Delhi Court December 2007 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Diamond Cements
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-2007
Reported in: (2008)12STJ391CESTATNew(Delhi)
1. I have heard both the sides on the appeal of the Revenue against extension of credit of Rs. 50,542/- in respect of security services which had been disallowed by the adjudicating authority on those bills which did not provide specific name and address and reduction in penalty in terms of Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules.2. The objection of the Revenue to credit being extended to security services is on the basis that the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the credit on the strength of the certificate produced by the respondents from the service provider M/s. Pink City Security Service to the effect that they had provided service to the respondents and that the said certificate was a new evidence brought for the first time before the Commissioner (Appeals) and he has erred in relying on it in view of the provisions of Rule 5(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2001, which clearly prohibit production of additional evidence before the Commissioner (Appeals).3. However, I find that disallowi...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Renee Telepoint
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-2007
Reported in: (2008)10STR414
1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the setting-aside of the penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority under the provisions of Sections 78 and 75A of the Finance Act, 1994 by the lower appellate authority.I have heard both sides. According to the Revenue, the argument of the respondents that there was reasonable cause for failure to comply with the provisions of Sections 76, 77 and 78 due to initial confusion as to whether their activity of purchasing and selling sim cards amounted to rendering services in the nature of business auxiliary services should not have been accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals) for the reasons that the respondents were carrying out these services over a period of one and half years after the introduction of business auxiliary service. Therefore, the learned DR submits that there was no reasonable cause for failure to comply with the provisions of Sections 76 to 78 and therefore, the provisions of Section 80 are not attracted in the facts of the present ca...
Jindal and Power Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-2007
Reported in: (2008)12STJ396CESTATNew(Delhi)
1. Demand of service tax of Rs. 4,73,593/- was confirmed against the appellants herein that they were rendering services of consulting engineers and penalty of Rs. 1000/- each under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, was imposed. This order was challenged by the assessees before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide his order dated 28.9.2005 rejected the appeal holding that, both service tax demands had been rightly confirmed and that penalty had been rightly imposed.The present impugned order had been passed in revision by the Commissioner of Central Excise by enhancing penalty under Section 76 to Rs. 4,43,400/- 2. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the order of the Assistant Commissioner which has been revised by the Commissioner was no longer in existence as it had already merged in the order dated 58.9.2005 of the Commissioner (Appeals). I find that the Commissioner has interpreted the provisions of Section 84(4), which stipulate that "no order...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Synthetics and Polymers (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-2007
Reported in: (2008)12STJ392CESTATNew(Delhi)
1. The issue in dispute in this case is, as to whether the Cenvat Credit can be utilized for payment of Service Tax by service recipient.The objection of the Revenue is that, the respondents did not provide any output service and it is the 'Goods Transport Agency', which provided the output service, and hence Cenvat Credit cannot be utilized for this purpose.2. However, on hearing both sides, I find that the issue has been settled in favour of the assessee by Tribunal's order in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. 2007-TIOL-555-CESTAT-DEL, wherein it was held that Cenvat Credit can be utilized for payment of Service Tax on 'Goods Transport Services' by service recipient. This order has been followed in the case of MMS Steels Ltd. and 26 Ors. v. CCE, Trichy, Madurai, Salem 2007-TIOL-1317-CESTAT-MAD; Ambuttur Petrochem Ltd. and Ors. v. CCE, RaipurRRD Tex Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Salem 2007-TIOL-891-CESTAT-MAD. In the case of India Cements Ltd. v. CCE, Salem 2007 (8...
Brokers and Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Om Prakash Bhola and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-2007
Reported in: 2008(100)DRJ696
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is an application for impleadment. The applicant (Mr S.N. Arora) seeks impleadment on the ground that he is both a necessary and proper party. According to the applicant, he entered into a Collaboration Agreement with the defendant No. 2 on 13.09.2005. Pursuant to the Collaboration Agreement, the applicant was put in possession of the suit property being H-1481, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi. When the applicant was about to raise the construction on the said property, objection was allegedly raised by the plaintiff herein and consequently, the applicant filed a suit being CS(OS)1194/2007 against the Managing Director of the plaintiff in the present suit and the defendant No. 1 herein as well as the Residents Welfare Association of C.R. Park. That suit was filed on 30.06.2007. The present suit had been filed earlier on 05.10.2005.2. In the present suit, the plaintiff has alleged that the defendant No. 2 is the owner of the suit property, having acquired titl...
