Delhi Court July 2006 Judgments

Cce Vs. Ispat Alloys Ltd. (Balasore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been directed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta, made on 19.10.1992, setting aside the Order-in-Original made by the Assistant Collector on 29.06.1990 rejecting the refund claim of Rs. 8,12,494.98 on the ground that the fabricated structural items were clearly identifiable as excisable goods and classifiable under Heading 7308.90 attracting duty @ 15% Basic and Special Excise Duty @ 5% of Basic Duty, which was, according to the Assistant Collector, paid correctly as per the approved Classification List. The Collector (Appeals) came to a finding that, the resultant products, like Trusses & Purlins by cutting, jointing, welding etc., and iron & steel items in the course of construction and erection of factory shed, did not amount to manufacture. The Collector (Appeals) relied upon the ratio of the decision in Pratap Rolling Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise , in which the decision in Aruna industries v.Collec...

V.S. Distributors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant operates a lube godown of BPCL at Bhilwara. His responsibility is to arrange a proper depot for storage and to sell the lubricants of BPCL. He sells the lubricants in the stationery of BPCL.The appellant receives from BPCL commission and other payments for its services.2. Under the impugned order, the appellant has been charged Service Tax by treating it as a "clearing and forwarding agent" The present application seeks waiver of the requirement for pre-deposit of the tax and penalty so demanded.3. We have heard both the sides and perused the record. A perusal of the agreement between the parties makes it clear that the appellant neither clears nor forwards the lubricants in question. Instead, it makes arrangement for storage and sells the lubricants. In this factual situation, prima facie, it is erroneous to treat it as a clearing and forwarding agent. The demand is not sustainable. Accordingly, stay application is allowed and recovery stayed till the disposal of the...

Kochar Sung-up Acrylic Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC278

1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal dated 23.03.2004 that allowed the appeal filed by the revenue against the order-in-original, that set aside the proceedings initiated against the appellant.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the Officers of the preventive section of Central Excise visited the factory of the appellant and during the stock taking found a difference in the physical stock of finished goods. On further investigation it was noticed by the officers that the appellant had not recorded 1007 of acrylic Blankets found in excess, subsequently seized and as the appellant had not satisfactorily explained absence of 497 of Acrylic Blankets and there was shortage of inputs i.e. Acrylic Yarn. A show cause notice was issued for confiscation of the seized blankets and demand of duty on the finished goods found and inputs short. The adjudicating authority vide his order in original dated 31/7/2000 dropped the proceedings initiated against the...

Shree Sanmati Sales and ors. Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: I(2007)BC5

1. This application is filed under Section 151 of CPC. 1908 read with Section 22 of the RDDBFI Act, 1993, seeking extension of time for payment of the balance amount of Rs. 25 lacs in terms of the order passed by this Tribunal on 1st February, 2006 in the application under Section 21 of the Act.2. Heard Counsel for the applicants and also the Counsel for the respondent-Bank. According to Mr. Rao, Counsel for the applicants, his clients are poor agriculturists, and their land the subject-matter of the case, has been acquired by the Haryana Government Counsel slated that adisputc has arisen about the compensation to be paid for the land so acquired and as such the applicants are running pillar to post for realising the compensation. Counsel stated that though this Tribunal directed to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 25 lacs by 31stMay, 2006.as a result of these developments the applicants have not been able to arrange money and deposit it. Counsel pleaded that a lenient view may be ta...

Cit Vs. Span Holdings Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2007]294ITR83(Delhi)

ORDER1. In this appeal under Section 260A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, the revenue has challenged an order dated 20-12-2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A in ITA No. 3/Del./2002 relevant for the assessment year 1993-94.2. For the relevant assessment year, the assessed filed its return claiming depreciation of Rs. 50,000 in respect of bio-gas plant purchased from M/s. Western Paques India Ltd. The claim was accepted by the assessing officer in the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. Subsequently, a notice was issued under Section 148 of the Act on the basis that the depreciation claimed was not as per law and facts. The assessed participated in the reassessment proceedings. Written submissions were also filed before the assessing officer.3. It appears that without giving any reason, the assessing officer disallowed the entire depreciation of Rs. 50,000. Feeling aggrieved, the assessed preferred an appeal, which was taken up for consideration by the C...

