Delhi Court September 2006 Judgments

Shiva Travels Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)7STT75

1. All these appeals are directed against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the order in original by which the appellants are required to pay service tax and penalties under the relevant provisions of Finance Act, 1994.2. The appellants were engaged in providing service of rent-a-cab operator, according to Revenue. Since the appellants were not registered under the Service Tax Laws, and no service tax was deposited, show cause notice was issued on the ground that they had evaded payment of service tax amounts mentioned in the notice.According to the Revenue, the assessee had admitted that service tax was payable by them and that they will try to pay the service tax that was due, alongwith interest. According to the assessees, there was a difference in Rent-a-cab scheme and Taxi permit scheme under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, and that Taxi permit holder cannot work as a rent-a-cab operator without obtaining a license for Rent-a-cab scheme.It was also the case that sin...

Sandeep Sobti Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Sandeep Sobti. The appellant is challenging the order of Commissioner (Appeals) passed on 20-4-2006. In the impugned order, the Commissioner has held that the appellant was providing the services as Rent-a-Cab Scheme operator and he was liable to pay the service tax demanded by the lower authorities besides the penalty.2. The learned Counsel for the appellant states that no show cause notice was served on them. In their appeal, they have also stated that no opportunity of hearing was granted to them while passing the ex parte order. He further produces an agreement dated 1st April, 2001 entered into with Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. As per this agreement, he argues that it is clear that the services provided by them did not at all relate to 'rent-a-cab' scheme operator service but what was rendered in their case, was neither a taxi nor a cab but buses. He pleaded that running the bus is not covered under the Service tax provisions. However, we notice in...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shri Ram Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby confiscation of semi-finished photocopier machine was set aside.3. The case of the Revenue is that the respondent made import of parts of photocopier machine and were cleared with the brand name of cannon etc. The Revenue is not asking for duty on the goods and photocopier machine already cleared in the present proceedings. The Revenue only confiscated the semifinished goods on the ground that respondents were assembling machines with the brand name of others.4. The contention of the Revenue is that from the evidence on record shows that the appellants were assemble and cleared certain photocopier machine by assembling parts imported from them. The respondent's contention is that at the time of visit by the Revenue officer, there was no complete machine in the premises. It is also pointed out that appellant made import of photocopier machines in SKD condition which are already bea...

Samsung Electronics Company Ltd. and anr. Vs. Mr. G. Choudhary and anr ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 136(2007)DLT605; 2006(91)DRJ159; 2006(33)PTC425(Del)

Vikramajit Sen, J.IA No. 9115/2006 in CS (OS) No. 1602/20061. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.CS (OS) No.1602/20062. Plaint be registered as a Suit.3. Summons of the Suit be issued to the Defendants in the ordinary course, registered AD covers as well as by courier, returnable on 18.12.2006 before Joint Registrar.4. Summons would indicate that the Written Statement shall be filed within 30 days of the receipt of the summons as prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure. IA No. 9113/2006 in CS(OS) 1602/20065. Issue notice of this application to the Defendants in the ordinary course, registered AD covers as well as by courier, returnable on 22.11.2006 before Court.6. Reply be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.7. The Plaintiff prays for an interlocutory injunction which, in essence seeks to combat and eradicate parallel importation by third parties into India of products manufactured by the Plaintiff itself, but in China. The case s...

Cit Vs. V.B. Aggarwal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]296ITR750(Delhi)

ORDER1. The revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 31-8-2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B' in ITA No. 5600(Del.)/1996, relevant for the block period assessment year 1986-87 to 15-9-1995.2. A search was carried out in the business and residential premises of the Aggarwal Group. On the basis of the material said to have been obtained during the search, the assessing officer made an addition of Rs. 65,45,000 on account of unexplained cash credit in the books of the assessed. The assessing officer made the additions for want of proper/complete details of confirmations of loans and advances that were taken by the assessed.3. The view expressed by the assessing officer was challenged by the assessed before the Tribunal, which accepted the contentions of the assessed and that is why the present appeal has been filed before us under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.4. The Tribunal noted the contention on behalf of the assessed made before it to the effect...

