Delhi Court December 2007 Judgments

Tej Pratap Singh Vs. Acit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the learned CIT(Appeals) dated 5-8-2004 relating to assessment year 1999-2000.2. The assessee has taken as many as 14 grounds in this appeal but at the time of hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that ground Nos. 1 to 4 involving a purely legal issue relating to assumption of jurisdiction by the AO should be adjudicated first. The learned DR agreed for this course. Hence, we proceed to adjudicate ground Nos. 1 to 4 first. 1. That the provisions of Section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are not applicable at all. 2. That the AO has no valid material to have any reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment Under Section 147 of the IT At and the reassessment made in furtherance of such invalid assumption of jurisdiction is invalid, non-est in law. 3. That there is no nexus between alleged material and the facts of the appellant's case and, therefore, the provisions of Section 147 are not ...

Sh. Deen Mohammed Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(127)ECC78

1. The applicant filed this application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal of 174 days. None appeared on behalf of the applicant. By letter dated 25.12.2007, the applicant requested to decided the matter in their absence on the basis of records.2. Heard the learned DR on behalf of the Revenue and perused the records.3. It is seen from the application for condonation of delay that the applicant was out of town during the material period and the order was received by the worker. It is stated that the worker did not inform the applicant about the receipt of the impugned order. It is also stated that when the departmental officer approached the applicant for depositing the penalty amount then it came to the knowledge of the applicant of service of the order.4. I find that the applicant is partnership firm and the representative of the applicant firm received the order. The delay in filing of appeal was occurred due to failure to inform the applicant by his representative which ...

Alcove Industries Ltd. Vs. Oriental Structural Engineers Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(1)ARBLR393(Delhi)

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. By this order, I propose to disposed of OMP No. 7/2006 and OMP No. 26/2006 both preferred by the Petitioner under Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') seeking removal of respondent no. 2, (the Sole Arbitrator) and appointment of an independent and impartial arbitrator in his place. Since, most of the facts and contentions are common to both the petitions, I am disposing them off by a common judgment, while making a note of the differences in facts and submissions in the two petitions. Background facts2. The respondent no.1 i.e. M/s Oriental Structural Engineers Ltd had been awarded the work for conversion of existing road to four lane by widening and strengthening of the existing road starting from 140 km to 180 km and 180 km to 240 km in the State of Bihar, Aurangabad sector by the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI). This contract is referred to as the Principal Contract. In turn, respondent no.1 awa...

R.R. Constructions (through Its sole proprietor, Shri Ravi Abrol) Vs. ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(1)ARBLR424(Delhi)

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. By this common order I am disposing off A.A. No. 343/2005 filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') and O.M.P. No. 130/2006 filed under Section 9 of the Act, because a common question with regard to the existence of a valid arbitration agreement arises in both these petitions between the same parties. The parties have also addressed arguments on the aspect of valid invocation of the arbitration agreement and the grant of interim protection prayed for by the Petitioner under Section 9 of the Act.2. The Respondent society, to develop a Group Housing Complex at Plot No. 8-A, Sector 7, Dwarka, entered into a Building construction agreement dated 3.7.1998 with the applicant, who undertook to construct the entire complex.3. The said agreement admittedly contained an arbitration clause, which reads as follows:120. All disputes and differences of any kind whatsoever arising out of or in connection with the contract or the carr...

Shyam Exports Vs. Special Director, Enforcement Directorate

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

R.N. Poddar, Member. - This appeal is directed against adjudication order No. SDE/SKP/II/9/2006, dated 28-3-2006 passed by Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, Enforcement Directorate imposing a penalty of Rs. 6 lakhs on the appellant firm and Rs. 2 lakhs each on its two male partners namely Manish Mishra and Rajesh Mishra and Rs. 1 lakh each on its female partners namely Smt. Kanchan Mishra, Ritu Mishra and Jaya Mishra for the reason of acknowledging debt, creating right in favour of foreign party M/s. EURO, West Germany in contravention of section 9(1)(c) of FER Act, 1973. 1 to 3. This appeal is filed in the name of partnership firm M/s. Shyam Exports and its 5 partners namely Manish Mishra, Rajesh Mishra, Smt. Kanchan Mishra, Smt. Ritu Mishra and Smt. Jaya Mishra but court fees paid only for a single appeal. When this defect is pointed out to the Counsel appearing for the appellants, he made an oral prayer that these appeals may be treated as having been filed by partnership f...