Municipal Corpn. of Delhi Vs. Rama Construction Co.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(3)ARBLR276(Delhi); 131(2006)DLT613

Manju Goel, J.1. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (in short 'MCD) has filed the objections under Sections 34 and 28(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act') against the Arbitral Award dated 2.5.2005 passed by the sole Arbitrator-Mr.B.L.Garg. The Arbitrator was appointed by this Court vide orders dated 15.10.2004 in Arbitration Petition No. 190/2004. The respondent-M/s Rama Construction Co. was awarded the contract for construction of Jan Suvidha Complex at (i) E-7, Block, Near Park, (160 seater) single storey and (ii) D-2 Block, Near Sulabh (20 Seater) single storey in Sultanpuri, Najafgarh Zone, New Delhi vide a contract Order No. EE-Xxviii/ TC/2001/509 dated 25.9.2001 for a contractual amount of Rs.68,48,000/-. Clause 25 of the Agreement provided for the dispute resolution mechanism which included the arbitration clause. On account of the dispute that arose regarding the payment due to the respondent the arbitration clause was invoked ...

Shiva Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)7STT286

1. Heard both sides. Common issue is involved in these appeals, therefore, they are taken up together. The appellants filed these appeals against the Order-in-Appeal whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) after relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Prabhat Zarda Factory v. CCE appellants are engaged in promoting sale by procuring sale orders and thus providing the service of Clearing and Forwarding Agent.2. Now this issue has been settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of L&T Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2006 (3) S.T.R. 321. In this case the Larger Bench of the Tribunal over-ruled the decision of Prabhat Zarda Factory (Supra) and held that activity of procurement of purchase order for the principal on the commission basis is not covered under the scope of Clearing and Forwarding Agent Service. In view of the above Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal, the impugned order is set aside and appeals are allowed....

New Kailash Jewellary House, M.D. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC693

1. These three appeals have been filed by the appellants against the common order made by the Commissioner. Common show cause notice was issued against all the appellants.2. During the course of hearing, the appellant Proprietor of M/s New Kailash Jewellary House gave an adjournment application on 12.7.2006 stating that his advocate was out of India. He was clearly told that hearing cannot be adjourned on such a ground and will continue and that he may participate in it. However, no one argued on behalf of the appellant M/s New Kailash Jewellary House.3. The case of the revenue as reflected in the show cause notice was that an information was received to the effect that M/s Shivam Enterprises, New Delhi and M/s Shyam Exports, New Delhi had obtained 62 Replenishment (REP) licences from DGFT, New Delhi for the import of gold on the basis of forged bank realization certificates and Export Shipping Bills and they had utilized these licences for import of approximately 350 kgs. of gold, wi...

Asi Adalat Singh Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(3)SLJ260CAT

1. By virtue of this O.A. applicant, who was an Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI), prays for the following reliefs: In view of the facts and grounds mentioned herein above and other relevant material, the applicant respectfully prays that: (i) To quash and set aside order dated 14.12.04 and 29.4.04 punishing applicant and rejecting appeal by the respondents. (ii) The findings of the E.O. may also be set aside and respondents may be directed to grant all consequential benefits. (iii) The show cause notice dt. 14.9.2004 and the impugned order dated 8.4.2005 may be quashed and set aside being illegal. The minor punishment may be directed as not having any effect on the promotion of the applicant. (iv) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.2. A brief factual matrix, relevant to be highlighted, transpires that applicant, who was functioning as an ASI and posted in PS Gokul Puri, was admitted to promotion list E-1 (Executive) w.e....

Shri Kartar Singh and ors. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006CriLJ4099; 131(2006)DLT643; II(2006)DMC382; 2006(90)DRJ734

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order on charge dated 28.05.2005 as well as the formal charge framed on the same date by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the petitioners have been charged of having committed offences (i) under Sections 498-A/34 IPC and; (ii) under Sections 306/34 IPC. The petitioners are the parents-in-law and two brothers-in-law of the deceased (Shobha). The said Shobha had committed suicide by hanging herself in the matrimonial home on 01.03.2000. She did not leave any suicide note. Her husband [Mangal Singh] with whom she was married on 23.01.1992 also tragically committed suicide in the year 2001. He was a handicapped person and was on a wheel-chair. It is stated that he committed suicide by driving his wheel-chair on to a railway line and he was hit by a moving train.2. The facts as per the prosecution case in brief are that on the night intervening 1st and 2nd March, 2000, the deceased (Shobha) had committed suicide at a...