appellants were clearing hulk of their manufactured good to the principle holding Company i.e. M/s. Eureka Forbes Limited, as M/s. Eureka Forbes Limited are related persons, therefore, the goods cleared to the related persons are to be assessed under the provisions of Rule 9 and 10 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000.3. The contention of the appellant is that they are having three manufacturing Units. The dispute regarding valuation of goods manufactured at Bangalore Unit and cleared to their holding Company attained fina...