Delhi Court August 2006 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
B.G. Marbles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-2006
Reported in: (2006)(106)ECC449
1. This stay application is directed against order-in-appeal dt.20-7-05 whenein demand of service tax was upheld. Since the issue involved in this case is already covered by the order of the Tribunal arising out of the same order-in-appeal pre-deposit of the amount of service tax is waived and appeal itself is taken up for disposal.2. I find that the issue involved in this case is arising out of the order-in-appeal No. 388-421(HKS)ST/JPR-II/05 dt. 20-7-05 and the very same order-in-appeal was considered by this Tribunal in its order No.845-851/06-SM dt. 31-5-06 2006 (4) S.T.R. 526 (Tribunal). Since the issue is covered by the Tribunal's order, pre-deposit of the amount of service tax is waived and appeal itself is taken up for disposal.3. Considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. 1 find that the identical issue arising out of the same order-in-appeal was decided by the Tribunal vide its order dt. 31-5-06 wherein the Tribunal held as under: 4. Con...
Astra Marine Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-2006
Reported in: (2007)(114)ECC258
2. The appellant is an Indian agent of the foreign Freight Forwarder.The appellant's principal issued a bill of lading in regard to a consignment of Zinc Carbon Battery imported into India. The country of origin of goods was of particular significance in that goods of Chinese origin were subject to anti-dumping duty. In the house way bill (lading) issued by the principal of the appellant, the country of origin of the goods was shown as Malaysia, while actually the consignment had been loaded from China, as revealed by the bill of lading issued by the shipping company.3. Upon finding that the country of origin of the goods was misdeclared for the purpose of evading anti-dumping duty, Customs authorities proceeded to confiscate the goods and impose penalties on the parties concerned with the fraud, including on the appellant. In that proceeding, a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs was imposed on the appellant. The present appeal challenges that penalty.4. The contention of the learned Counsel for ...
Annapurna Marbles Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-2006
Reported in: (2007)8STT1
1. All these stay applications are listed for admission as the amount involved in these cases is less than threshold limit of Rs. 50,000/-.The issue involved in these cases are regarding the payment of Service tax and Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 has not prescribed any threshold limit. The issue in all these cases is of Service Tax, hence all the appeals are admitted and stay applications are taken up for disposal.2. I find that the issue involved in these cases are arising out of the or-der-in-appeal No. 388-421 (HKS)ST/JPR-II/05 dt. 20-7-05 and the very same or-der-in-appeal was under challenge before this Tribunal and vide its order No. 845-851 /06-SM dt. 31-5-06 decided the issue in favour of assessees. Since the issue is covered by the Tribunal's order, pre-deposit of the amount of Service tax is waived and appeals themselves taken up for disposal.3. Considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. I find that the very same issue arising out...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Through Its Commissioner Vs. Mr. Ram Sa ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-2006
Reported in: 2006(91)DRJ693
Vijender Jain, J.1. The present writ appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing the order of the learned Single Judge dated 27.8.2002 whereby the writ petition of the appellant was dismissed and the order passed by the Additional District Judge dated 9.12.97 was upheld. The learned Additional District Judge in an appeal filed by the respondent under Section 169 of the DMC Act had disposed of the two appeals bearing Nos. 986/97 and 1603/97. The respondent in the said appeal had impugned the property tax bill dated 2.9.95 and assessment order dated 1.11.94 respectively. 2. We may not describe all the facts and details as the same are not in dispute. 3. The notice issued by the appellant was impugned on the ground that the property in question could not have been assessed w.e.f. 1.12.88 on the basis of the proposal dated 21.3.93 bearing dispatch No. 14425 dated 23.3.93 to increase the rateable value from Rs. 44,440/- to Rs. 51,550 w.e.f. the year 1988-89 onwards. The learned Additio...
