Delhi Court January 2007 Judgments

indore Malwa United Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cotton yam and cotton fabrics classifiable under Chapter Heading 52 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. By Notification No. 226/77, dated 15-7-77 exemption from payment of duty on cotton yarn used captively in the manufacture of cotton fabrics was withdrawn with effect from midnight of 14/15-7-77 and duty on yarn was made leviable at spindle stage. Show cause notice dated 12-1-78 was issued demanding duty in respect of yarn content contained in loose cloth lying in stock on the midnight of 14/15-7-77. The said demand was adjudicated by the adjudication order dated 28-2-1983 confirming demand of duty of Rs. 2,31,666/-. The appellant filed appeal along with stay application before the Commissioner (Appeals). They deposited the entire amount of duty during the month of August and September, 1983 as pre-deposit. The said appeal was decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-...

Lovely Dish Centre Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)9STJ20CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant against the imposition of penalty of Rs. 15,000/-.2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in providing services of cable operator on which service tax was leviable with effect from 16.8.2002 under Section 65 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. Show cause notice dated 10.9.2004 was issued demanding service tax amounting to Rs. 42,003/- and imposition of penalty, interest for non-payment of service tax during the period September, 2002 to 25.10.2002. After receipt of the show cause notice, the appellants deposited entire amount of tax on 21.10.2004. They have also filed a declaration on 22.10.2004 which was received by the department on 25.10.2004. By the adjudication order dated 30.11.2005, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed the tax of Rs. 42,003/- and also imposed penalty of equal amount. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty to Rs. 15,000/-.3. The l...

income Tax Officer Vs. Rajan and Co. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2007]291ITR345(Delhi)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 25.9.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the respondents have been discharged of the offences under Section 276C(1) and 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). The Income Tax Department is aggrieved by this order. The point taken, at the outset by Mr Jolly, who appeared on behalf of the petitioner, is that the respondents have been discharged on the purported ground that since penalty has been deleted by the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'ITAT'), the criminal prosecution under Sections 276C(1) and Section 277 of the said Act cannot continue. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in coming to the aforesaid conclusion of discharging the respondents took into consideration several decisions of the Supreme Court. In particular, he considered the decision in K.C. Builders and Anr. v. Assistant Commi...

Shri S. Prabhakar Rao Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(94)DRJ23

Manju Goel, J.1. Admit. 2. The petitioner was a contender for the post of Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director (referred to as 'Post' hereinafter) of respondent No. 3 M/s Petronet LNG Limited. The selection for the post was done by a Search Committee nominated by the Union of India, i.e., respondent No. 1. The Search Committee selected respondent No. 5 for that post. The petitioner is seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the selection process for the post as well as the appointment of respondent No. 5 to the post. He also prays for a fresh selection process without the respondent No. 4 being a Member of the Selection Committee as he allegedly vitiated the process by bias. 3. Respondent No. 3 is a company promoted by four public sector undertakings, namely, GAIL (India) Limited, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. The Articles of Association of the respondent No. 3 provides for a selection process for the post of the Managing D...

Court on Its Own Motion Vs. Rajiv Dawar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 136(2007)DLT321; 2007(94)DRJ202

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. The present reference arises out of the complaint of Edward Joseph Ellis, who is the accused in sessions case No. 17/2004 under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 pending before the Sessions Court. Edward Joseph Ellis (accused) was produced before the Court of Sh. Lal Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, on 22.7.2004. On the said date the accused personally handed over to the Additional Sessions Judge, in court, an eight page hand written complaint, raising allegations against Mr.Rajiv Dawar, Advocate, respondent herein, that in December 2003, Mr. Dawar assured the accused his release on bail for a sum of Rs. 30 lacs as he had now spoken to the people who would be directly responsible for his release on bail. 2. As per the complaint, the respondent had approached the accused several times whilst being taken away from Patiala House Courts in June 2003 and had held out himself to be an advocate of repute who had got bail for several similarly place...

Rajeev Verma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007CriLJ1232; 2007(94)DRJ34; 2007(218)ELT200(Del)

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner, by this writ petition seeks quashing of the detention order No. 673/13/2004/CUS-VIII dated 7.10.2004 passed by respondent No. 2 under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'COFEPOSA Act'). It is claimed that the detention order is the result of malafide exercise of powers for a collateral purpose. The Detention Order is vitiated by delays, arbitrariness and other illegalities. It violates the provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner admits that he has so far not allowed the detention order to be served on him. The order is sought to be challenged at the pre-execution stage itself. Proceedings have also been initiated under Section 7 of the COFEPOSA Act before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. In the said proceedings, petitioner had initially been granted interim protection for the purpose of presenting himself befo...