Delhi Court November 2007 Judgments

Desert Hawks Ex-serviceman Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)12STJ446CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of amount of service tax and penalties. The demand was confirmed on the ground that applicant provided security services.2. The contention is that the applicant is a co-operative society, which is set up for the welfare of the Ex-serviceman and it is non-commercial organization. It is also submitted that major portion of the demand was time barred as for the period January, 2005 to September, 2005, the show cause notice was issued on 30.12.05 whereas the present show cause notice is issued on 6.1.05, demanding service tax for the period November, 2001 to January, 2005.2.1. The appellant relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in a Stay order in the case of Bhoot Purva Sainik Society v. CCE, Allahabad [Stay Order No. S/544/06 in ST Appeal No. 481/2006 in Stay Application No.ST/S/6232/06] where the demand was on similar ground and the Tribunal waived the amount of service tax and penalties.3. We find that from the aims and objects for ...

Joginder Singh S/O Late Shri Vs. the Director General (Works),

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this OA, applicant has challenged the order dated 8.5.2007 whereby applicant has been transferred from Delhi to Faridabad (page 26). It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that even though in the order dated 8.5.2007, transfer is shown to be due to administrative reasons but the actual reason is evident from the letter dated 1.5.2007 (page 102) written by the Executive Engineer (Vigilance) to the Superintending Engineer (E) (page 102) which reads as under: I am enclosing herewith MoUD OM No. C-13015/28/2006-AV.II dated 05.02.2007 and 24.04.2007 vide which AS (UD) and CVO has directed to transfer Shri Joginder Singh, Pump Operative outside Delhi for his alleged role in the illegal retention of the Government accommodation No. 2125, Lodhi Road Complex, New Delhi. I am directed to request you to take necessary action for transferring Shri Joginder Singh, Pump Operator outside Delhi, within a week's time, as desired by AS (UD) and CVO of MoUD, New Delhi.2. It is thus state...

Cce Vs. Matrix Clothing Pvt. Ltd. and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(126)ECC30

1. Common issue is involved in these appeals. Therefore, they are being taken up together for disposal.2. The revenue filed these appeals against the impugned order whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority. The contention of the revenue is that after amendment of the proviso to Section 35-A of Central Excise Act w.e.f. 11.5.2001, the power of remand of Commissioner (Appeals) has been withdrawn.Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable.3. The revenue relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mil India Ltd v. CCE Noida reported in 2007 (79) RLT 1(SC) and decision dated 8.3.2007 of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of CCE Amritsar v. Enkay (India) Ruber Co Pvt Ltd. The contention of revenue is that Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Enkay (India) Rubber Co Pvt Ltd supra after taking into consideration the amended provisions of Central Excise Act, held that the Co...

Mohan Generator and Pumps (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(126)ECC197

1. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Generating Set, A.C. Generators and Centrifugal Water Pumps falling under Chapter sub-heading No. 8502.00, 8501.00 and 8413.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 3.11.1995, the Central Excise Officers visited the appellants' factory and verified the stock. The said officers detected the excess stock of finished goods, which were seized by them. The adjudicating authority confiscated the seized goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 15,000/- and penalty of Rs. 7,000/-.The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order.2. Ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that Panchnama was prepared in irregular manner inasmuch as it is revealed from the Affidavit that Panchas were not present at the time of stock verification. He further submits that the seized goods were not complete finished goods and, therefore, they have not recorde...

idea Mobile Communication Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)12STJ326CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. Heard both sides. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of amount of service tax and penalties. The demand is confirmed in respect of sale of sim cards by the applicant to their dealers. The revenue raised the demand on the ground that the sale of sim card is not a sale of goods but it is a service provided by the applicant.2. The contention of applicant is that they were selling the sim cards to their dealers and thereafter, the dealers are selling the same to various customers and activation fee is separately charged and appellants are paying service of activation fees. The contention is that on the sale price, the appellants are also paying the sales tax.The appellant relied upon the case of Idea Mobile Communications Ltd. v. CCE Final order No. 178/2006 dated 25.5.2006 where the payment of service on the same ground was set aside. The applicant also submitted that in the case of Bharati Hexacom Ltd. v. Union of India, the Tribunal vide stay order dated ...

Kamal Kumar S/O Shri Hari Singh Vs. the Commissioner of Police,

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Challenge in the present OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is to order dated 15.12.2006 (Annexure A-1) vide which candidature of the applicant for the post of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police has been cancelled.2. Brief facts of the case reveal that the applicant sought appointment to the post of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police during the recruitment held in the year 2005. He cleared all the tests and was declared provisionally selected subject to verification of character and antecedents. On verification of his character and antecedents, it came to light that the applicant was involved in case FIR No. 339/99 under Sections 323, 147 and 392 IPC pertaining to P.S. Kotwali, Jhunjhunu dated 19.09.1999 and was acquitted in the said case. He was involved in yet another case FIR No. 171/2001 under Sections 341 and 323 IPC pertaining to P.S. Kotwali dated 23.05.2001 and was let off with imposition of fine of Rs. 500/-. It is not in dispute that the a...

Shri Indrajit Khatri S/O Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant was appointed as Assistant Inspector of Works (AIOW) Western Railway on 5.5.1963. Later, he was absorbed in Northern Railway as Permanent Way Inspector (PWI) Grade-III. In 1979, applicant along with other staff members was implicated in a criminal case. On appeal, he was honourably acquitted on 6.3.2006 by Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow. During this period respondents did not grant him regular promotions due from the date his juniors were promoted. Later, on retirement, gratuity etc. were not given as per his expectations. This is the main basis for present OA.2. Earlier, in 1973, applicant represented for ad hoc promotion to the post of PWI Grade-I (Rs.700-900/Rs.2000-3200) from 1980 and CPWI (Rs.840-1410/Rs.2375-3200) since date when his juniors had been promoted. He also filed an OA for assignment of proper seniority. This OA was allowed in 1993 and implemented by respondents on 31.10.1994 for others, but not applicant, since by then, a criminal case was pendin...

industrial Security Services Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)12STJ305CESTATNew(Delhi)

The show cause was issued to M/s Industrial Security Services to the proprietorship concern of Shri K.P. Srivastava. Shri K.P. Srivastava expired on 27/03/2006. Therefore, as the proceedings were against the proprietorship concern, where proprietor expired hence the appeal filed by Present appellant is dismissed as non-maintainable....

Kanpur Security Services Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)10STR12

1. On going through the relevant record and the impugned order and keeping in view the fact that the applicant has approached the Hon'ble High Court for recovery of the service tax amount from BHEL which is a Government of India Undertaking and also taking into account the fact that merely half of the service tax which was paid by the recipient has been deposited and that the applicant is a retired Defence Services officer of seventy years age and seems not having sufficient means, 2. The requirement of pre-deposit is waived during the pendency of the appeal/The appeal will now come up for final hearing in its due course.This application is disposed of accordingly....

M.M. Poonjiaji Spices Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(126)ECC80

1. Applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 2,15,098.00. The demand is confirmed in respect of the machines received under notification No. 22/03. The applicants are 100% EOU and they have received certain machines without payment of duty under notification No. 22/03. The condition of notification is that the machines are to be installed within one year and the same can be extended upto five years.1.1. Contention of applicant is that they have applied for extension for installation of the machines which was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued demanding duty in respect of the machines by denying the benefit of notification. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed the penalty.The appellant filed appeal and Commissioner (Appeals) without going on merits of the case dismissed appeal on the ground that the request for extension is already rejected and no appeal has been filed against that or...