Vatika Farms Private Limited Through Its Director, Sh. Anil Bhalla and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-2007
Reported in: (2008)216CTR(Del)25; 2008(102)DRJ88
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions, the prayer made by the Petitioners is to the effect that the provisions of Section 245D(2A), Section 245D(2D), Section 245D(4A) and Section 245HA(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) be declared unconstitutional.2. The provisions under challenge relate to settlement applications made by the Petitioners to the Settlement Commission (for short the Commission) under 245C of the Act prior to 1st June, 2007. Broadly speaking, the sections provide for the following:(i) If a settlement application is not yet admitted for hearing, then it would be deemed to be admitted for hearing if the applicant pays the admitted or additional income tax and interest thereon or before 31st July, 2007. [Section 245D(2A)].(ii) If the applicant pays the additional tax and interest before 31st July, 2007 then the date of admission of the application shall be deemed to be 31st July, 2007. [Explanation to Section 245D(2A)]. If the applicant does n...
Mangla Ispat (Jaipur) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-2007
Reported in: (2008)10STR391
1. Heard both sides. The applicant filed this application for waiver of service tax of Rs. 90,078/- 2. The applicant filed refund of service tax which was sanctioned by the adjudicating authority and the amount was paid. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Central Excise revised notice and set aside the adjudication order on the ground that the applicants are not entitled for benefit of Notification No. 42/97. The contention of applicant is that they are registered under the Factories Act and SSI with the State Government and relied upon the stay order in the case of Mayur Inorganics Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2006 (4) S.T.R. 137. The contention is that Tribunal waived the pre-deposit of amount of service tax which was confirmed on the similar ground.In view of the above stay order and in view of the fact that the appellants are registered as SSI with the State Government, the recovery of amount of service tax already sanctioned to the applicant is stayed till the disposal of the a...
Flexo Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-2007
Reported in: (2008)(127)ECC191
1. The brief facts of the case are that, M/s Alfa International, 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 Alfa International 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 Alfa International proposing imposition of penalty.Show cause notice was also issued to the appellant herein, M/s Flexo Polymers (P) Ltd., for recovery of duty of Rs. 4,5...
Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. Anil Kumar Mishra
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-2007
Reported in: (2008)10STR408
1. The penalty imposed upon the respondent herein by the adjudicating authority in terms of Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, has been set-aside by the lower appellate authority on the ground that the entire Service Tax amount was deposited together with interest before the issue of show cause notice (amount was paid on 5-2-2003, while the show cause notice was dated 21-6-2004). The Revenue is in appeal against the setting-aside of the penalty.2. As none appears for the respondent, I have heard the learned DR and perused the record. I find that in the case of Sieger Spintech Equipments Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore - 2006 (3) S.T.R. 736 (T-Chennai), penalty has been held to be not imposable under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, for the reason that the Service Tax was paid prior to the issuance of the show cause notice. The same view has been expressed by this Tribunal in earlier decisions in the case of Commissioner v. Pioneer Plastic Products - 2005-...
Rajeeve Electrical Works Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-2007
Reported in: (2008)12STJ403CESTATNew(Delhi)
1. The issue in dispute in the present appeal is, as to whether the activity of the appellants herein, who are Electrical Contractors, namely, laying of pipe in wall/floor for crossing of wires, fixing the junction box, MS Box, Wooden Box and digging the earth to lay the cables, digging the earth pits for earthing of equipments and for termination of cables, amounts to erection of plant & machinery or equipment so as to hold them liable for service tax in terms of Clause 39a of the Finance Act, 2004. Clause 39a during the relevant period i.e 10.09.2004 to 30.11.2004 reads as under: Erection, commissioning or installation means any service provided by a commissioning and installation agency in relation to erection, commissioning or installation of plant, machinery or equipment.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that, the above mentioned activities carried out by the appellants are in the nature of civil work and can very safely be considered to be covered under erection.However...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »