Delhi Court February 2006 Judgments

Laxmi Color Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)8STT259

2. Appellants filed this appeal against the order in appeal challenging the impugned order whereby the penalty under Section 76 and Section 77 of Finance Act, 1994 was imposed for late filing of Service Tax Return and late deposit of Service Tax.3. The contention of the appellant is that they are doing profession of developing and printing of photographs film. The Service Tax of photographs service was introduced w.e.f. 16.7.2001. The appellants applied for registration. The contention is that in spite of appellants' request for registration, the Revenue Authorities never conveyed to the appellants regarding registration. This fact even admitted in the passed by order the Commissioner (Appeals) who also set aside the penalties up to 22.4.2003. However, imposed the penalty after this date on the ground that Revenue Officers visited the appellants' premises and appellant were informed regarding their liability. The appellants relied upon the pro visions of Section 80 of Finance Act, 199...

Kajaria Ceramics Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT385; [2007]288ITR393(Delhi)

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. By means of this Writ Petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the Notification SO 165 dated 19.12.1986 in so far as it excludes Sikandrabad Block of Bulandshahar District from the list of backward areas for the purpose of getting the benefit under Section 80HH of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the Circular issued by the CBDT in so far as it restricts the benefit of the deduction under Section 80HH of the Income Tax Act to units set up in the excluded areas vide Notification No. SO 165 dated 19.12.86. The petitioner has also prayed for setting aside the assessment orders for the assessment year 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 3. Section 80HH was inserted in the Income Tax Act by the Direct Taxes (Amendment) Act, 1974 which provided for an incentive to entrepreneurs to set up industries in backward areas. The Section, inter alia, provided ...

Malook Chand and Sons and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2007]288ITR111(Delhi)

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. This writ petition had initially been filed praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent IT Department to refund Rs. 27,423 with interest.3. During the pendency of the writ petition, an additional affidavit was filed by the petitioner. In para 2 of the same it is stated that respondent No. 2 passed an order under Section 132B(4) of the IT Act (for short 'the Act') on 6th Sept., 2001 which is Annex. P-1 to the writ petition. According to the said order, interest of Rs. 9,598 was worked out @ 15 per cent on the refund of cash of Rs. 27,423 from six months after the date of seizure i.e., 13th Nov., 1985 to the date of regular assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, that is, 14th March, 1988. The refund amount has been paid to the petitioner on 24th July, 2001. Now the dispute survives with regard to liability of interest for the period from 15th March, 1988, i.e., from the date of regul...

Malook Chand and Sons and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)202CTR(Del)440; [2006]154TAXMAN125(Delhi)

Markandeya Katju, C.J.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. This writ petition had initially been filed praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent IT department to refund Rs. 27,423 with interest.3. During the pendency of the writ petition, an additional affidavit was filed by the petitioner. In para 2 of the same it is stated that respondent No. 2 passed an order under section 132B(4) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to 'the Act') on 6-9-2001 which is Annex. P-1 to the writ petition. According to the said order, interest of Rs. 9,598 was worked out @ 15 per cent on the refund of cash of Rs. 27,423 from six months after the date of seizure i.e., 13-11-1985 to the date of regular assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, that is, 14-3-1988. The refund amount has been paid to the petitioner on 24-7-2001. Now the dispute survives with regard to liability of interest for the period from 15-3-1988, i.e., from the date of regular assessment...

India Colour Lab. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appeal is directed against the demand of service tax of about Rs. 24,000/- and imposition of equal penalty. The demand was raised by invoking the extended period provided under Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994. The demand is being challenged only on the ground of limitation.3. The demand relates to service tax payable on the value of service rendered to registered dealers. The submission of the counsel for the appellant is that the facts of the present case do not permit of invocation of extended period under Section 73, since there was no mis-statement. It is being contended that in the present case the appellant was filing returns on a regular basis and returns specifically showed the amounts collected from registered dealer under Col.5 of the return. The ld. Counsel contends that a perusal of the statements would make it clear that no service tax was being paid on the services rendered to registered dealer. It is his submission that since no wilful mis-statement is involved, ...

