Delhi Court December 2007 Judgments

Sh. Satinder Narayan Singh Vs. Indian Labour Cooperative Society Ltd. ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(1)ARBLR355(Delhi)

Aruna Suresh, J.1. Present objection petition has been filed under Section 27 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') by the petitioner as dispute inter se the parties is pending adjudication before the sole arbitrator Dr.V.K. Aggarwal. During the proceedings present petitioner filed an application for summoning of two witnesses, namely, Chief Executive, Indian Labour Cooperative Society Ltd. and Shri R.S. Nehra, Ex-Chairman, Indian Labour Cooperative Society Ltd. However, vide order dated 18th May 2007, the sole arbitrator allowed the examination of Chief Executive of Indian Labour Cooperative Society but dis-allowed the petitioner from examining Shri R.S. Nehra with the observations that he is not a relevant witness and fixed the matter for 4th and 5th June 2007 for examination-in-chief of the Chief Executive of Indian Labour Cooperative Society. According to the petitioner Shri R.S. Nehra, Ex-Chairman is a relevant witness and thereforee he mov...

Ranbir Singh Vs. D.D.A. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(100)DRJ728

T.S. Thakur, J.1. Mr. Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since M/s Gobind Narayan and Arun Sharma, advocates have already appeared on behalf of the petitioner and filed their vakalatnama also, he may be permitted to retire from the case. The petitioner who is present in person with Mr. Gobind Narayan submits that he does not wish to pursue the petition and has to that effect filed CM 17791/2007 for permission to withdraw the petition. A reading of the application for withdrawal shows that the petitioner now has no grievance against anybody and is satisfied with the inspection carried out by a team of experts of Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi, Delhi Development Authority and Archaeological Survey of India. Mr. Gobind Narayan and the petitioner further submit that the petitioner was only a name lender to the public interest petition which he was inspired to file by one Sh. Sukhinder Singh, S/o Sh. Subhash Singh of Village Mohamadpur. Mr. Gobind Narayan a...

Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. Manoj Gadi and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Since the respondent has appeared on his own and wants to argue on merits, appeal is being decided on merits. 2. On account of having sold highly defective car of Tata Indigo LS Diesel make, the appellant vide impugned order dated 25th July, 2007 has been directed to replace the defective vehicle and also to pay Rs. 25,000 as compensation and Rs. 5,000 as cost of litigation. 3. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. 4. Relevant facts leading to impugned order in brief were that the respondent purchased a Tata Indigo LS Diesel Car on 29.6.2006 from M/s. Sanya Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. , authorized dealer of M/s. Tata Motors the appellant. According to him , appellant and respondent No. 2 passed on to him second hand car as new car and he learnt about the deception when within half an hour the rear view mirror fell down and noise started coming from steering and shockers. He complained to appellant but he was assured they were minor pr...

Oswal Overseas Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(127)ECC186

1. The appellant filed these appeals against the impugned order whereby remission application was rejected and consequential demand is confirmed.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sugar and during the manufacture of sugar the molasses is a bye-product. Molasses had come into existence the same was stored in the factory of production.The appellant filed application for remission of duty in respect of the molasses which was lost in storage during the sugar season of 2002-03.The contention of the appellant is that the storage loss is only 0.72% which is less than the permissible limit of 2%. The appellant relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ramla Sehkari Chinni Mills Ltd. v. CCESeksaria Biswan Sugar Factory (P) Ltd. v. CCE contention is that the Tribunal in these cases held that losses occurred due to storage which are less than 2% are condonable. The contention is that the remission application has been rejected on the ground that intimation regardin...

R.K. Associates Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)13STJ150CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. The appellant filed this appeal against imposition of penalty under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 by revision order dated 28.11.2006. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the Commissioner while imposing penalty have observed that the appellants had not adduced any reasonable cause for such failure to pay the tax before the adjudicating authority or before him and therefore, benefit of Section 80 cannot be granted. On perusal of the adjudication order, I find that the Assistant Commissioner had not imposed penalty under Section 76, 77 & 78 upon power vested under Section 80 of the Finance Act. It is seen that he has given the reason as under: However, at the earlier stage, the noticee was not aware of the levy of service tax on the consignment agent falling under the category of C&F agent. When they came to know the levy of service tax on them, they got themselves registered with the department and paying service tax therea...

