Delhi Court October 2007 Judgments

international Testing Centre Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)12STJ60CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. The appellant challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that, the adjudicating authority had correctly disallowed the Cenvat Credit in respect of the personal phone installed at the residence of the assessee. According to the Revenue, the appellant, M/s International Testing Centre, which appears to be a sole proprietory concern of Mrs. Santosh Gupta, as per the verification in the Memo of Appeal, was engaged in providing technical testing services, which fall under Clause 106 of Section 65 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994.Prima facie, it cannot be laid down that, as a rule, the telephone service installed at the residence cannot be used for business or professional purposes. The bills were in the name of the sole-proprietor, Mrs. Santosh Gupta, and that, in such matters, the authorities should be open to appreciate the evidence that may be placed before it for showing as to what portion of the amount charged under the telephone bills was attributable to the t...

Cce Vs. Nahar Exports Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(125)ECC48

1. The Revenue has challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting-aside the order-in-original by which recovery of Service Tax of Rs. 5,55,942/- was ordered and penalty imposed of the like amount under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.2. The respondent was manufacturing cotton yarn/fabrics and availing facility of Cenvat Credit. According to the Revenue, the liability in respect of 'Good Transport Agency' services was required to be discharged by the respondent by cash, because recipient of such service was liable to pay the tax. The liability to pay Service Tax, in respect of GTA services received, could not be discharged by utilizing Cenvat Credit of manufacturing activity. Show cause notice was, therefore, issued for recovery of Service Tax with interest and proposing penalty.3. According to the respondent-assessee, the recipient was a deemed service provider for the purposes of GTA services. It was contended that, as per the explanation to Section 2(p) of the C...

Jansport Apparel Corp. Vs. D.S. Paul

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(36)PTC164(Del)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is an application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the plaintiff and the defendant, requesting this Court to record the compromise that had been arrived at between the parties and to pass a decree in terms of prayers contained in paragraph 23 (a), (b) and (d) of the plaint in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant. It is also stated that the plaintiff gives up all other prayers.2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the plaintiff's trademark and/ or passing off its goods as those of the plaintiff's. The suit was also for damages.3. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant and the plaintiff have decided to settle the matter and have arrived at a compromise. The defendant has acknowledged the plaintiff to be the proprietor of the trademark 'JANSPORT' in respect of luggage, apparel and other lifestyle goods. The defendan...

Neeraj JaIn Vs. Bharat Kothari

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 146(2008)DLT90

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. This Regular First Appeal has been preferred against the judgment passed by the court of Shri Lal Singh, Additional District Judge, Delhi on 30th November 2006. Learned Judge decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 3,17,240/- along with cost and interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of suit till the realization of decretal amount in favor of respondents. Trial Court Record was called for on 20.2.2007 which was received. Before we notice the grounds of challenge and submissions of the appellant, it would be appropriate to set out in brief the facts culminating in the filing of the suit and passing of the impugned order.i) Respondent gave a temporary loan of Rs. 1,75,000/-(Rs. One lac seventy five thousand) to the appellant on 28.11.96. Respondent's wife who is also the attorney of the respondent further gave a loan of Rs. 1,25,000/- on the request of appellant. Respondent claims that it was verbally agreed that appellant would pay interest @ 36% per annum t...

Collage Culture and ors. Vs. Apparel Export Promotion Council

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ251

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioners pray that the order dated 21.1,2004 summoning the petitioners to face trial for the alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 be quashed.2. It is urged that no actionable cause exists in favour of the complainant to make out the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. It is urged that the sine qua non for the applicability of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 is the issuance of cheque for a debt which is due towards discharge of a liability. It is urged that a cheque given as a collateral security or as a security for payment of an amount which may become payable at a future date upon the happening or the non-happening of an event i.e. towards a contingency cannot be the foundation of an action under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881.3. Admittedly, the complaint which was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 pertained to cheques issued...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shri Narayan Das

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(125)ECC74

1. The Revenue challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) made on 15.11.2006 upholding the order of the adjudicating authority by which penalty of Rs. 2000/- was imposed on the respondent under Section 112(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground that penalty lower than the prescribed minimum of Rs. 5000/- could not have been imposed on the respondent.2. The respondent was apprehended carrying goods of foreign origin on 10.11.2003 at the railway station while coming out of the platform. The respondent could not produce any bills in respect of the goods of foreign origin. Even during the hearing before the adjudicating authority, the respondent failed to produce any document in support of valid import of the seized goods. The adjudicating authority found that the goods (calculators and other electronic goods) were illicitly imported into India and were liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Act. It was found that the impugned goods were recovered from the posse...

Kohli Travels Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) made on 30th November, 2006 to the extent that it upheld the demand and imposed reduced penalty on the appellant.The appellant was engaged in providing services under 'Rent-a-cab Scheme/Operator' to Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL), VSNL and Uttayanchal Power Corporation Ltd. (UPCL). On gathering the required information, it appeared to the Revenue, that the appellant was neither registered for providing taxable service nor did it discharge its tax liability. It appears that, the appellant had provided services of 'Rent-a-cab Scheme Operator' to its client from the year 2000-01. It was alleged in the show cause notice, that was issued on the appellant, that it had received a total payment of Rs. 30,35,510/- from BSNL; Rs. 55,809.30 from UPCL; and Rs. 3,32,659/- from VSNL, as detailed in the show cause notice. The service tax amounting to Rs. 1,93,429/-, which was payable on the value of taxable service, received by th...

S.C. Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ664

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The present appeal has been filed by Mr. S.C. Sharma, an erstwhile employee of Modi Rubber Limited, the respondent No. 8 herein. It is the case of the appellant that on 12th September, 1972 he was appointed as Stenographer with the respondent No. 8. On 26th August, 1996 his services were terminated by giving one month salary in lieu of notice. Aggrieved, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 3654/1996 on 23rd September, 1996 challenging his termination from service on the ground that it is in violation of principles of natural justice, Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.2. Before the Learned Single Judge, preliminary objection was taken by the respondent No. 8 that the writ petition was not maintainable as the said company is not a 'State' or an 'instrumentality' or an 'agency' of the Government within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. By the impugned judgment dated 11th August, 2000, Learned Single Judge has held that th...

Bharat Poonam Chand Shah Vs. Dominos Printech India Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2008)BC618

ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. is preferred by the petitioner challenging the summoning order dated 8th December, 2005 whereby the accused was summoned in a case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.2. The plea of the accused is that the accused was merely a sleeping director of the company and no specific role has been assigned by the complainant as to how the accused was managing the affairs of the company and only vague allegations have been made that the accused being a director, was responsible for management of the company. The other plea taken by the accused is that at the time when instrument was executed, the accused had already resigned from the directorship and he was not liable for dishonour of the cheque and the instrument was not signed by him.3. When a cheque is issued by a company to a supplier or to any person against liability, the person only knows that the cheque was issued by the company. He may not be knowing t...

interore Fertichem Resources Sa Vs. Mmtc of India Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(4)ARBLR242(Delhi); 146(2008)DLT61

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner and the respondent entered into a contract dated 25-05-1999 under Contract No. MMTC/1999-2000/FZ(V)/1. Disputes having arisen under the said contract, the petitioner invoked the Arbitration Clause XX of the contract and referred the matter to an Arbitral Tribunal comprising of Captain S.M. Berry nominated by the petitioner, Shri R.S. Saran nominated by the respondents and Rear Admiral (Dr.) O.P. Sharma as the third and presiding arbitrator. The tribunal passed an award dated 23-06-2005 rejecting the claim of the petitioner, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. It is this award which is sought to be challenged by the petitioner under Section 34(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).2. In order to appreciate the scope of the challenge, certain facts need to be set out. The documents placed on record show that the petitioner and the respondent entered into a contract dated 25-05-1999 where...