B.D. Exports Vs. Special Director, Enforcement Directorate

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1-2 This appeal is directed against adjudication order No. SDE/SKP/II/12/2006, dated 29-3-2006 passed by Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, Enforcement Directorate imposing a penalty of Rs. 70 lakhs on the appellant firm and Rs. 20 lakhs each on its two partners Ramji Mishra and Amresh Mishra for the reason of failure to realize and repatriate exports proceeds to the tune of US$ 3,21,290.90 in contravention of section 18(2) and 18(3) of FER Act, 1973. 3. This appeal is filed in the name of partnership firm M/s. B.D. Exports and its two partners namely Ramjee Mishra and Amresh Mishra but court fees paid only for a single appeal. When this defect is pointed out to the Counsel appearing for the appellants, he made an oral prayer that these appeals may be treated as having been filed by partnership firm alone and names of partners can be disregarded. Therefore, this appeal is taken up as an appeal filed by partnership firm only. Ld. Counsel has subsequently filed a formal applicati...

Mishra Carpet Palace Vs. Special Director, Enforcement Directorate

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1-2. This appeal is directed against adjudication order No. SDE/SKP/II/ 11/2006, dated 29-3-2006 passed by Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, Enforcement Directorate imposing a penalty of Rs. 30 lakhs on the appellant firm and Rs. 15 lakhs on its partner Shyamji Mishra and Rs. 5 lakhs each on its other two partners Smt. Bremdei Mishra and Kusum Kumari Mishra for the reason of acknowledging debt creating right in favour of the foreign party namely EURO, West Germany to receive payment in contravention of section 9(1)(c) of FER Act, 1973. 3. This appeal is filed in the name of partnership firm M/s. Mishra Carpet Palace and its 3 partners but court fees paid only for a single appeal. When this defect is pointed out to the Counsel appearing for the appellants, he made an oral prayer that these appeals may be treated as having been filed by partnership firm alone and any other names, i.e., of partners can be disregarded. Therefore, this appeal is taken up as an appeal filed by partn...

Cc Vs. Venus Enterprises

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(127)ECC164

1. In this case, 100 pcs. of old and used photocopier machines-low duty, medium duty and heavy duty were confiscated by the authorities below on the ground of mis-declaration of value - the value has been enhanced from Rs. 9,13,934/-, as declared, to Rs. 14,25,110/- on the basis of market inquiry. The adjudicating authority imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 7,60,000/- and penalty of Rs. 50,000/-, which was reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals) to Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- respectively. Aggrieved by this reduction in the quantum of fine and penalty, the Revenue has filed this appeal.2. I have heard the learned DR and perused the record. None appears for the respondents in spite of notice.3. In arriving at the finding that the quantum of fine is required to be reduced, the lower appellate authority has relied upon VAT paid sale bills/invoices of same items in which the market value of low duty photocopier machine was shown as Rs. 10,000/- per piece, the market value of medium duty ...

Paramount Steel Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(126)ECC165

1. The brief facts of the case are that, M/s Tiwari Brothers, who was engaged in export of auto parts, namely, 'Crank Shafts for High Speed Compressor', fraudulently substituted/declared the export item as 'Timing Shafts for Mercedes Truck' to avail higher export incentive under the Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme. The investigation revealed that, the export items have been mis-declared and that M/s Tiwari Brothers has obtained DEPB scrips by making fraudulent representation/mis-statement/substitution of shipping bills in order to avail higher DEPB benefit. The DEPB scrips, so obtained, were transferred/sold to various importers to utilize the same for paying the customs duty against their imports and to avail exemption from Special Additional Duty of Customs. Show cause notice was issued on this basis to M/s Tiwari Brothers proposing imposition of penalty. Show cause notice was also issued to the appellant herein, M/s Paramount Steels Ltd., for recovery of duty of Rs. 94,502/- and ...

Shri J.S. Gujral and Shri M.P.S. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(127)ECC184

1. In both these cases, the Commissioner of Customs has, by two separate adjudication orders, confiscated the Toyota Lexus LS 460, imported by both the appellants herein from Japan, on the ground that Type Approval Certificate TS COP of the International accredited agency from the country of origin, was not furnished by the importers, as per the requirement of para 7 of licensing note, according to which, the said certificate was required in the case of import of new vehicle having FOB value of USD 40,000 or more and engine capacity exceeding 3000 cc for petrol run vehicle by an individual, with option to redeem on payment of fine and also imposed penalties under the provisions of Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the importers. In the case of import by Shri J.S. Gujral, fine is Rs. 4,00,000/- and penalty is Rs. 2,00,000/-, while fine and penalty imposed on Shri Mohinder pal Singh Gujral is Rs. 4,50,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/-respectively.2. I have heard both the sides and perused ...