Delhi Court December 2007 Judgments

Prem Vs. Chirag Boutique

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)IILLJ29Del

Hima Kohli, J.1. Rule.2. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard and disposed of finally.3. The petitioner has assailed a no relief award dated October 27, 2006, passed by the Labour Court against the petitioner stating inter alias that he failed to establish the relationship of an employee and an employer between the petitioner workman and the respondent management. The petitioner has also assailed the order dated July 9, 2007, passed on the review application filed by the petitioner, which was rejected by the Labour Court.4. The only ground for passing a no relief award by the Labour Court is that the petitioner workman failed to establish a relationship of an employee and employer between the petitioner workman and the respondent management. Counsel for the petitioner states that because the respondent management was proceeded ex-parte, he had no opportunity to cross-examine the said respondent to establish the relationship of an employee and employer between the ...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Arvind Construction Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Del)363; [2009]317ITR276(Delhi)

ORDER1. IT Appeal No. 1388 of 2006 is directed against an order dt. 31st March, 2006 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi Bench 'G' ('Tribunal' ) in ITA No. 492/Del/2001 for the asst. yr. 1997-98. IT Appeal No. 705 of 2007 is directed against an order dt. 19th Jan., 2007 passed by the Tribunal (Bench 'F') in ITA No. 1263/Del/2004 for the asst. yr. 2000-01. Since the same question of law is urged by the Revenue in both the appeals, they are being disposed by this common order.2. The questions that have been urged by the Revenue for consideration in both these appeals are as under:(1) Whether interest earned by the assessed on RBI bonds is the income derived by it from the business of industrial undertaking so as to be eligible for deduction under Section 80HHB of the IT Act, 1961?.(2) Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in allowing deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act to the assessed on receipts from transportation of sleepers ?3. The assessed carried out certa...

Ravinder Kumar Sharma Vs. O.P. Sharma and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(100)DRJ108

Rekha Sharma, J.1. The petitioner is a tenant and has filed this Revision Petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Act') against the order dated November 30,2006 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi directing his eviction from the suit premises bearing flat No. 1104, LIG, Pocket C, Loni (East) Shahdara, Delhi - 95 on the ground of bonafide requirement of respondent No. 1.2. The factual matrix of the case giving rise to the Revision petition is as follows:Respondent No. 1 is the owner and landlord of the suit property which was let out to the petitioner by his brother (respondent No.2) at Rs. 1000/-per month vide Rent Agreement dated July, 24 1998. At the time the suit premises were let out, respondent No. 1 was employed in private job at Ludhiana. About 4-5 years prior to the filing of the eviction petition he lost his job and could not find an alternate job in Ludhiana. He shifted to Delhi where his brot...

Cce Vs. Kandhari Beverages (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(126)ECC56

1. Heard both sides. The Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) has held as under: I have carefully examined the case records including the appellants submissions made in writing and at the time of personal hearing and observe that the main issue involved is this that the appellant did not discharge the duty liability in respect of aerated water bottles which had been destroyed/broken during handling/loading. The contention of the appellant is that as per Board Circular No. 261/D/1/75-cX.8 dated 17.9.75 has permitted the remission of duty upto the limit of 0.5% which is correct and convincing. Moreover, the Board's Circular No. 674/65/2002-CX dated 1.11.2002 has categorically mentioned that the technical functions which are performed under the statute by Board and such circulars are biding on the field formation. The above circular says that no protective demands should be raised on the basis of the audit o...

V.V.S. Alloys Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(127)ECC162

1. The appellant filed this appeal against denial of modvat credit on transformer of 33 KVA and accessories. Both the authorities below held that transformer of 33 KVA and accessories are not covered within the definition of capital goods in terms of Clause (d) of Explanation (1) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 57Q of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 as it stood during the relevant period.2. Learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant submits that the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Indore v. L.G. Hotline CPT Limited reported in 2004 (176) ELT 443 (Tri. Del.) held that transformer of power handling capacity less than 75 KVA is capital goods within the definition given in explanation to Rule 57Q of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944.3. Learned DR on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the transformer was not used for the manufacture of final product. He submits that in this case transformer and accessories are additional parts of th...

