Delhi Court September 2006 Judgments

S. Harpreet Singh Chawla and anr. Vs. Ceat Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 134(2006)DLT378; 2007(97)DRJ377

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Who in Delhi desires not to reside in Lutyen's Zone? Please do. But pay for it.2. Defendant CEAT Ltd. earlier known as M/s. CEAT Tyres of India Ltd. took on lease premises bearing No. 210-B, Golf Links, New Delhi. Agreed monthly rent was Rs. 3,500/-. Registered lease deed dated 16.8.1975 was executed. Tenancy commenced with effect from 1.8.1975.3. A plot of land admeasuring 904 sq.yds. was given municipal No. 210, Golf Links. Two buildings were constructed thereon. Between the co-owners, a partition was effected. Plot was divided equally. One portion was assigned municipal No. 210-B and the other 210-A. The former fell to the share of the plaintiffs and the latter to the share of defendant No. 2.4. Thus, land comprised in premises No. 210-B is 452 sq.yds. A building consisting of a ground floor, a first floor and a second floor stands constructed. Functionally the building is a composite unit. The ground floor has a drawing-dining, one bedroom with attached toil...

Rashis Ahmed Alias Bhure and Etc. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007CriLJ422; 2006(91)DRJ301

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Appeal Nos. 605 of 1999 and 620 of 1999 seek to challenge the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 69/1995 dated 27th October, 1999 whereby the learned Judge has held the appellants herein guilty of the offence punishable under Section 363 IPC read with Section 120B IPC, as also under Section 364A IPC read with Section 120B IPC and further by this order dated 28th October, 2006, has sentenced each of the accused-appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for three months under Section 363 IPC read with Section 120B IPC; imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for six months under Section 364A IPC read with Section 120B IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. was also extended to the appellants-accused.2. B...

Rajesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(207)ELT357(Del)

ORDER1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 28th July, 2006 passed by the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Gujarat Zone, Ahmedabad in Order No. 01/CO/2006.2. The Petitioner had applied for compounding of an offence committed by him under Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. After considering the application filed by the Petitioner, the W.P.(C) 14639/2006 Page 1 of 4 Compounding Authority allowed the application and imposed a compounding amount of Rs. 10 lakhs.3. According to the Petitioner, the compounding amount imposed is unreasonable.4. Rule 5 of the Customs (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2005, in so far as it is relevant, reads as follows-Fixation of the Compounding Amount. - For the purpose of compounding of offences under the various provisions of the Act, the compounding amount shall be as provided hereinbelow:(1) - (3) xxx xxx xxx(4) Offence specified under up to twenty percent of Section 135(1 )(a) of the market value of the goods Act. or Rupees ten lakhs whic...

Bank of Madurai Ltd. Vs. Director, Enforcement Directorate

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This appeal is against adjudication Order No. DD/MAS/95-101/920 dated 5-3-1992-102 passed by Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, Chennai imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) for contravention of section 9(1)(a) of FER Act, 1973 and Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand only) for contravention of section 9(1)(d) of FER Act, 1973 against the appellant M/s. Bank of Madurai Ltd. for making three payments totalling to Rs. 5 lakhs by way of loan to Shri K. Abdul Majeed of Malaysia, a person resident outside India without permission of RBI and also for making a payment of Rs. 2 lakhs to M/s. T.V.S. Sons, Madurai, a firm in India, by order or on behalf of Shri K. Abdul Majeed, a person resident outside India without permission of RBI. The whole amount of penalty has been deposited by the appellant while this Tribunal vide its order dated 5-3-1992 directed the appellant to pre-deposit 50 per cent of amount of penalty. Presently, the appeal is taken up for final dispo...

Cce Vs. Sidhachalam Exports Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(104)ECC509

1. This appeal of the revenue is directed against the adjudication order No. 4/05 dt. 31.1.05 of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III (Gurgaon). Under the impugned order, the Commissioner dropped the proceedings initiated under SCN No.C.VIII(ICD)6/TKD.SHB/Invst/25/03/21775 dt. 11.9.03 against the respondent M/s. Siddhachalam Exports Pvt. Ltd., Tilak Nagar, New Delhi and others.3. Facts leading to the dispute may be noted first. M/s. Siddhachalam Exports Pvt. Ltd. filed seven Shipping Bills dt.24.2.03 for export of 'ladies tops' and 'denim shirts'. The declared value of the goods covered by the above shipping bills was about Rs. 4.15 crores. The exports were under claim for drawback amounting to over Rs. 50 lakhs.4. Based on the intelligence that the aforesaid goods had been hugely overvalued with the intention to claim undue draw-back amounts, Customs authorities carried out 100% examination of the consignments on 26.3.03, drew samples and showed those samples to M/s. Skipper...

