Delhi Court July 2006 Judgments

L.M.L. Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC360

1. These appeals are filed against Order-in-Appeal dated 30.5.2004 which disposed of 4 Orders-in-Original that confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty on the appellant.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant availed Modvat Credit on the invoices issued by the dealers/traders during the period July, 1994 to December, 1994. Show cause notices were issued to the appellants denying the Modvat Credit on the ground that these dealers/traders were not registered dealers with the Central Excise department. The appellants contested the show cause notices on the ground that these dealers/traders got themselves registered before 31^st December, 2004 as directed by the Board vide its Circular No. 76/76/94 dated 8.11.94. The Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand on the appellants and imposed penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals), in respect of the credit availed by the appellants on the invoices issued by Indian Oil Corporation, allowed the appeal but...

Rakesh Chemicals (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC304

1. These appeals are directed against order-in-appeal dated 7.5.2004 which upheld the order-in-original confirming the demand of duty and imposition of penalty on the company as well as on the Director. Since both the appeals are connected, they are disposed of by a common order.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the authorities during the visit of the factory of the appellant resumed records for scrutiny. The authorities referred the invoices issued by the appellants to the Trade Tax Officer on the border of Saharanpur.The report of the Trade tax Officer varied as regard the value on the invoices. On doubting the veracity of invoices, the officers, further, scrutinized and found that the value as shown by the appellant on the invoices which were issued from their record were on very lower side while the invoice value as recorded by Trade Tax Authorities were on a very higher side. On further investigation, the authorities found that the appellants had cleared...

Sushil Kumar Goyal and anr. Vs. Ito and anr.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These two appeals filed by the different assessees against the respective orders of the Commissioner(Appeals), Rohtak, passed in Appeal Nos.128/HSR/2005-06 and 135/HSR/2005-06 dated 27.09.2005, involving identical ground except variation in amounts, were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience, on the following identical ground: The learned assessing officer seriously erred and was unjustified and unjudicious in imposing penalty of Rs. 35,110 and Rs. 65,896 - under Section 271B of Income Tax Act, 1961 in facts and circumstances ofthe case and learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also erred in sustaining penalty.2. In brief, the facts relating to the issues involved in the ground of appeals of the assessees are that the assessees are transport booking agents and on demand, the trucks were arranged by them from the market for carriage of goods of various parties for different places. For arranging the aforesaid services, the ...

Roshan Lal Mittal and ors. Vs. Hari Singh (Since Deceased) Through His ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 131(2006)DLT27; 2006(90)DRJ696

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioners are tenants in the suit property of the respondents being commercial premises bearing Municipal Nos. 2 and 3, 17, Community Centre, Ashok Vihar, Delhi 110 052. The father of the respondents had filed eviction petition on the ground of subletting against the petitioners in the year 1984 and the matter has been since pending.2. The grievance of the petitioners arises from the order passed on 23.04.2003 on the application of the petitioners under Order XVI Rule 1, 2 & 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the Code') for examining four more witnesses in support of their case. It is the case of the petitioners that evidence was material for disposal of the controversy and related to the subsequent developments. The Additional Rent Controller (for short, 'ARC'), however, rejected the application. The petitioners thereafter filed a review application, which has also been dismissed by the order dated 28.09.2005.3. Th...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nestle India Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)206CTR(Del)345

ORDER1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dt. 19th Sept., 2001 passed by the Tribunal. Delhi Bench 'B' in ITA No. 3862/Del/1996 for the relevant asst. yr. 1991 -92 and other connected appeals.2. It appears that for the asst. yr. 1984-85, the assessed changed its method of accounting for the purpose of valuation of its closing stock by excluding the excise duty on goods that were cleared but not sold. The correctness of this action was questioned by AO, who did not accept the assessed's change in its method of accounting. The CIT(A) rejected the assessed's appeal. However, the assessed succeeded before the Tribunal. The decision of the Tribunal is reported as ITO v. Food Specialties Ltd. .3. Our order-sheets show that on earlier occasions it was stated that the Revenue had filed an application under Section 256(1) of the IT Act seeking reference of a question of law that had arisen as a result of the decision of the Tribunal. The details with regard to that application were not place...

