Delhi Court April 2006 Judgments

Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: IV(2006)BC7; 129(2006)DLT792; 2006(89)DRJ552

Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. The plaintiff, Punjab & Sind Bank filed a suit against three defendants for recovery of Rs. 4,85,250.40/- with pendente lite and future interest. According to the case pleaded by the plaintiff, Sh. Mathura Yadav, Sole Proprietor of defendant No. 1. i.e. Shree Ganesh Trading Company was having a current account with the plaintiff bank and during the course of their business and on their request made on 3.4.1997, the plaintiff bank agreed to extend the financial facility to defendant No. 1 in relation to the bills for sale of goods worth Rs. 3,17,804.40/- to M/s. Parul Poultry Farm vide bill No. 291 dated 1.4.1997. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had drawn hundi on the said buyer for the amount of the above stated bill. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had represented that they were in dire need of money and wanted an advance/purchase of the bill hundi which was granted to the defendants on the assurance that the amount would be adjusted upon payment. The bill and hundi was sent to t...

Sh. Jai Kishan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT745; 2006(89)DRJ585

Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. The petitioner claims to be the bhumidaar/exclusive owner of 1/4th share of the total agricultural land to the extent of 1/5th share in Khasra Nos. 37/9, 10, 38/6, 7 Min. 37/11, 12,19, 38/14, 15, 2/24 measuring about 55 Bigha situated within the revenue estate of Village Holambi Kalan, Delhi. They claim to be in possession of the land for a long time and due entries in that regard exist in the khasra girdwari which has also been placed on record. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued on 27.1.2003 for acquisition of the land including the above land of the petitioner, in furtherance to which a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 23.1.2004. Award bearing No. 15/2005-06/DC/NW dated 23.8.2005 was made by the Collector awarding compensation to the claimants @ Rs. 12,60,000/-. The petitioner claims the amount of compensation in his own right and stated that there is some dispu...

Mansarovar Investments Ltd. Vs. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Del)545; [2006]287ITR137(Delhi); [2006]154TAXMAN566(Delhi)

ORDERT.S. Thakur, J.Issue rule.2. Despite opportunities granted to Mr. Jolly to file a counter-affidavit to this writ petition, the needful has not been done. Mr. Jolly, on the contrary, submits that since the question arising for consideration is purely legal in character, the filing of a counter was unnecessary. He has accordingly argued the writ petition for final disposal.3. This case has a chequered history starting with the assessment of the assessed-company in May, 1995 under the GT Act. We are for the present not concerned with the various stages through which the litigation has progressed and the orders that the authorities have passed in those proceedings from time to time. All that we need mention is that pursuant to an order made by the Commissioner (Appeals) passed on 31-3-2004, the GTO computed the amount of gift-tax payable by the petitioner and charged interest under section 220(2) read with section 32(2) of the GT Act with effect from 17-5-1995. A demand for an amount ...

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Cce, Aurangabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These two appeals were remanded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3725-3726 (NM) of 1999 and 7605 of 1999 to the Tribunal for fresh decision. In case of appeal of New Bharat Builders (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. their name was deleted from the array of respondents vide court's order dated 10th July, 2000. The issue involved in these appeals is common, therefore, these are being taken up together for decision.2. The facts in brief are that on 12.3.1988, Central Excise officers visited the premises of M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Satpur, Nasik and noticed that steel structural viz. purlins, beams, trusses, inserts, columns, cable, cladings, inserts, etc. were being manufactured and utilised for erection of their new sheds. During investigation, it was found that the appellants have got manufactured the above said structural steel articles at their own factory site for erection of new sheds by M/s New Bharat Builders (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. on job charge basis as per designs and ...

Rastogi Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)8STT425

1. Heard both the sides on the question of interim relief. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the appellant has paid service tax on the services rendered by the appellant as clearing and forwarding agents. It is submitted that for freight, handling and warehousing charges separate bills were submitted and those amounts were not recovered by way of remuneration. The learned authorized representative for the department on the other hand submitted that even if separate bills were submitted for freight, handling and warehousing charges, these payments were received by the appellant in relation to the services provided by them as clearing and forwarding agents and therefore, the payments under those heads should be treated as part of the remuneration received by the appellant.2. Taxable service as defined in Clause (j) of Sub-section (105) of Section 65 means any service provided to a client, by a clearing and forwarding agent in relation to clearing and forwarding opera...