Lamicoat International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(127)ECC89

1. Heard both sides. The appellant filed these appeals against the common impugned order whereby the inputs as well as finished goods found in excess were confiscated and ordered to be released on payment of redemption fine. Penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- was imposed and penalty of Rs. 75,000/- was imposed on the Manager.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Printed Laminated Polyester film and were availing benefit of cenvat scheme. The contention of appellant in respect of the confiscation of inputs is that appellants received the inputs but no duty paying documents were received by them, therefore, the same were not entered in the RG23-A Part I. The Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Oceanic Cooling Towers Pvt.Ltd liable for confiscation under Rule 173-Q of Central Excise Rules. The present provision of Rule 25 are parallel to the provisions of erstwhile Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules.3. In respect of confiscation of finished goods, the contention is that there statutory re...

Kanohar Electricals Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(126)ECC79

1. Heard both sides. The appellants filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby their refund claim was rejected as time barred.2. The contention of appellant is that the duty was paid twice due to mistake and after this, when the mistake was realized, the appellant filed letter dated 18.9.2000 asked for refund of excise duty paid in excess and all the documents regarding payment of duty and clearance of goods were filed alongwith the application. Thereafter, the appellants sent many remainders and ultimately the revenue vide letter dated 5.11.2004, directed the appellant to submit the refund claim in the prescribed form within a week. In compliance to the direction by the revenue, the appellants filed refund claim in the prescribed form.Thereafter, the adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim on the ground as time barred. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order.3. The contention of appellant is that as the refund claim was filed within four days from ...

Dewan Sugar Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(125)ECC295

1. Heard both sides. The appellant filed this appeal whereby the payment was interest was confirmed under Rule 12 of the Cenvat Credit Rules on the allegation that the appellant had taken cenvat credit wrongly. The contention of appellant is that the credit was correctly taken in respect of capital goods but the same was not utilized and this fact is admitted in the impugned order and the adjudicating authority also noticed this fact in the order in original. The appellant relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Gupta Steel v. CCCCE v. Gupta Steels 2. The contention of revenue is that as per the proviso of Rule 24 of Central Excise Rules, a manufacturer is liable to pay interest and penalty wrongly taken or utilized.3. I find that the undisputed fact is that appellants had taken credit but the same has not been utilized. The Tribunal in the case of Gupta Steel held that in case credit which was not utilized, the manufacturer is not liable to pay interest in case of rev...

Cce Vs. Adhunik Alloys Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Revenue filed this appeal against order of the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby penalty and interest were set-aside.2. The relevant facts of the case in brief are that the respondent are engaged in the manufacture of non-Alloy steel ingots and Alloy steel ingots classifiable under sub-heading Nos. 7206.90 & 7224.00 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.3. The respondent failed to pay duty within the stipulated period, under Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Show cause notice dated 15.10.2004 was issued proposing for imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 alongwith interest. The adjudicating authority imposed penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules and payment of interest @ Rs. 1,000/- per day for default under Rule 8 of the Rules. Commissioner (Appeals) set-aside the penalty and interest because the respondent deposited the duty before issue of show cause notice. Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the ...

Asi Manbir Singh Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Manbir Singh, an ASI in Delhi Police, applicant herein, complains that the misconduct alleged against him which could only be partially substantiated and which part too did not find favour with this Tribunal setting aside the same thus resulting into complete exoneration of the applicant, has yet visited him with such consequences as his non-promotion to the post of SI. He challenges orders dated 31.1.2007 and 26.6.2007 and the promotion list circulated with letter dated 21.5.2007 declining promotion to him to the post of SI.2. Brief facts of the case as may be relevant for determining the limited controversy in issue involved in the case reveal that a departmental enquiry was ordered against the applicant vide orders dated 2.6.2003 on the allegations of misconduct, negligence and dereliction of his official duties. On completion of the departmental enquiry, report was submitted by the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority on the basis thereof inflicted upon the applicant ...