Delhi Court September 2006 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bsbk P. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(113)ECC320

1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the order of Commissioner (Appeals) made on 28.4.2005, setting aside the order-in-original passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 2.2.2005 under which the Assistant Commissioner had demanded Rs. 12,36,516/- along with interest and penalty.2. The respondent in this case is admittedly an engineering firm engaged not only in the manufacture of fabrication and construction of plants and machines, but also accepting contracts for drawing, designing, engineering, erection, commission and testing of plants and machines. The respondent's contention that they were not qualified professionals was held by the Assistant Commissioner as illogical and incorrect and that they fulfilled the first criteria of the statutory definition of consulting engineering. In paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 of the order-in-original, the learned Assistant Commissioner had an occasion to observe that the services rendered by the respondent, namely, designing and engine...

Merwara Estate Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)8STJ385CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. The appellants own a hotel and also two gardens, which are situated, just adjacent to the hotel building. They used to book the rooms in their hotel for the purpose of boarding/temporary residence. Hooking was done separately and separate bills, cash memos etc. were raised.However, they were paying service tax on the amount charged against bookings made by them in respect of gardens as 'mandap keeper'. In the show cause notice issued to them on 12-8-2005, it was alleged that they provided services of 'mandap keeper' in respect of the premises known as "Merwara Estate" which is the property comprising of both the hotel building as well as the two gardens known as Mughal Garden and Maurya Garden adjacent to the former. The hotel situated in the premises as "Merwara Estate" comprised a total of thirty rooms in two floors. The show cause notice alleged that the service tax was not paid in respect of the hotel charges collected by the applicant. Admittedly, the appellant had paid servic...

internsil P. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ541; 2007(207)ELT500(Del)

S. Muralidhar, J.1. The petitioner is a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU), engaged in the manufacture of integrated circuits. The petitioner has its manufacturing unit located in Santa Cruz Electronics Export Processing Zone (SEEPZ), Mumbai and has been operational since 1979. 2. With a view to encouraging exports in foreign earnings, the Government of India, in April 1988, announced a scheme for grant of Cash Compensatory Support (CCS) to 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) situated in Export Processing Zones (EPZ). The scheme was initially valid for the year 1988-89 and was extended from time to time till 2.7.1991, when the cash assistance on the exports made from the country was abolished. 3. The petitioner claimed the CCS benefits based on the notional FOB value of exports which was arrived at by adding, inter alia, even the cost of raw materials which were, in fact, not paid for by the petitioner. 4. Vide letter dated 19.12.1991 the Office of the Development Commissioner, SEEPZ, Mumbai ...

Abdul Subhan Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007CriLJ1089; 133(2006)DLT562

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 7.2.2006 passed by the additional Sessions Judge whereby he confirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate had passed an order of conviction on 4.9.2005 convicting the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 279 IPC and 304A IPC. By a separate order dated 17.9.2005, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and also imposed a fine of Rs 500 in respect of the offence under Section 279 IPC. In default of the payment of the fine amount the petitioner was required to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. Insofar as the offence under Section 304A IPC was concerned, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate sentenced the petitioner to rigorous imprisonment for one year and also imposed a fine o...

Nivedita Sharma Vs. Bharti Tele-venture and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. We are receiving large number of complaints from the consumers including the complainant that the flow of unsolicited calls and messages has remained unabated and these calls are still being received on their mobile telephones inspite of directions given by way of interim order dated 25.5.2006 in this regard that very strict view will be taken against the unauthorised persons including banks, financial organisations and finance companies and any other person if they make unsolicited calls to the consumers of mobile telephone including service providers and also we had directed service providers of the mobile telephones not to disclose any kind of information including the mobile telephone numbers of their customers to any other person including the banks, finance companies and financial organisations and also not to send any any unsolicited message on the telephone of their customers under privacy clause. 2. There is no gainsaying the fact that such calls cau...

Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(113)ECC92

1. Assessee is a manufacturer of sewing thread and sells the threads from 30 depots to wholesale dealers. Since sale prices at the depots were not known at the time of removal of goods from the factory, assessments were initially made on provisional basis and subsequently finalized under order dated 31.1.2003 of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Hoshiarpur.2. The assessee had claimed several deductions from the list price for the purpose of arriving at the assessable value. The assessee succeeded before the original authority and the first appellate authority in regard to ail such deductions except for "additional discounts". The reason of the Assistant Commissioner for denying this discount was that "Additional Discounts were not uniformly allowed to all the buyers as the credit notes were issued after effecting sale and through negotiation with the buyers and the purpose of allowing this discount was also not disclosed to the department". When the dispute came before Com...

Ravinder Kumar, Recruit Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant has sought quashing and setting aside of the impugned order dated 09.12.2004 by which his request for compassionate appointment to the post of Constable (Executive) was rejected by the respondents.2. The brief facts of the case are that Shri Heera Lal, No. 63/NW (father of Shri Ravinder Kumar, applicant herein), died on 09.12.2003 while in service. His wife Smt. Bakunti Devi made an application for appointment of her son, i.e. the applicant, in Delhi Police on compassionate ground. The case of the applicant was approved for appointment to the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police on compassionate ground by the Screening Committee headed by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi in the meeting held on 12.07.2004. The DCP/2nd Bn. DAP was asked to complete the codal formalities i.e.medical examination and character & antecedents verification.Accordingly, the applicant was got medically examined at Aruna Asaf Ali Government Hospital, Rajpur Road, Delhi, where the M...

In Re: Fetchus Finsec Ltd.; in Re: Elymer Electrics (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)1CompLJ412(Del); [2007]76SCL123(Delhi)

ORDERSanjiv Khanna, J.1. The above petitions coming up for hearing on 26.9.2006 for sanction of scheme of amalgamation proposed to be made of Fetchus Finsec Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the transferor company) with Elymer Electric (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the transferee company), upon reading the said petitions, the order dated 7.7.2006 whereby the requirement of convening and holding the meetings of the shareholders and creditors of the transferor and transferee companies was dispensed with for the purpose of considering, and if thought fit, approving, with or without modificatiqn, the scheme of amalgamation annexed to the affidavit of Shri Ajesh Gupta, director of the petitioner companies, filed on 14 day of March 2006 and the publication in the newspapers namely (1) Statesman (English) dated 30.8.2006 and (2) Veer Arjun (I lindi) dated 31.8.2006 each containing the advertisement of the said petition and upon hearing Shri Sanjay K. Maria, Advocate, for the petitioner ...

K.K. Jindal Vs. Land Acquisition Collector (N-w)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ703

S. Muralidhar, J.1. On 15.1.2004, a notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (`Act') notifying the land ad-measuring 4 bighas and 4 bids was in Village Saleempur Majra, Madipur, Delhi, of which the petitioner was 50% owner, for the public purpose of a primary school. On 5.3.2004, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued and, simultaneously, a separate notification was issued under Section 17(1) of the Act directing the Land Acquisition Collector (North-West) (`LAC') to take possession of the land. Thereafter notices under Section 9 and 10 of the Act were issued.2. The petitioner filed a response to the said notices under Sections 9 and 10, claiming compensation for the land at Rs. 84,000/- per sq. m., along with other statutory benefits. On 19.4.2004, the petitioner was issued a cheque in the sum of Rs. 67,99,561 towards the 80 per cent compensation of the land as required under Section 17(3A) of the Act. The rate at which this amount was cal...

Super Poly Fabriks Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(112)ECC653

1. The appellant is registered with the Central Excise Department as a 'Clearing & Forwarding Agent', rendering services of consignment stockist on behalf of M/s Gas Authority of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'GAIL'). During the period 1.9.1999 to 31.7.2002, it neither paid Service Tax nor filed the half yearly ST-3 Return, though it had received Rs. 41,12,423/- as commission for the services rendered to GAIL. A show cause notice dated 20.10.2002 was, therefore, issued by the Department relying upon the relevant agreement, particularly paras 20.1 and 20.3 thereof, indicating that GAIL had appointed the appellant as its consignment stockist with following terms and conditions: (i) Service charges of Rs. 500/- PMT shall be paid by M/s GAIL to the consignment stockist (i.e. notice) for the quantity sold by them. (ii) Rs. 400/- PMT shall be paid to the consignment stockist for getting/booking orders for the product of M/s GAIL. (iii) Rs. 100/- PMT shall be paid to the consign...