Hindustan Petroleum Coprn. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Appeal No. E/2523/2004-NB (SM) was dismissed for want of COD clearance. The same has now been produced. Therefore, the appeal is restored to its original number and both appeals are being taken up for disposal.3. The grievance of the appellants is that penalties imposed on them are totally unjustified.4. The facts of the case are that the first appellant is a public sector dealer of petroleum products, and in that capacity, registered with the Central Excise. It required steel tanks to be fabricated for its own use for storage of petroleum products. It received input, basically, steel plates and sent the same for fabrication to job worker under its invoices. The job worker took Modvat credit. Under the impugned order, the Modvat credits remains denied and penalties imposed on the appellant, M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and its employee. Shri S. Batra, Dy. Manager (O & E). The ground for imposition of penalty is that the first appellants' registration as a dealer co...

Ashok Jaiswar Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Adj.)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appeal is directed against imposition of penalty of Rs. 50,000/-under Section 114(i) and 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1988 [(sic) 1962], for aiding and abetting acts, which rendered the goods liable to confiscation.3. The contention of the Id. Counsel for the appellant is that in the present case, the appellant had acted only as a clearing agent. He also emphasised that the evidence on record only shows that he had signed the export documents (shipping bill), upon the export business being brought to him by Md. Farooq. The submission of the Id. Counsel is that for merely signing a shipping document, the appellant cannot be penalized. It is his contention that involvement in the fraud is required for attracting penalty.4. Ld. SDR would contend that since the appellant signed the concerned shipping bill, he is liable for penalty as a participant in the export fraud.5. I have perused the records and considered the submissions made by both the sides. The finding against the appella...

Diwan International Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against an order rejecting the appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) as 'barred by time'. The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that adjudication order was passed on 4-8-2000 and dispatched by registered post on 4-10-2000 while the appeal was filed only on 5-11-2004. The Commissioner has also noted that the service of the order remains confirmed by the Department of Post. The Commissioner further noted that the appellant has not even submitted any affidavit in support of its contention that it received copy of the order only on 20-10-2004.3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Commissioner's (Appeals) observation that no affidavit had been filed is not correct. He has, in this connection, referred to the affidavit dated 27-10-2004 of Shri Sub-ash Bhatia. Ld. Counsel has also submitted that this affidavit was one of the documents filed before the Commissioner (Appeals).3. As regards the service of the copy of the adjudication o...

Mediterranean Shipping Company, S.A. and anr. Vs. Margra Industries Lt ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2006)BC250; 128(2006)DLT51; 2006(87)DRJ799

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. IA 13116/2000 (under Order 37 Rule 4 CPC)1. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 60,25,112/- under the provisions of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Code') along with pendente lite and future interest. This claim is based on the conditions of Bill of Lading No. 1831279 dated 30.9.1998 and an agreement dated 21.2.2000.2. Plaintiff No. 1 is a ship-liner engaged in transportation of goods/cargo in enclosed containers by sea. Plaintiff No. 2 is the agent of plaintiff No. 1 in India.3. M/s Marmoles Ronimar, Spain approached the plaintiff No. 1 at their office in Spain with a request to carry consignment of rough marble slabs and blocks by twelve 20' containers for the defendant herein which was the notified party for the consignment. The plaintiff No. 1 carried the consignment to Mumbai, the port of discharge and the defendant was informed about the arrival of the cargo. The consignment had to be c...

Smt. Kusum Kumria and ors. Vs. Shri S.P. Kumria and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(88)DRJ233

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. By an order dated 21.4.2003 this Court had directed that the following issue be decided as a preliminary issue:-Whether the plaintiffs have locus standi to file the instant suit' OPP' The issue has arisen because the plaintiffs are seeking to enforce their alleged preemptive right to purchase the undivided share of defendant No. 1 on the basis of the provisions of Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The said Section reads as under:- 22. Preferential right to acquire property in certain cases. - (1) Where after the commencement of this Act, interest in any immovable property of an intestate, or in any business carried on by him or her, whether solely or in conjunction with others, devolve upon two or more heirs specified in Class I of the Schedule, and any one of such heirs proposes to transfer his or her interest in the property or business, the other heirs shall have a preferential right to acquire the interest proposed to be transferred. (2) The con...