Delhi Court April 2006 Judgments

Regional Institute of Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Regional Institute of Opthalmology and Eye Hospital Trust, Sitapur, imported following equipments in terms of Notification No. 64/88-Cus dated 1.3.88 without payment of Customs duty in terms of Customs Duty Exemption Certificate (hereinafter referred as CDEC) issued by the Director General of Health Services (hereinafter referred as DGHS): 1. Coopervision Laserted Model 40A Argon Laser with green optics-3 Mirror Lens laser with modified 30 SL/M Slit Lamp 1 pair Argon safety gaggles operators manual. 2. Coopervision Lasertok Model 150 PVND YAG Laser Q-switched ND-YAG laser with modified 30 SL/M motorized stand, energy continuously adjustable from 0.5 to 15 MKJ in single mode an d2 to 75 MJ in multimode. 4. Adopter for 40A with focusing optics and eye fitter for connecting 40A to PV.150 IND-YAG Laser. 5. Three mirror contact Glass 903 for examination of the entire fundus & Gonioscopy for Slit Lamp 900. 6. Green line/Biopolar coagulation unit 200/220V/ with 400/foot switch serial ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shri Prakash Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Revenue has challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the demand of service tax on the assessee in the capacity of service receiver in respect of the services rendered by the Goods Transport Operators during the period 16-11-97 to 1-6-98, which was covered within the scope of Section 71A of the Act, is not maintainable in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Laghu Udyog Marti v. Union of India and CCE 2. Recently, the Tribunal by its Final Order No. 60 of 2006 dated 6-2-2006 [2006 (3) S.T.R. 14 (Tribunal)], after considering the statutory amendments and the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. has followed the decision of the Apex Court holding that the statutory foundation of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharti v. Union of India has been replaced and that decision ceased to be relevant for the purposes of construing the provisions o...

Arvind Kumar Bansal Vs. Director Csir and Director Iip

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By virtue of the present OA, the applicant seeks to challenge the termination order dated 20.9.2000 and grant of benefit of the decision of the High Court in CWP No. 6032/2000 in N.K. Rawat v. Union of India and Ors.2. Applicant was appointed on contractual basis in February 1995 as a Project Assistant and on an Advertisement dated 27.9.1996 for the post of Technician where number of posts were to be varied, applied for the said post. He appeared in the interview on 15.3.1997 and was appointed as Technician on a temporary basis under CSIR on 1.7.1998. On 6.7.1998, applicant's appointment letter was taken back and he was asked not to come to work. This led to filing of OA-197/99 before the Tribunal, which, on 21.3.2000, was disposed of whereby the applicant was allowed to continue in work. Accordingly, applicant re-joined his duty on 10.4.2000. On 22.5.2000, applicant was accorded all the benefits. Vide Memorandum dated 1.2.2000, a show cause notice was issued to the applicant as to...

Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)102TTJ(Delhi)345

1. This Special Bench has been constituted under Section 255(3) of the IT Act, 1961 to decide the following question arising out of the present appeals involving asst. yrs, 1993-94 to 1998-99 : On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the AO's action in holding that the assessee-company was assessable in relation to rental income from Scindia House under the head "Income from property" and not under the head "Business" as claimed by the assesses and further erred in disallowing the expenses claimed by the assessee for carrying on the said business. The findings of the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) are contrary to the Tribunal order in ITA No. 7214 for the asst. yr. 1980-81, in ITA No. 5151 for the asst. yr. 1982-83 and the Tribunal order dt. 29th April, 1993 for the asst. yr. 1983-84 to 1987-88 and subsequent years 2. The facts which are relevant and material to consider and decide the above question are as follows. The assessee in the -present c...

Schefenacker Motherson Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)8STT420

1. During the course of arguments, the learned authorised representative for the department with his usual fairness states that there is no dispute over the fact that services rendered as consulting engineers covered under the show cause notice were rendered prior to 7-7-97 when they were not taxable.2. Consulting Engineers services were made taxable by virtue of insertion of Clause (g) of Sub-section (105) of Section 65 with effect from 7-7-97 by Notification No. 23/97, dated 2-7-97. Therefore, no service tax could have been recovered in respect of such services rendered prior to the date on which they were made taxable. In this view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside.3. The appeal No. ST/174/2004 is accordingly allowed with consequential relief. The appeal No. 8/2005 is dismissed....

