Delhi Court March 2007 Judgments

Smt. Tulika Mishra Vs. Jcit, Spl. Range-23

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These cross-appeals, preferred by the assessee as well as the Revenue, are directed against the order of learned CIT (A) dated 2-1-2003 relating to the block period ending on 21-1-1997.2. S/Shri S.K. Garg and Shri Sanjay Kumar appeared on behalf of the assessee whereas Shri Rajnish Kumar CIT DR represented the Revenue.3. At the time of hearing the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that preliminary legal issue raised in ground No. 2 should be considered first. The learned CIT DR also agreed for considering the preliminary ground first. Hence, we have heard the parties on ground No. 2 which is as under: Because the mandatory requirement of issuing notice under Section 143(2) having not been complied with, even though the appellant had duly filed the return in compliance with notice under Section 158 BC, the block assessment order is liable to be declared as null and void and the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law in holding that non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2...

Ram NaraIn Vs. Management of Delhi State Civil Supplies Corporation Lt ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2007(113)FLR771]

Rekha Sharma, J.1. Ram Narain was employed with Delhi State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited as Assistant Grade III purely on daily wage basis but against a vacant post. He continued as such till November 8, 1994 when his services were terminated without assigning any reason. Feeling aggrieved, he raised an Industrial Dispute which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication with the following terms of reference:Whether the termination of services of Shri Ram Narain is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect2. The Management raised a preliminary objection before the Labour Court that it was not an industry and consequently Ram Narain was not a workman in terms of Section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. thereforee the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the reference. On merits, the Management submitted that Ram Narain was employed purely as a casual labour on daily wage. He agreed...

Indian Institute of Planning Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008[9]STR225

ORDER1. In the present matter a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioners. Avowedly, the language employed in the show cause notice appears to convey that a decision has already been arrived at by the Respondents that the Petitioners are exigible to payment of service tax. Our attention has been drawn to para 10 of the Counter Affidavit which states that there is no procedure/mechanism under the Finance Act, 1994 which requires issuance of a show cause notice to a person prior to determination as to whether it is liable to payment of service tax. However, the subsequent paragraph 13 clarifies that the person to whom a show cause has been issued would have the right to make complete representation on all points including whether it is exigible to service tax. Mr. Nag, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent confirms that the Petitioners shall have complete liberty in making submissions to the above effect. A speaking order shall be passed on this very question prior or s...

Marina World Shipping Coporation Limited Vs. Jindal Exports Private Li ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(3)ARBLR46(Delhi)

ORDERED THAT1. The Claimant has permission under Section 26 of the Arbitration Act 1950 to enforce an arbitration award between the parties made on 26th September 2000 by Andreas Savva Christofides as sole arbitrator, and relating to a charterparty between the parties dated 5th November 1994, in the same manner as a judgment or order of the Court.20. The sum and substance of the submissions of the learned Counsel for the judgment debtor is that the said Act is a complete Code in itself and enforcement of any award must be in terms of the said Act alone. In this behalf it may be noticed that Part-II of the said Act deals with enforcement of certain foreign awards. Foreign awards have been defined in Section 44 of the said Act which reads as under:44 Definition. - In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires, 'foreign award' means an arbitral award on differences between persons arising out of legal relationships, whether contractual or not, considered as commercial under the l...

Apex Color Lab Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)10STJ27CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. The issue involved in this application is a narrow compass and therefore after granting stay the hearing of the appeal is taken up for disposal. Heard both sides and perused the records.2. The learned Advocate on behalf of the applicant submits that the Commissioner passed the order without giving any opportunity of personal hearing.3. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, it is revealed from the impugned order that a show cause notice dated 21.11.2006 was issued by the Commissioner. It appears from the impugned order that the appellant vide reply dated 23.11.2006 received on 24.11.2006 requested to finalise the proceedings under amnesty scheme.The learned Advocate submits that they have not given any opportunity of personal hearing at any point of time. There is no reference in the impugned order that the appellant was given any opportunity of personal hearing. As such, the impugned order is set-aside and matter is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) ...

