Delhi Court February 2007 Judgments

Cce Vs. Him Techno Forge Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(118)ECC76

1. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of forgings of iron and steel products classifiable under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.On 26.12.1997, the central excise officers visited the factory of the appellants. They verified the stock of raw material and finished goods.The stock of finished goods were found tallied with R.G.1 stock ascertained by the officers on physical verification. But, there was shortage of raw material of Alloy Steel to the quantity of 21.692 MT wherein central excise duty involved Rs. 18,091 /-. The statement of the Director of the appellant company Shri N.K. Dalal was recorded who admitted the shortage and debited the duty in their RG-23A Part-II/PLA account on 26.12.1997. On scrutiny of the documents, it was noticed that there was a short payment of duty on 7.919 MT of Steel products on the basis of the private document dated 5.9.1997 wherein duty involved Rs. 28,508/- In the adjud...

Plasto Craft Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(118)ECC509

1. The appellant imported a consignment of medium density polythylene at Calcutta Port and sought its clearance after assessment to customs duty based on the purchase price of US $ 460 PMT. The Customs authorities found that same goods had been imported at a higher value of US $ 725 PMT. Based on this and other evidence, the consignment imported by the appellant was ordered to be assessed at the higher value at which comparable goods were imported. The consignment was also confiscated on the charge of mis-declaration of value.2. The grievance of the appellant is that the appellant was not provided with a copy of the bill of entry and connected documents like invoices and packing list under which comparable goods were imported, so as to enable it to effectively answer the charge. Bills of entry and other documents relied upon for enhancing the value are not produced before us also.3. It is necessary that full particulars of the purportedly comparable goods which were imported earlier s...

Cce Vs. Asp Sealing Products Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(118)ECC198

1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order where confiscation of unaccounted goods was set aside.2. The admitted facts of the case are that 48 items were found in the factory in fully packed and ready to dispatch condition. The adjudicating authority ordered the confiscation of unaccounted goods under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules and imposed redemption fine of Rs. 1 lakh and penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. On appeal filed by the appellants, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of confiscation on the ground that the revenue has not proved the charge of clandestine removal regarding goods found in finishing room.However, confirmed the finding that the goods in question arc not entered in the RG I record and reduced the penalty to Rs. 10,000/-.3. The contention of revenue is that as per the proviso to Rule 25 of Central excise Rules, the manufacturer who does not account for excisable goods produced or manufactured or stored, then such goods are liable for confisca...

Olympic Zipper Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)11STJ18CESTATNew(Delhi)

2. The appeal is directed against service tax demand of Rs. 1.5 lakh for the period 2000-02 and imposition of penalty. The demand has been made on the ground that the appellant was rendering service as clearing and forwarding agent to certain parties. The finding in the impugned order may be noted as under: In the instant case the appellants have admitted that they had directed the purchaser to the seller and in lieu of such services they had received commission from them. In the light of above rulings, case laws and facts of the case, the relationship between the appellant and the persons/parties from whom they received commission for providing the said services, is definitely in the nature of principal and agent. Accordingly, the services rendered by the appellants fall under the category of services rendered by 'clearing and forwarding agent' and these services are liable to tax. The plea put forth by the appellant that there was an agreement between Prabhat Zarda Factory and Patna...

Kissan Sahkari Chini Mills Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The Service tax demand is for the period 1997-98. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that delayed demands issued in 2004 are not sustainable in the light of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of BPL Engineering Ltd. v. CST, Bangalore 2006 (3) S.T.R.747 (Tri-Bang).3. The learned SDR contends that, in the light of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. v.Union of India 2006 (3) S.T.R. 608 (S.C.) : 2005 (182) E.L.T. 33 (S.C.), recoveries of Service Tax relating to 1997-98 are assessable by issue of show cause notice in 2004.4. A perusal of the Tribunal's judgment in the case of BPL Engineering (supra) makes it clear that the demand issued in 2004 is not sustainable. We may read Para 2 of the judgment: 2. Revenue proceeded to recover Service Tax of Rs. 27,782/- and penalty of Rs. 1000/- for every day during failure to pay service tax under Section 76 of Finance Act, 1994, on the ground that the appellants were rec...