Selvel Media Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Service Tax

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)7STT65

1. The applicant is engaged in the business of running advertising agency in Delhi and had collected publicity charges, against which the impugned order dated 31st March, 2006 has confirmed a demand of Rs. 40,12,721/- as Service Tax.2. The learned Authorized Representative of the applicant muscles in with the Trade Notice issued by the Department as well as the clarification made by the learned Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai, indicating that the applicant has not rendered taxable service to the original client and hence the demand raised against it, cannot be sustained. He, however, states that out of these transactions a sum of Rs. 26 lakhs has already been paid to the Exchequer by various advertisement agencies as confirmed by them. The definition of taxable service as per Section 65(105)(e) is as follows: Taxable Service means any service provided to a client by an advertising agency in relation to advertisement, in any manner.While dealing with the question, whether the a...

Kedia Castle Delleon Indus. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The learned Counsel states that the impugned order has been made against 17 parties and the appellant is one of them. The appeal No.E/2619/06, which is next in the Cause List, in which the stay application is posted for hearing today, there is an application seeking time on the ground that there are other parties also and the appellant is making effort to get the details of the appeals filed by them.2. The appeals, which may have been filed against the same impugned order by different appellants, should ordinarily be listed together by the Registry. Even if some of the appeals are kept under office objection (defects), that fact should be mentioned in the remarks column by the Registry and the Technical Officer, who is in charge of the filing Section, shall pay special attention to these directions and ensure that in the "Remarks Column" all the appeals in which defects are not removed and arise from the same impugned order, should be mentioned.3. The Registrar is directed that whe...

Hotline Display Devices Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicant is aggrieved by the order of Commissioner (Appeals) made on 29-6-2006 dismissing the appeal on the ground that they had not complied with the Interim Order dated 10-5-2005 and no pre-deposit was made and hence Section 35F was not complied with by them.2. At the instance of both sides, the appeal itself is taken up for final hearing.3. We have heard the learned Authorized Representative for the appellant and the Learned Departmental Representative had waded through the case record. It appears from the case record that the appellant has been raising bills and charging from their customers for offering technical consultancy and also technical services rendered by them during the relevant period. It is contradictory to the statement made before us today that they were not providing the services as "consultant engineer".4. We are, therefore, of the view that the applicant has not made out a case for waiver of pre-deposit at the level of Commissioner (Appeals).We, therefore...

Umrao Traders Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(106)ECC433

1. The applicant is challenging the order of Commissioner (Appeals) made on 27-4-2006. In the impugned order, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the activities of the appellant was clearly related to clearing and forwarding operations. It is argued before us that, the appellant only performs the activities of indenting and payment collection agent. On the other hand, from the record before us, more particularly, the letter addressed to the appellant by IBP on 4th April, 2001, it is crystal clear that the appellant has been appointed as a consignment/handing agent w.e.f. 1-4-1999 subject to certain terms & conditions which, prima facie, indicate the nature of operations fully covered under the definition of "Taxable Services". For instance, as per the terms and conditions, the appellant is concerned with the distribution as well as transportation of the material besides storage in their magazine and forward supplies to the customers as the case may be. The appella...

Kissan Co-operative Sugar Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC462

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 5-1-04 which upheld the Order-in-Original vide which duty was confirmed, confiscation was ordered and penalty imposed on the appellant, but the redemption fine and penalty were reduced and set aside the duty demand.2. The relevant fact that arise for consideration are the appellant are manufacturers of sugar and on 27th January, 2003 preferred an application seeking permission to store non-duty paid sugar in godown outside factory premises, as per the trade notice dated 29-10-2002 of Meerut Commissionerate. The office of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut granted permission for storage of non-duty paid goods outside the factory premises, on 6th February 2003. Appellant handed over the said permission to the Office of the Deputy Commissioner on 7th February, 2003. Since the production of the sugar was in full swing and there was no storage space, appellant removed 8090 qntls. of sugar and stored it at the godown for which...