Kay Gee Fotomax Color Lab. Pvt. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(119)ECC305

1. Common issue involves in these applications and therefore, the same are taken up for hearing together for the purpose of disposal.2. In both the cases, the Commissioner of Central Excise reviewed the adjudication order and imposed penalty of equal amount of tax. The learned Advocate on behalf of the applicants submits that the impugned orders were passed without affording opportunity of personal hearing.3. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, it is revealed from the impugned order that a show cause notice alongwith personal hearing was issued to the appellant. The appellant sent a reply to show cause notice and requested to fix the personal hearing after two weeks. It is further revealed from the impugned order that the Commissioner has not given any further opportunity of personal hearing and decided the case ex-parte. As such, both the impugned orders are set-aside and matters are remanded back to the Commissioner to decide the case after giving an opportun...

Y.S. Enterprises Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(120)ECC102

2. The facts leading to the dispute are that the appellant imported two consignments of "rejected stock lot of Raxine in Rolls" in October and November, 2004. The transaction value mentioned in the invoices was US $ 30 per kg. However, Customs authorities assessed the consignments to duty after enhancing the value by 25%. Similarly, in October 2004, the appellant imported a consignment 'Mini Walkman. The transaction value according to the invoice was US $ 0.32 per piece. This consignment was assessed and subjected to customs duty at the enhanced value of US $ 0.395 per piece.3. The appeals were filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) challenging the enhancement of value. The Commissioner rejected the appeals with the following observations: In all the appeals, the issue involved is that appellants have imported goods against contract and have filed bills of entry with transacted value. The department loaded the value which was duly accepted by the appellant and duty on the enhanced va...

Shri Virender Kumar Mehta S/O Late Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through It ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicants, three in number and working as Private Secretary, have assailed an order passed by the respondents on 4.8.2005 in pursuance of the directions of this Tribunal in OA-933/2005 dated 6.5.2005 whereby promotion of the applicant therein as Administrative Officer (AO) has been advanced.2. To better understand the controversy, brief factual matrix of the case is relevant to be highlighted, which transpires that Bylaw-1 governing the conditions of service of the employees in ICMR provides that all matters concerning the service conditions of employees of the Council, Fundamental Supplementary Rules framed by the Government of India and such other Rules and orders made by the Government of India from time to time shall mutatis mutandis apply to the employees of the Council provided that such orders, who are not specifically made applicable to autonomous organization, like ICMR, should not apply.Accordingly, certain documents during the course of hearing have been produced by the...

Ms. Kanchan Kapoor and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. It is trite that the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal has no authority in law to over-rule the decision of another coordinate Bench.It is also trite that a direction issued by the Tribunal when attained finality has to be implemented by the respondents in its true letter and spirit.2. Keeping in mind the above two principles of law, a brief factual matrix of the OA is relevant to be highlighted, which transpires that applicants were initially engaged as Casual Production Assistants on contract basis during the year 1987 and 1990. Persistent requests of applicants to regularize their services as Production Assistants when not acceded to and in the meanwhile the posts of Production Assistant were re-designated as Transmission Executives (TREX) in All India Radio (AIR), OA-822/1991 filed by the Tribunal in Suresh Sharma and Ors. v.Union of India, decided on 18.9.1992, pertaining to the Production Assistants, seeking regularization taking cognizance of approved scheme prepared by the r...

Ram Lal Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Its

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant, a Head Constable (Ministerial) in Delhi Police, impugns respondents' order dated 29.12.2004, whereby his grievance regarding non-posting of ministerial staff to perform executive duties has been turned down. By virtue of this OA he seeks a mandate not to deploy ministerial staff on executive/law and order duties and also a direction to pay damages.2. Insofar as damages are concerned, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to award compensation as damages. Accordingly, relief No. 8.2 is misconceived and is not maintainable.3. A brief history leading to the present controversy transpires that before Delhi Police Act, 1978 had come into being, Police Act, 1861 and Punjab Police Rules, 1934 were in vogue, according to which, Inspector General of Police under Section 12 was competent to make Rules under the Punjab Police Rules. 3 cadres have been carved out, i.e., executive, ministerial and technical, where recruitment rules, qualifications and training were different and also the...