index International (P) Ltd. Through Its Director Shri P.K. JaIn Vs. P ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2007(113)FLR492]

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this order, I shall dispose of an application under Section 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act made by respondent No. 3. He claimed that he was unemployed from the date of his termination and has not been able to get any job or service in any establishment despite his best efforts. The application was accompanied by an affidavit to the same effect. In reply to the application, it is submitted by the petitioner that the respondent after abandoning the job of the petitioner, went to his native place in Nepal and settled there. The respondent thereafter married and acquired a family in Nepal. His contention that he remained unemployed was wrong on the face of it. In rejoinder, the respondent denied that he was employed or that he settled down in Nepal. After filing of rejoinder, the petitioner got the address of the respondent. The petitioner entrusted the work of finding out the present whereabouts and job of the respondent to a detective agency. Detective Agen...

Niader Mal Amar Nath and anr. Vs. Rukmani Devi Jaipuria Charitable Tru ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(91)DRJ702

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. Smt. Rukmani Devi filed an eviction petition on 09.02.1973 against the appellants under Section 14(1)(a), (b) and (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the said Act') in respect of the tenanted premises bearing No. 321/322/372, Katra Gauri Shankar, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. The present premises were stated to be let out to appellant No. 1 and the tenant was stated to be in arrears of rent. It was further alleged that appellant No. 1 had sub-let / assigned or otherwise parted with the premises to appellant No. 2 without the written consent of the landlord. An allegation was also made about the appellants causing substantial damage to the property.2. The Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the ARC') after recording evidence decided the dispute in terms of the order dated 23.09.1996 after a protracted litigation. The appellants were found to be in arrears of rent, but were given the benefit of Section 14...

Moiz Ahmad Khan Vs. State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(91)DRJ104

S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. A case under Section 12 of the Passport Act was registered against the petitioner vide FIR No. 482/2006 with Police Station IGI Airport. This case was registered against him when during the night intervening 31.07.2006 and 01.08.2006, he was checked by the Immigration people at the airport and pages 3, 4, 33 & 34 of his passport were found missing. The petitioner has alleged that he had no hand in the missing of the pages from his passport. He had earlier filed a writ petition being WP (Crl.) No. 1790/2006 for quashing of the aforementioned case registered against him but the said writ petition was dismissed on merits vide order passed by this Court on 17.08.2006. The petitioner has now filed this writ petition with the following prayer:Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the SHO to release the passport of the petitioner being No. E-0273462 to enable the petitioner to travel and to join duty at Canada or alter...

Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Service Tax

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)8STT501

1. The applicant has filed an appeal challenging the order-in-original dated 28th April, 2006 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi. The Commissioner, after examining the agreements entered into by the applicant, has come to a conclusion that they were receiving taxable services on or after 16-8-2002 under the category of "Consulting Engineer's Service" (CES) and "Management Consultancy Service" (MCS).2. According to the learned Counsel for the applicant, transfer of know-how as entered into by them with the foreign party in their agreement refers to transfer of intellectual property and not a transaction for rendering any service. In this connection, he relied upon the Tribunal's order in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore v. J.K. Industries Ltd. reported in 2006 (2) STR 116 (T). He has referred to Para 9 of the order which reads as follows: 9. We have heard both the sides at length, We have perused the case records particularly the agreement closely. C...

Pratik Marbles (P) Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC457

1. All these appeals in which the appellants have sought interim stay are directed against the two orders of the Commissioner made on 26-10-2005 and by which the liability of the appellants-assessee to pay Service tax of the amounts mentioned against each of them in column No.7 of the table contained in the paragraph 21 of the order, totalling to Rs. 26,55,637/- was confirmed and the liability of the appellants-assessees to pay Service tax of the amounts mentioned against their names in column No. 7 of the table in paragraph 19 of the other order of the Commissioner dated 16-11-2005, which was not paid by them.2. The learned Authorised Representative appearing for all the applicants strongly contended that since there was no recovery machinery provided, no action arising out of the issuing show cause notices for the period in question could have been initiated by the Service tax authorities, under the provisions of Section 73 of Chapter 5 of the Finance Act, 1994. The learned authoris...