Roop Ram Sakhiya Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 131(2006)DLT610; 2006(90)DRJ439

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This revision petition is filed against the order on charge dated 21.9.2004 as well as the formal charge framed on the same day against the petitioner by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.2. This case has a chequered history inasmuch as it has apparently been tied up with another case emanating from FIR 107/87 of Police Station Greater Kailash which is essentially a murder case. The present case pertains to certain documentations connected with the person who was murdered in the other case. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is involved in a conspiracy and alleged forgery and fabrication of the Will of the deceased in the other case i.e., FIR No. 107/87.3. On 26.2.2002 when this matter came up before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, it was argued on behalf of the State that this case also be sent to the Sessions Court along with the case bearing FIR No. 107/87 which had been committed to the Court of Sessions as the present case allegedly ...

Subhash Chand Barjatya Vs. the State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007CriLJ76; 2006(90)DRJ303

ORDERBadar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The counsel for the parties agree that this matter can be disposed of at the first instance itself. The learned Counsel for the respondent appears on advance notice and says that this matter could be disposed of on the first hearing without Issuance of a formal notice or any reply being filed on behalf of the respondent.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25-3-2006 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate whereby the petitioner's applications under Sections 91 and 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 were rejected. The application under Section 91 was for the summoning of the Cheque Returning Register for the month of March. 1999 from the Syndicate Bank, Dhaula Kuan. The application under Section 311, Cr. P.C. was for the purpose of recalling the complainant (CW 1) Rita Saim for further cross examination.3. The brief facts which gave rise to the said applications and ultimately, the impugned order dated 25-3-2006 pertain to the compl...

Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Eternal Science and Man's Society

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]296ITR445(Delhi)

1. In this reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the following question of law has been referred for our opinion:Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that 50,000 shares of Motor and General Finance Ltd. are not 'invested' in a concern, in which any person referred to in Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has substantial interest as provided in Explanationn 3 thereof?2. Some of the trustees of the assessed were directors of a company called Motor and General Finance Ltd. It appears that these persons were also trustees in some other trusts such as Daulat Ram Central Education Society and Daulat Ram Public Mission, etc. (compendiously called as Daulat Ram Trusts).3. The Daulat Ram Trusts donated 50,000 shares held by them in Motor and General Finance Ltd., to the assessed.4. The Wealth-tax Officer was of the view that the shares received by the assessed were in fact investments made by the trus...

Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC149

1. This appeal is directed against order in appeal dated 28th February, 2003 which denied the modvat credit to the appellant on the Steam Turbine and spares thereof.2. The relevant fact that arise for consideration are the appellants are manufacturers of Power Driven Pumps set supply the same as a set.For manufacturing the set of Power Driven Pumps, appellants require a centrifugal force of power which can come from either motors or through Steam Turbine. Appellants availed modvat credit on the Steam Turbines used by them for manufacturing of Power Driven Pumps set.3. The lower authorities denied the modvat credit to the appellants on the Steam Turbines. On an appeal, Commissioner (Appeal) also held against the appellant's appeal. Hence this appeal.4. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellants manufacture Power Driven Pumps set. It is his submission that a Power Driven Pump set is complete only with pump and centrifugal force attached with it on a base pla...

Rampur Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. M/s Rampur Engineering Co. Ltd. is mainly engaged in the manufacture of conveyor systems and parts thereof. During the year 2001-02, they supplied drawing, design etc. to other manufacturers. Under the impugned order, service tax has been demanded on the income from such service under the heading "consulting engineer". The present appeal is directed against that order.3. The record makes it clear that the appellant is an engineering company. Therefore, it comes within the definition of an "engineering firm" under the statute. The service rendered is in the nature of assistance by way of supplying drawing, design etc. prepared by the engineering division of the appellant. According to appeal papers themselves, this division is mainly of qualified Engineers like draughtsmen etc. Thus, clearly, the assistance would come in the category of engineering consultancy. Since the appellant satisfied the definition of 'consulting engineer' as an engineering firm under the statute and the serv...