Mrs. Jasbir Kaur W/O Late Sh. Manjeet Singh and ors. Vs. Sh. Rakesh Ku ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2007)ACC68; 138(2007)DLT743

V.B. Gupta, J.1. Present appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned judgment dated 11th December, 1996 passed in suit No. 614/1992 by Sh.Rakesh Kapur, Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi, wherein a sum of Rs. 2,65,200/- was awarded to the appellants on account of death of Manjeet Singh in a road accident.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 6th October, 1992 at about 9.00 a.m. deceased Manjeet Singh was driving two wheeler scooter No. DDM-335 and when he reached the round about at Rama Road, Patel Road, a DTC bus No. DHP-3915 plying at route No. 820, came from behind at a very fast speed. This bus first of all hit a three wheeler scooter which over-turned and thereafter the said bus hit the scooter of the deceased. The scooter of the deceased was completely crushed and deceased died at the spot.3. The factum of accident and the fact that respondent No. 1 was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner are not in dispute. The only question raised in the ...

Reach Cable Networks Ltd. Vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]299ITR316(Delhi)

ORDER1. The petitioner has challenged the notice dt. 3rd March, 2006 issued by the Revenue requiring the preparation of a true and correct return of income of the asst. yrs. 2000-01 to 2004-05. Subsequent thereto, notice dt. 4th Sept, 2006 under Section 142(1) of the IT Act (IT Act) has also been issued. The prayer is that the entire action of the Revenue, being contrary to law, should be set aside. The petitioner had also approached this Court in WP(C) No. 18110 of 2006 which was disposed of by orders dt. 12th Dec, 2006 inter aha directing the petitioner to fully participate in the assessment proceedings. At that stage the petitioner's grievance was that while dealing with its objections, by orders dt. 13th Oct., 2006, the Dy. Director of IT Acting for the Revenue had observed that documents on which reliance was to be placed by the Department would, if found necessary, be disclosed to the petitioner. This Court had relied on the following passage from Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. ...

Shyam Sunder Aggarwal Vs. Globe Detective Agency (P) Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2007(113)FLR402]; (2007)IIILLJ52Del

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the award dated October 11, 2002 passed by learned Labour Court-X, Karkardooma Court, Delhi whereby the Labour Court held that the petitioner was guilty of willful insubordination, disobedience of the employer's order which was a serious misconduct under Industrial law and the punishment of dismissal awarded to him from service on refusal to abide by the transfer orders passed by the management was not shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct.2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner was appointed by the respondent as Office Assistant in May, 1974 on a salary of Rs. 350 per month. Thereafter the petitioner continued getting annual increments and promotions. The petitioner was promoted as Commercial Executive with increased salary of Rs. 1625 per month in May, 1987 and after promoting him as commercial executive he was transferred from Delhi to Visakhapatnam office vide letter dated May 11, 1987. Th...

Hirdayapal Singh Vs. Dda

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(94)DRJ741

S. Muralidhar, J.1. The petitioner registered himself with the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) under the New Pattern Registration Scheme 1979 for allotment of an MIG flat. The petitioner at the time of registration gave his address as 1970/26, Bhagwati Street, Chowk Baba Sahib, Amritsar.2. In 1993 the petitioner changed his residence to 81, Power Colony, Majitha Road, Amritsar and sent a letter dated 4.11.1993 to the DDA informing it of the change of address. The petitioner in the same letter dated 4.11.1993 also indicated his permanent address, which was that of his parent's at 6- Sarhadi Complex, Dolly Appartment, Oppsite Canal Office, Railway Road, Amritsar-143001.3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's allotment matured sometime in the year 1999-2000. It is the case of the Delhi Development Authority that the allotment letter was sent to his changed address at 81, Power Colony, Majitha Road, Amritsar and that the said allotment letter was received back undelivered. The DDA ...

Rotarian Sidheshwar Dayal and ors. Vs. Rotarian U.N. Maira and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(1)ARBLR298(Delhi); 2007(94)DRJ155

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. Petitioners are members of the Rotary Club of Delhi, Rotary District 3010, comprising of Rotary Clubs in Delhi, parts of U.P and Haryana. Respondent No. 1 Shri U.N. Maira was, at the time of filing of the arbitration application the President and Respondent No. 2, Shri Pulin Trivedi, was the Hon. Secretary of Rotary Club of Delhi.2. Petitioners have filed the aforementioned Arbitration Application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the appointment of an Arbitrator. Petitioners claim that their request for appointment of an arbitrator made on 25.4.2006 was rejected by the Secretary of the Rotary Club Delhi, i.e., Respondent No. 2 herein, vide his letter dated 11th May 2006.3. The dispute relates to the election to the office of President Elect of the Rotary Club of Delhi for the year 2006-07. The petitioners claim that when the nomination process for the Elections to the office of President Elect of the club for 2006-2007 was afoot, ...