Delhi Court July 2006 Judgments

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. A.K. Multimetals Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(112)ECC294

1. We have perused the record and heard the learned SDR. None appeared for the respondent.2. The only issue that arises for consideration is whether a broker who received commission on sale is required to pay service tax as 'clearing and forwarding agent'. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that service of a broker does not come within the category of clearing and forwarding. While doing so, he was following the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Mahavir Generic v. C.C.E..3. In the present appeal, the submission of the revenue is that a Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Prabhat Zarda Factory v.C.C.E. has held that words "any service directly or indirectly" in defining 'clearing & forwarding agent' would cover an agent who booked orders also. It is also being pointed out that revenue has filed appeal against the order of the Tribunal in the case of Mahavir Generic which the Commissioner followed.4. We note that the correctness of this Tribunal...

Vanasthali Textiles Industries Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)8STT329

1. This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal dated 31-10-2005 which upheld the order-in-original imposing penalty and demanding interest from the appellant.2. The relevant fact that arise for consideration are appellant availed the services of goods transport operators and C & F agents during the period 1997-98. During the relevant period, the receiver of services recipient is liable to pay the service tax. This proposition of the law was challenged by trade in different forums and retrospective amendment was carried out to the Finance Act, 1994, which included in the statute, the provisions for collecting the service tax from the recipient of the services. The appellant paid the service tax involved in this case on 31-1-04 and 4-2-04. They also deposited the interest from 30-11-03 till the payment of the service tax. Show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 16-11-04 directing them to show cause as to why the interest and penalty could not be imposed on them. The adj...

Baspur Cooperative Sugar Factory Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC474

1. This appeal is directed against order in appeal dated 03/11/2003 which upheld the order in original confirming the demand and imposing penalty and interest.2. The relevant fact that arise for consideration are appellants availed modvat credit initially on the invoices issued by their suppliers in respect of brass tube. The audit party when auditing the records of the appellant came to the conclusion that the credit availed by the appellant to the tune of Rs. 91,257/- (Rupees Ninety One Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Seven only) is ineligible on the ground that the brass tube which were received back were manufactured by the job worker from the brass scrap supplied by appellant and the appellants have not followed the procedure for removal of the brass scrap from their factory. The appellants reversed the modvat credit of Rs. 91,347/-(Rupees Nine One Thousand Three Hundred Forty Seven only) under protest' on 01/07/99. Subsequently on 07/07/99, the appellants re-credited the modvat credi...

Suri Color Labs (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC471

1. This appeal is directed against order in appeal dated 24/11/2005 which confirmed the demand of the duty and imposition of the penalty on the appellant.2. None appeared for the appellant. The appellants have filed written submissions. In the written submissions appellants have clearly indicated they are not challenging the service tax liability and interest thereof but their appeal is limited only to the penalty. The specific averment is at paragraph '6' of written statement which is reproduced below: However, the appellant has filed an appeal before Hon'ble Tribunal against levy of penalty, as there was reasonable cause for the non-deposit of service tax. Because, during the said period, i.e. August, 2004 to October 2004, there was dispute relating to interpretation of Notification No. 12/2003-ST dt. 20/06/2003 in respect of services relating to photography. The said issue was finally decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in October 2005. Had the Hon'ble Supreme Court earlier decide...

Kec International Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against order in appeal dated 27/12/2005 which upheld the order in original dismissing the refund claim of the appellant.2. The relevant fact that arise for consideration are appellants had availed the services of goods transport operators for the period 16/11/97 to 02/06/98 and were liable to pay service tax on such services. The appellants on there own calculated the amount of service tax payable by them and deposited vide TR-6 challan in the government treasury. Subsequently, they filed the refund claim for the service tax paid by them on the ground, that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. that such tax is riot payable.Adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim and on an appeal, Commissioner (Appeal) also held the same views.3. None appeared for the appellant when the matter was called out in the first session but there was a request by the clerk of the advocate for pass over. The matter was passed over to th...