Pwd Thr. Dy. Dir. Horticulture Vs. Satya Pal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-2006
Reported in: 132(2006)DLT571
Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal challenges the order dated 19.10.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge upholding the Award dated 30th April 2004 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (`Tribunal') holding that the termination of the services of the respondent was illegal as it was done without complying with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('I.D. Act'). The Tribunal had recorded the following findings:From the evidence on record, I find that the workman worked continuously w.e.f. 20.8.1990 to 16.9.1993 in the direct control of Dy. Director (Horticulture and other concerned officers of the Department of CPWD which go to more than 240 days in every year and admittedly prior to termination of his services, no notice, or notice pay and payments of compensation was given to him. It clearly goes to show that the services were terminated in clear violation of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. thereforee, the action of the management in terminating the ser...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Maza Cosmetics
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-2006
Reported in: 2007(207)ELT200(Del)
ORDER1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 10th December, 2004 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. E/2979/04-NBSC.2. The short issue in this case is that the adjudicating Authority (Joint Commissioner) passed an order which was considered by the Commissioner of Central Excise in terms of Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. After considering the legality or propriety of the adjudication order, the Commissioner gave a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to file an appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Joint Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner filed an appeal which was taken up for consideration by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). Vide order dated 23rd March, 2004 he came to the conclusion that the Commissioner could have directed only the Joint Commissioner as the adjudicating authority to file an appeal under Section 35E(2) of the Act and could not have issued such a direction to the Deputy Comm...
University of Kashmir Srinagar and anr. Vs. H.L. Warikoo and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-2006
Reported in: 132(2006)DLT606
Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. There is no appearance on behalf of the appellants.2. While admitting this appeal on 17.3.2006, the Division Bench of this Court observed that it was prima facie of the opinion that the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir alone had territorial jurisdiction in the matter. Accordingly, it stayed the operation of the impugned judgment dated 13.1.2006 of the learned Single Judge by which WP(C) 6828/2002 filed by the Respondent No. 1 was allowed. 3. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the Respondent No. 1 was employed in the Appellant No. 1, University of Kashmir, Srinagar (`University') as a Lecturer in Mathematics on 31.10.1962. He was thereafter promoted to the post of Reader with effect from 1.1.1983. On account of the precarious law and order situation in the Kashmir Valley, the Respondent No. 1 had to flee Srinagar some time in August 1990 leaving behind his home, and all his belongings. A large number of similarly placed persons thus became interna...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Modi Industries Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-2006
Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Del)309
1. The following three questions of law have been referred for our opinion under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, in RA No. 943/Del/1983 in ITA No. 771/Del/1982 relevant for the asst. yr. 1971-72 :1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified both on the facts and in law in holding that the amount of Rs. A,57,282 representing loans should not be deducted from the capital employed while working out relief under Section 80J of the IT Act, 1961 by ignoring the provisions of Rule 19 of the IT Rules, 1962?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified both on facts and in law in holding that the capital as employed on the first day of the year should not be taken while computing the relief under Section 80J but should be taken on the average of assets minus average of liability during the year by ignoring the Rules, provisions of Rule 19 of the IT Rules, 1962?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circums...
Indian Lpg Cylinders and Tirupati Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-2006
Reported in: (2006)(113)ECC105
1. In these three appeals, no one has appeared for the appellants though they were duly notified for final hearing and the notice of date of hearing was served on them. Since the appeals involve common questions, they have been heard together.2. The learned advocate Shri P.R. Mullick has not appeared for hearing though earlier he had sought an adjournment requesting for listing the appeals for hearing in the week commencing from 10.7.2006. Though the matter was called out on 18th August, 2006 and has been heard continuously since then, no one has cared to appear till now. The appeals are heard by the assistance of the learned Authorized Representative of the department who has taken the court through the entire record and pointed out the contentions raised by the assessees and dealt with them in his arguments.3. Appeal No. E/5176/04 has been filed by the appellant Indian LPG Cylinders challenging the order of the Commissioner (appeals) dated 5.7.2004 upholding the Order-in-original da...
Anil Kumar Agnihotri Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-2006
Reported in: (2007)11STT59
1. Applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of demand of Service Tax of Rs. 5,12,040/- and penalty.2. The demand was confirmed on the ground that applicants were providing the Service of Rent-a-cab. As per the provisions of Section 65. Sub-section 91 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 Rent-a-cab Scheme operator means any person engaged in the business renting of cabs and Taxable service has been defined under Clause 105(O) of Section 65 of Finance Act, 1994 as amended "Any service provided to a person, by a Rent-a-cab Scheme operator in relation to the renting of cabs".3. Before lower Authorities the applicants had not raised any plea that they are not rendering any Taxable Service as provided under the Finance Act. Before us, the applicant pleaded that Tribunal in the case of Kuldip Singh Gill v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jalandhar held that where the cab is rented on 4. The Revenue pointed out that as per the agreement between the appellant and M/s. GAIL (...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »