Delhi Court October 2007 Judgments

Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]318ITR309(Delhi)

S. Muralidhar, J.1. Aggrieved by a decision dated 21st April, 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'G', New Delhi ('Tribunal') in ITA Nos. 2852/Del/99 and 3144/Del/99 for the Assessment Year 1995-96, the assessed has filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').2. The assessed has urged that the following questions of law arise for consideration by this Court:(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer in reducing the profit earned on sale of spare parts and imported genets from the income of the eligible undertaking(s) for the purpose of computing deductions under Section 80HH and 80I of the Act?(b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the profit from the sale of spare parts and imported genets could not be regarded as income derived from the eligible undertaking(s) for the pu...

Latif Mohammad Butt @ Bilal Ashraf Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ182

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 13th July, 2004 whereby the appellant was convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and against the order of sentence whereby the Trial Court sentenced the appellant to undergo RI for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under each Section.2. During arguments, the counsel for the appellant submitted that the case of the appellant was of October, 2000 and the appellant was governed by Explosive Substances Act 1908 as it stood in the year 2000. The Explosive Substances Act was amended by Act No. 54 of 2001 and punishment as provided under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act was changed. The counsel argued that under the unamended provisions of the Explosive Substances Act, the petitioner could not have been sentenced for a period of 10 years under either Section 4 or Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and maximum punishment that...

Mita Harig (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)12STJ312CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of amount of Service tax of Rs. 3,61,000/- and penalties. The contention of the applicant is that the Service Tax is charged for services as Scientific or Technical consultancy. The contention is that applicant received consultancy and technical assistance from the manufacturers of tractor equipments in respect of the goods manufactured by the appellants in India. The contention of the applicant is that as per the scope of scientific or technical consultancy as provided under the services of consultancy of scientific or technical assistance is to be rendered by Scientist or technocrat or science or technology institution or organization to a client in one or more disciplines in science or technology. The contention is that provider of service is neither a scientist or technocrat or science or technology Institution or organization. Therefore, the demand of service tax under this service is not sustainable.2. The content...

Sbec Sugar Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)9STR573

1. Heard both the sides. The Misc. Application is filed in the appeal which is not signed by the appellant. The application is signed by the Counsel of the appellant. The Registry raised the objection and issued a defect memo for rectification of mistake. The counsel insisted that matter be placed before the Bench. The counsel of appellant before the Registry submitted that the application filed by the Counsel is a valid application. In these circumstances, the registry placed the application before the Bench.2. The contention of the Counsel is that the application is signed by the Counsel who has a vakalatnama in his favour signed by the appellant. Therefore, the application signed by the Counsel is a valid application. The contention is that as per the CEGAT Procedure Rules, an application is to be signed by an authorized person. As per the Counsel, vakalatnama is signed by the appellant in his favour, therefore it is a valid application. The applicant relied upon the Tribunal's dec...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Science Center

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Revenue has challenged the order dated 25-1-2007 made by me Commissioner (Appeals-I) to the extent that it modifies the order-in-original by setting aside the penalties imposed under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. The fact that Service tax of Rs. 1,93,238/- was due along with interest from the respondent-assessee was never in dispute. However, since the assessee had deposited the Service tax in piecemeal on various dates as noted in paragraph 4 of the impugned order, the Appellate Commissioner held that, no penalty can be imposed when the duty was paid before issuance of the show cause notice. He placed reliance on the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in CCE, Delhi-III Gurgaon v. Machino Montell Ltd. 2. Admittedly, the appellant did not deposit interest and penalty amounts as contemplated by the provisions of Section 78 of the said Act, which is similar to Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.Therefore, the appellant was not en...

S.P. Sharma Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)12STJ314CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. The appellant has filed this application for waiver of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 1,57,438/- and penalty. The demand is confirmed by treating the appellant as provider of maintenance or maintenance of repair of property. The contention of the applicant is that they had only undertaken the job of painting of the premises of Electricity Board under the work contract. The contention is that demand is for the period prior to amendment in the year 2006 also. Prior to the amendment, service is described as maintenance or management of immovable property. Therefore, prior to amendment in 2006, the applicant is not liable to pay the service tax because they were not providing any service and maintenance of immovable property.2. Subsequent to the amendment, the contention is that applicant is not providing any service for repair of property. It is only undertaking the job of painting. The contention is that in that case the demand can only be for Rs. 7,000/-.3. The contention of the Reven...

Raj Trans Stampings P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)12STJ310CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. Appellant has filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 3,44,923/- and penalties. The demand of service tax was confirmed for the period 1.7.03 to 31.12.04 treating the applicant as provider of maintenance or repair service.The Applicant relied upon the Board's Circular dated 27.7.05, wherein it has been clarified that prior to 16.6.05, repair or service other than maintenance contract or agreement was not covered within the purview of the service tax.2. In the present case, (sic) is rate contract of repair of transformers. In view of the above Board's circular, we find that applicant has, prima facie strong case, fit for total waiver of amount of service tax and penalty. The stay petition is allowed....

Rajat Pangaria Vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)141CompCas323NULL

1. The dispute in this Miscellaneous Appeal relates to Shop No. 42, Palika Market, Near Information Centre, Bhilwara (Rajasthan). The necessary background facts are narrated for the sake of clarity.2. The respondent-bank herein filed O.A. No. 576 of 1998 against five defendants, namely, M/s Rajat Fabrics (Pvt.) Ltd., Mr. Gyanmal Pangaria, Mrs. Shobha Pangaria, Mr. Sohan Lal Pangaria and Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd., for the recovery of Rs. 67 lakhs and odd. Mr. Gyanmal Pangaria and his mother Mrs. Shobha Pangaria (defendants Nos. 2 and 3 respectively in the O.A.) were the directors of the main borrower--M/s. Rajat Fabrics (Pvt.) Ltd., which was a company registered under the Indian Companies Act.The defendants Nos. 2 and 3 had given personal guarantee against the loan facilities availed of by the defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 2 Mr.Gyanmal Pangaria had also mortgaged the property in question (belonging to HUF whereof he was the karta) as secur...

Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. Secretary, Finance Department,

Court: Sales Tax Tribunal STT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)10VST451NULL

1. The appellant is a Government of India undertaking engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of alloys and special steel. It has a factory situated in Bhadravati in the State of Karnataka, which was being run during the relevant assessment years, i.e., 1989 to 1993 by a State Government Company known as Visvesaraya Iron & Steel Ltd. (for short, "VSIL") which had its factory at Bhadravati (Karnataka). The transactions in dispute took place prior to the take over of VSIL by the appellant. In the assessments made under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the four years, the exemption claimed by VSIL on the alleged stock transfer of goods to its branch office situate in the stock-yard at Pune (State of Maharashtra) and certain other branches was allowed on the strength of the F forms filed by the assessee. Consequently, the value of stock transfers to Pune, etc., were excluded from the taxable turnover under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereafter referred to as, "the CST ...

Times Internet Ltd. Vs. Just Flowers and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2007(3)525

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The plaintiff (Times Internet Limited) is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and belongs to the Times Group of Companies. The present suit was filed against the defendants seeking a permanent injunction restraining them from using the mark 'indiatimes' and the domain name wherein 'indiatimes' was used as a part thereof. The decree was also sought for transfer of the domain name 'indiatimes.com' to the plaintiff and for recovery of damages to the extent of Rs. 20 lacs.2. By an order dated 05.02.2004 this Court had passed interim orders restraining the defendants from using the domain name 'indiatimes.com' or any other domain name which equated the mark 'indiatimes' or any other domain name which was similar to the plaintiff's domain name 'indiatimes.com'. After service of summons, the defendants appeared and even issues were framed on 23.03.2006. On 12.07.2005 admission/denial of documents was completed. Thereafter on and from 17.11.2006, the def...