Sunrise Food Products Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC530

2. The applicants filed these applications for waiver of duty of Rs. 3,62,31,930/- and equal amount of penalty and also the personal penalties.3. The demand was confirmed on the ground that the applicants cleared dutiable goods without payment of duty.4. The revenue is relying on the statements of M/s. Sitaram Suri & Sons, Shri Animesh Gupta, Railway booking & clearing agents and others to prove that applicants manufacture and clear the excisable goods without payment of duty. Revenue is also relying upon the private records recovered from the applicants' premises which show that excisable goods were cleared without payment of duty. The contention of the appellants is that revenue officers searched the premises of one, M/s. Sanket Food Products Pvt. Ltd. on 8-3-02 and in that investigation, the applicant's premises were also searched on 27-3-2002. The main evidence is Sudhir Khanna, who is overall in-charge of M/s. Sanket Food Products Pvt. Ltd. as well as the applicant's firm...

Panchsheel Colour Lab Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)7STT107

2. We find that the issue raised remains settled in favour of the revenue by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.K. Jidheesh v. Union of India 2006 (1) STR 3 (SC). Accordingly, we proceed with the appeals after dispensing with the requirement for pre-deposit.3. The assessee's claim is that in regard to photographic service, deduction of the cost of materials is permissible while determining the value of service. This issue is no more res Integra inasmuch as in the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that photographic service does not involve any element of sale of goods; it is a contract purely for service. Thus, the assessee's claim for excluding the value of materials while valuing the cost of the service, has no legal basis. The duty demand is required to be on the full value.4. The learned Counsel for the assessee has a submission that Central Board of Excise & Customs issued a Circular F. No. 233/2/2003-CX-4, dated 7th April, 2004 sta...

Satyal Pal Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(94)DRJ242

Manju Goel, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition seeks an order in the nature of certiorari for quashing the charge-sheet dated 13th and 14th October, 2005 issued against him by respondent No. 2r The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer in Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking (in short 'DESU') in 1976 and reached the rank of Superintending Engineer when he was transferred to North Delhi Power Limited (in short' 'NDPL')/respondent No. 2. The charge-sheet dated 13th/14th October, 2005 was served on the petitioner under the signatures of Mr. Sunil Wadhwa, respondent No. 3. The quashing of the charge-sheet is demanded on various grounds. However, today at the time of hearing, Ms. S. Janani, counsel for the petitioner pressed only one of them.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the service of the petitioner has been transferred to DISCOM 3; namely North West Delhi Distribution Company Limited, whereas the disciplinary proceedings are initiated by respondent No. ...

Hira Nand Dhingra Vs. Corporation Bank and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 134(2006)DLT329; 2006(91)DRJ758

ORDER xxxvII1. Courts and classes of suits to which the Order is to apply-1) This order shall apply to the following Courts, namely; -a) High Courts, City Civil Courts and Courts of Small Causes; and b) other Courts:Provided that in respect of the Courts referred to in Clause (b), the High Court may,by notification in the Official Gazette, restrict the operation of this Order only to such categories of suits as it deems proper, and may also, from time to time, as the circumstances of the case may require, by subsequent notification in the Official Gazette, further restrict, enlarge or vary, the categories of suits to be brought under the operation of this Order as it deems proper. 2) Subject to the provisions of Sub-rule (1), the Order applies to the following classes of suits, namely:a) suits upon bills of exchange, hundies and promissory notes;b) suits in which the plaintiff seeks only to recover a debt or liquidate demand in money payable by the defendant, with or without interest, ...

Shri Asseem Paul Vs. Uco Bank

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 132(2006)DLT460

Manju Goel, J.1. This writ petition challenges the non-promotion of the petitioner for several years. The petitioner joined the respondent bank on 2.1.1974 as a Probationary Officer and is now working as Chief Officer (Inspection-Mobile) since October, 2001 which is a Grade Scale-IV post. He is aspiring to be promoted to Grade Scale-V since 2001. He challenges denial of his promotion in the years 2001, 2002 and 2003. The respondent bank has framed UCO Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 under Section 19 read with Section 12(2) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. Chapter IV of these Regulations deal with appointment, probation, confirmation, promotion, seniority and termination. Regulation 14 in this Chapter prescribes that all appointments in and promotions to the officer grade shall be made by the competent authority in the light of the guidelines of the Government, if any. Promotions are further dealt with in Regulation 17 which says ...