Sundeep Electrodes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(127)ECC91

1. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby credit of Rs. 40,772/- was disallowed and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of welding electrodes.The appellant started availing the benefit of small-scale exemption notification No. 1/93 with effect from 1.4.95 and at that time the appellant reversed the credit lying in their credit accounts.Thereafter, on 31.5.95 as the appellant crossed the limit of exemption and started clearing the goods on payment of duty, filed a declaration under Rule 57-H of Central Excise Rules for taking credit in respect of the inputs lying in stock, under process and contained in the final product. A show-cause notice was issued for denying the credit of Rs. 40,772/- on the ground that the credit has already been availed by the appellant in the year 1993-94 and 1994-95 as the invoices were defaced at the time of taking credit.3. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and impose...

Fiitjee Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)13STJ151CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. The appellant filed this appeal against imposition of penalty under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 vide revision order dated 14.05.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise.2. Learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellants are rendering services of coaching centre. They paid tax @ 8% and filed the return accordingly. Later service tax was enhanced from 8% to 10.2% w.e.f. 10.09.2004 by Finance Act 2004. The differential amount of tax with interest were deposited by them on 24.11.2005. The adjudicating authority dropped the penalty under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. After considering that the appellant was under a bonafide belief that the rate applicable was 8%.He further submits there is no suppression of facts with intent to evade tax and therefore penalty under Section 76 and 78 cannot be invoked. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CCE, Bangalore-II v. Sunitha Shetty reported...

J.K. Sugar Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(127)ECC229

2. The appellant filed these appeals against the common impugned order.In this case, the demand was confirmed after denying the credit in respect of welding electrodes, jointing sheets and steel plates.3. The contention of the appellant is that demand raised vide show-cause notice dated 8.11.2004 while denying the credit in respect of welding electrodes availed during the period April 2001 to August 2003 is time barred. As the appellants were regularly filing monthly returns showing that appellants were availing the credit on welding electrodes, therefore, no suppression can be alleged against the appellant that they had taken credit of Rs. 1,93,688/- in respect of welding electrodes by suppressing the facts.4. In respect of jointing sheet and steel plates, the contention is that the same are used in the plant. Jointing sheets are used to prevent leakage of steam and gases from the pipes and steel plates are used for repair and maintenance of capital goods like boiler, pan, centrifuga...

Pran Nath S/O Late Tulsi Das Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this O.A., applicant has challenged order-dated 16.8.2007, which was passed pursuant to the direction given by this Tribunal in OA No.875/2007 (page 26).2. It is stated by the applicant that he was a permanent employee of the respondents. He worked from 9.8.1957 till 16.12.1975 when it was detected that he was suffering from Asthma, which ultimately took the shape of acute/chronic disease. He also developed heart problem and had to undergo constant treatment either with the Railways or at times with private medical practitioner since 1974-75, as a result of which he could not resume his duties. He had been sending applications for leave duly supported by medical certificates. He had even requested for change of his place of posting, but his request was not acceded to. He finally reached the age of superannuation on 31.08.1997, but neither respondent had given any reply nor was any notice issued denying sanction of leave. He had not been paid any salary. He was surviving only on ...

Bhpe Kinhill Joint Venture Vs. the Addl. Director of Income Tax,

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)304ITR285(Delhi)

1. The assessee has filed this appeal against the order of the CIT (A), New Delhi, passed in Appeal No. 61/03-04, dated 24.1.2005, on as many as seven grounds.2. The Ground Nos. 3 and 4 relate to disallowance of an amount of Rs. 21,22,091/- in view of provisions of Section 40(a)(iii) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and Ground No. 5 relates to confirmation of disallowance of.Rs. 6,81,840/- and Rs. 10,00,000/- by the CIT (A) holding the same in the nature of Head Office Expenditure as envisaged under Section 44C of the Act.3. However, at the out set of the appellate proceedings, the learned AR for the assessee submitted that the appeal may not be disposed off on merits as raised in Ground Nos. 3 and 4 but the assessee's appeal may be only disposed off on legal issue as involved in Ground Nos. 1 and 2 of the appeal of the assessee regarding the non-service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act within a period of limitation and so assessment framed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3...