Delhi Court February 2006 Judgments

K.R. Pradeep Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Del)147; [2006]282ITR526(Delhi)

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated May 19, 2000, of the Central Board of Direct Taxes.2. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The petitioner is a chartered accountant providing professional services to foreign clients outside India. He entered into an agreement with Marubeni Corporation, Tokyo, Japan, to provide accountancy and management services for a period of 36 months from October 1, 1999, to September 30, 2002. True copy of the said agreement is 'annexure P-1' to the writ petition.4. Clause 3 of the said agreement states as under:3. Service under this agreement is to be rendered only by communicating in writing and transmitting to the company to its head quarters at Tokyo or to such other place outside India as may be specified, the advice, suggestions, information, etc. The communication is to be through appropriate medium of communication in person or by way of mail, fax, etc. It is the agreement betwee...

Vijay Kumar Garg Contractor (P) Ltd. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(1)ARBLR462(Delhi); 128(2006)DLT67; 2006(87)DRJ767

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. is No. 12629/1996 (Under Section 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940)1. The respondent Corporation issued a notification to tender (NIT) for the work of construction of a residential complex at Chandigarh and the petitioner was the successful tenderer. A letter of intent was issued on 18.04.1988 by the respondent followed by the work order dated 22.04.1988. The work was to commence from 15th day of the issuance of work order and was to be completed within a period of 15 months in terms of clause 5(a) of the work order. The stipulated date for commencement of work was, thus, 06.06.1988 and for completion of work was 06.08.1989.2. The work could not be commenced in time due to the respondent being unable to obtain requisite permissions from the authorities in Chandigarh and in terms of the letter dated 09.09.1988 of the respondent the stipulated date for commencement of work was deferred / modified to 01.09.1988. This power was apparently exercised in terms of cla...

Associated Builders Vs. Dda

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT17

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. IA No. 429/1997 (u/Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940)1. The petitioner was awarded the contract for construction of SFS houses at Sarita Vihar, Sector I, in pursuance to the agreement No. 14/EE/CPD-5/DDA/84- 85. Disputes arose between the parties and in view of Clause 25 being the arbitration clause of the terms and conditions of the contract, the Engineer Member DDA vide letter dated 25.11.1991 appointed Sh. M.S. Telang, Chief Engineer (Retd.) of CPWD and DDA as the sole arbitrator. The arbitrator made and published his award dated 06.12.1995. The respondent aggrieved by the same has filed the objections under Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act').2. Learned counsel for the respondent has taken me through the award and the arbitral record. Learned counsel seeks to argue each of the objections on merits, but in my considered view, this is not the jurisdiction of this court. The court does not sit ...

Hissar Medical Diagnostic and Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. M/s Hissar Medical Diagnostic & Hospitals Limited filed Bill of Entry No. 105274 dated 06.11.1992 for import of one Toshiba make TCT 300S Whole Body CT Scanning machine. It was cleared on 12.11.1992 without payment of duty on the strength of customs duty exemption certificate issued by the Directorate General of Health Services under Notification No. 64/88-Cus dated 01.03.1988. Show cause notice dated 24.5.1997 was issued to M/s Hissar Medical Diagnostic & Hospitals Limited that they were required to submit the installation certificate from Directorate General of Health Services within a reasonable period and no such certificate was produced by them demanding duty of Rs. 79,11,176/-. This show cause notice is still said to pending for decision.2. To check the fulfillment of other conditions prescribed under Notification No. 64/88-Cus dated 01.03.1988, the office of the Accountant General (Audit), Haryana conducted an audit of this Hospital on 04.10.1996 and submitted their ...

Greenply Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC151

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 3.9.2005 wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the Order-in-Original imposing penalty and seeking to recover interest from the appellants.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants were receiving services of GTO for the period from 16.11.97 to 2.6.98. Validity of these services were challenged in the Supreme Court and a retrospective amendment was carried out to the Finance Act and the appellants were required to pay their service tax as recipient of services of GTO. The appellants discharged the service tax liability on 31.1.2004 and 1.2.2004. Show cause notice was issued to the appellants in November, 2004 directing them to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed and interest should not recovered from them for depositing the service tax liability late. The appellants contested the show cause notice and the adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original dated 14.6.2005 imposed p...