Magnum International Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(112)ECC422

1. These stay applications have been filed by the respective applicants for staying the recovery of the service tax and penalties imposed on them under the respective impugned order.2. It was argued for the applicants that they are providing the security personnel to their various clients for doing the security and they are recovering the salaries, in addition to the service charges for providing the security personnel. The service charges for providing the security personnel are 15% of the gross amount under the agreement, which was shown to us. The claim of the revenue is that the security personnel are employees of the security agency and service charges are required to be paid on the total amount realized, inclusive of the salary and other benefits to be provided to security personnel in addition to the service charges.3. We have already examined this issue in the case of New Industrial Security Force v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur reported in 2006 (2) S.T.R. 66 (Tri.-D...

Kakda Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This stay application is directed against imposition of penalty on the appellants for late payment of duty under Rule 96ZO(3)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Since the issue involved in this case is in a very narrow compass, stay is granted and the appeal is taken for disposal with the consent of both sides.2. Considered the submission of both sides and perused the record. I find from the record that the appellants had opted for paying duty under the compounded levy scheme for the period from September, 1997 to March, 1998 and they discharged the duty liability as was ascertained by the competent authority. It is also observed that the appellants had sought abatement of duty for the period during which their factory was closed. This abatement claim of the appellant was decided by the Commissioner vide his Order dated 10-6-1999, due to which it was noticed that the appellants paid an amount of Rs. 50,139/- short. Show cause notice was issued to the appellants for imposition o...

Norma Ispat (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC65

1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal dated 27.10.2005 wherein the confiscation of the goods and imposition of the penalty is upheld.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant imported stainless steel scrap from Pakistan by Rail Wagon No. PRC-77890 (Pakistan Bogie) at Customs Rail Cargo, Amritsar and filed Bill of Entry No. 2653 dated 26.12.2004. The authorities denied the clearance of the said imported consignment on the ground that any metal scrap to be imported can be imported only through the designated ports and Land Customs Station, Amritsar is not one of them. The authorities seized the consignment. The appellant waived the issuance of show cause notice and personal hearing. The adjudicating authority confiscated the cargo and also imposed penalty. The appellant preferred an appeal that was rejected upholding the findings of the adjudicating authority. Hence this appeal.3. The learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits t...

Ex-serviceman Indl. Security Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against the order in appeal-dated 11-7-2005 whereby it is held that the appellant is liable to pay the service tax and the penalties for non-payment of such tax.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant was registered in 1998 as a service provider under the Service Tax provisions as security Agency. They did not pay the service tax due on the payment they collected from one of their customers. The authorities on an investigation found out the short payment of the tax and directed the appellant to make good the short payment by a show cause notice, appellant resisted the show cause notice on the ground of limitation and many other grounds. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand vide order dated 31-8-2004 and also imposed penalties under various sections. On an appeal the appellate authority upheld the order and dismissed the appeal. Hence this appeal.3. The appellant has sent a request letter to decide the case on meri...

Shri Kamlakant Mishra Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 30.9.2004 which upholds the Order-in-Original upholding the confiscation and imposition of penalty.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that officers of Customs (Preventive), Varanasi on 28.12.1994 intercepted and recovered eight wooden boxes from truck bearing Registration No. UP-78B-5470 which were concealed below the gunny bags of rice husk. The wooden boxes were found to contain ball bearings of foreign origin of different sizes. The truck and all the goods found, were seized. Based on the documents found in the truck the officers found out that the appellant herein is the owner of the truck and visited his residence but nothing incriminating was found. The appellant herein, gave a statement that he had asked the driver to transport a consignment of guavas, and that he does not have the address of the driver. The appellant also further stated that the driver was appointed by him recently that also on the re...