Hrj Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)6STT104

1. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) made on 12-4-2005 dismissing the appeal and upholding the order-in-original under which the appellant was required to pay service tax of Rs. 24,30,495/- on the commission amount received during the year 2000-01 and 2002-03 in lieu of services provided as clearing and forwarding agent and imposing penalty of Rs. 200/- per day Under Section 76 of the Act from 25-7-2000 and also a penalty of Rs. 7,000/- Under Section 77 for failure to furnish the returns.2. It was strongly contended by the learned Authorised Representative for the appellant that the appellant had done no activity other than procuring, and have never received the goods nor had supplied them to the buyers. It was submitted that the goods were directly supplied from the government agencies to the anganwadis.3. The learned Authorised Representative for the department placing on record a copy of the agreement argued that the terms and conditions thereof...

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC599

1. This appeal is filed by the Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd against the order of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III.2. The appellants (formerly known as M/s. Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd.), Hosur are the manufacturer of Triclosan a bulk drug, which is used for manufacturing Pre-mix and Pre-mix, is further used in the manufacture of Dettol soap, shaving cream etc. The appellant M/s.Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to RCI) were issued a show cause notice demanding differential duty of Rs. 1,50,45,438/- on the ground that they have under valued the product Triclosan. The correct assessable value for which was Rs. 2242/- Per Kg. but it was sold at the rate of Rs. 1,200/- per Kg. to M/s. Sodium Metal Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. VVF Ltd. Penalty was also proposed on the appellant for violation of various provisions of the Central Excise Rules. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner under the impugned order by which he confirmed the duty demand of...

Smc Power Generation Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ601

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This Petition seeks to set aside the appointment of Bhushan Steel and Strips Ltd. (Respondent No. 3) as the `Leader' of various prospective allocates including the Petitioner for a captive mining dispensation in respect of the New Patrapara [Patrapara-Aunli-Machhkata part) block in the Mahanadi Coalfileds Limited (MCL) area in pursuance of the provisions contained in Section 3(3)(a)(iii) of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 [Coal Mines Act in short] . This allocation has been made by the Government of India, Ministry of Coal (Respondent No. 1), in terms of its letter dated 13.1.2006. The said statutory provisions relevant for the present purposes prescribe that no person other than a company engaged in the production of iron and steel shall carry on coal mining operations in India in any form.2. The allocation/allotment has been made in consonance with the relevant Guidelines which envisage, inter alia, as follows:7. Allotment of Captive coal mining to con...

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and anr. Vs. Vindhya Telelinks Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 131(2006)DLT212

Rekha Sharma, J.1. Shri A.S. Bhola, General Manager (Finance) Punjab Telecom Circle, acted as the Sole Arbitrator between M/s Vindhya Telelinks Ltd. and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited with regard to disputes and differences that arose out of two Purchase Agreements entered by them to supply cables. The learned Arbitrator entered upon the reference and proceeded to finally pass the award on 25.9.2001. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited is unhappy with the award. It is because of that, that the objections under Section 34(2)(a)(iv) read with Section 14(1)(a)(2) and Section 33(2) and (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 have come to the fore.2. The claims which were referred to the Arbitrator were as follows:-1. Deduction of Rs. 97,64,547/- from the final invoice value admitted by the petitioners due to application of new rates for the supplies made within 21 days of the contracted original delivery period detailed in DGM (A) O/O CGMT J and K Telecom Circle letter No. 160-10/Eng/Lega...

Dharam Pal Vs. Dtc Etc.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 131(2006)DLT441

Gita Mittal, J.1. By this petition the petitioner has assailed an Award dated 10th February, 1994 whereby it was held by the industrial adjudicator that the petitioner had committed an act of serious misconduct and as such upheld the penalty of dismissal from service imposed on him while directing the respondent to make payment of wages to the workman till the date of passing of the award subject to adjustment of the amount which had been paid to the workman pursuant to the interim award dated 21st January, 1992 passed by it.2. The petitioner was appointed as a sweeper in the Delhi Transport Corporation with effect from 16th August, 1973. It appears that he presented a claim for leave travel concession in respect of alleged travel by his family members that is his wife and two sons. According to the claim submitted by the petitioner on 15th March, 1982, his family members had travelled by bus No. DLP 4650 from Delhi to Kanyakumari on 20th February, 1982 and returned on 8th March, 1992 ...