Sai Security Printers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Sai Security Printers Ltd. who are engaged in the printing of lottery tickets, bus tickets, cheque books, demand draft, thermal rolls and MTNL-VCC Trump Card etc. challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 30-12-2003. The issue before us is whether such products as claimed by the appellants is classifiable under sub-heading 4901.90 or under 4811.90 as printed thermal rolls as contended by the respondent. The fact that the product in question is in roll form is not contested by either side, it is contended that the appellants had imported thermal paper rolls classifiable under sub-heading 4811.90 After wards, they printed the rolls and later cut in slit them to suit their requirement. The process undertaken has been clearly given in the statement of Shri Satish Kumar Rohilla, Works Manager of the appellant recorded on 10-4-2003. Inspite of this clear statement, Id. Commissioner (Appeals) has observed in his order repeatedly that the the...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Shree Sainath Communication-ii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)8STT343

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 31-1-2005 wherein the Commissioner Appeals has set aside the penalties imposed on the respondents.2. The respondent is absent despite notice. Heard learned D.R. and perused the records. I find from the record that the respondent is a very small scale cable operator, may be doing his operation from the house. I also find that it is admitted fact that he was a small time operator and he was unaware of the provisions of law and intricacy and misunderstanding created by the cable operators association. Learned Commissioner Appeals has considered this aspect and set aside the penalties imposed on the respondents. To my mind Order-in-Appeal dated 1-1-2005 is correct and deserves to be upheld and no interference is called for. The department's appeal is, therefore, dismissed....

Cce Vs. Kashyap Sweetners (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC384

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 25.2.2005 wherein the respondent's appeal was allowed.2. The issue involved in this case is regarding service tax liability fastened upon the respondents in respect of services received by them in the case of Goods Transport Operators. By a retrospective amendment vide Section 117 of Finance Act, 2000 the service receivers were required to pay service tax in respect of GTO, provided, demand of service tax was raised within the time as provided by retrospective amendment. In this case the demand was raised in October, 2002 i.e almost 2 years after amendment of the Finance Act. Adjudicating proceedings culminated in confirmation of demand of service tax and imposition of penalty. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Order-in-Original on the ground of time bar. Hence, this appeal by the Department.3. None appeared for the respondents despite notice. Heard learned D.R.It is the submission of the learned D.R. that the i...

Akanksha Enterprises Vs. C.C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal dated 11.04.2005 that upholds the order in original wherein a penalty has been imposed on the appellants.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant is a CHA and is registered with the Customs authorities as a CHA. One of the consignments sought to be exported by one M/s Around Impex was found to be overvalued and hence the authorities started investigation. The conclusion of the investigation resulted in show cause notice being issued to the M/s Around Impex for confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty. The current appellant being a CHA was also issued a show cause notice for imposition of penalty under Section 113(h)(i)(ii) and 114 of the Customs Act 1962. The adjudicating authority imposed penalty of Rs. 50000/- on the current appellants. On an appeal the appellate authority also concurred with the views of the adjudicating authority. Hence this appeal.3. Considered the submissions made ...

Cce Vs. Milap Marbles (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(109)ECC12

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 29.9.2005 wherein the respondent's appeal was allowed.2. The issue involved in this case is regarding service tax liability fastened upon the respondents in respect of services received by them in the case of Goods Transport Operators. By a retrospective amendment vide Section 117 of Finance Act, 2000 the service receivers were required to pay service tax in respect of GTO, provided demand of service tax was raised within the time as provided by retrospective amendment. In this case the demand was raised in October, 2002 i.e.almost 2 years after amendment of the Finance Act. Adjudicating proceedings culminated in confirmation of demand of service tax and imposition of penalty. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Order-in-Original on the ground of time bar. Hence, this appeal by the Department.3. None appeared for the respondents despite notice. Heard learned D.R.It is the submission of the learned D.R. that the is...