Delhi Court March 2007 Judgments

Cosmos Flight Ltd. and ors. Vs. the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)149PLR16

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal on 15.02.2007 whereby the interim order dated 15.10.2004, which was subsequently confirmed on 13.01.2005, was vacated.2. The impugned order has been passed because an application had been moved by the respondent /bank for vacation of the said interim order. The application had been moved by the respondent/ bank in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Tran score v. Union of India and Anr. : AIR2007SC712 , wherein the Supreme Court held that proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 as well as under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 could be initiated and continued simultaneously. In the present case the bank had already initiated proceedings under the 1993 Act and during the pendency of these proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tr...

Cce Vs. Oswal Industries (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(117)ECC458

1. The Revenue has preferred this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent that it has set aside the penalty, which was imposed by the original authority against the respondent.2. It appears from the record, that during the scrutiny of the returns of the noticee that it had not paid a duty amount of Rs. 1,21,162/- on clearances of 13,328.30 Kgs. of knitted acrylic fabrics to their buyers other than the defence. The Revenue, therefore, alleged that there was contravention of Rules 9, 173F and 173G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and that penal action under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, read with Section 11AC of the Act was called for.3. The adjudicating authority on the basis of the material on record found that the decision of the Tribunal in Maharashtra Fur Fabrics v.CCE , was reversed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in CCE Mumbai v. Maharashtra Fur Fabrics , in which it was held that the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of the notifi...

Bel India Trade Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(118)ECC444

2. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs whereby the imported goods were confiscated on the ground of mis-declaration or description of goods and allowed to release of the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. Two lakhs and penalty of Rs. 15,000/- was imposed under Section 112 of Customs Act.3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant made import of Eland Bicycle in CKD condition and filed Bill of Entry declaring that the goods were of Ghana origin. On verification, it was found that infact the goods were of Chinese origin. After granting the hearing of the appellant, the Commissioner held that as the appellant misdeclared the description of goods, therefore, contravened the provisions of Section 46(4) of Customs Act.4. The contention of the appellant is that the appellant made import of the goods from Ghana and as per the invoice supplied by the exporter, the goods were shown as Ghana origin and on the basis of ...

indfos Industries Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)11STJ22CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. The appellant is an Engineering Company. It manufactures Hydraulic Service Trolleys (HSTs) in its plant at Noida. The manufacture is in terms of a Long Term Business Agreement with M/s Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). The appellant also undertakes repair, over-haul and maintenance of these HSTs.2. The end user of the above HSTs is the Indian Air Force as these are deployed in military airports for the use of air force aircrafts.3. "Maintenance and repairs services" are liable to service tax. In the present appeals, the appellant contests this levy in regard to the maintenance of HSTs. The ground taken is that revenue authorities have clarified that no Service Tax Registration is required to be taken by a sub-contractor and as main contractors are liable to pay the tax. The contention is that the main contractor in this case is HAL and appellant is a sub-contractor in terms of the clarification.4. The clarifications referred to are to be found in Circular No.B.43/5/97-TRU dated ...

Ginni International Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby refund claim of the appellant was rejected.3. The appellant filed refund claim in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharati v. Union of India whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that provisions of Service Tax in respect of Goods Transport Operators is ultra vires. I find that subsequently the provisions of Service Tax were amended retrospectively by Finance Act 2000. The fact of retrospective amendment of the provisions of the Service Tax is not disputed by the appellant. In these circumstances, I find no infirmity in the impugned order, the appeal is dismissed....

Triveni Engg. and Ind. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(118)ECC497

2. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the remission in respect of loss of molasses which is less than 2%.3. The appellant filed a remission application regarding storage of losses in respect of the molasses for the sugar season 1998-99. The contention of the appellant is that as per the Board's Circular dated 6.2.82 and 18.7.83 losses in sugar industry up to 2% are condonable. In the present case, loss is less than 2% and these losses are due to various reasons such as evaporation & formation of gases, fermentation due to excessive heat during summer and due to spillage as various places. The contention is also that there is no evidence that the molasses in question was cleared without payment of duty, as the molasses cannot be cleared without the permission of State Excise. The appellant relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory (P) Ltd. v. CCECCE v. Rudra Bilas Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills vide Final Order ...

Smt. Meera Devi Wd/O Late Shri Prem Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through t ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. MA No. 434/2006 has been filed for condonation of delay in filing present OA, instituted on 17th January, 2006. Since there had been no serious objections raised by respondents and in view of the fact that it was an extreme case of compassion, finding sufficient cause, MA is allowed and delay is condoned the delay.2. Validity of Show Cause Notice dated 18.05.2002, penalty of removal inflicted vide order dated 28.10.2002, as upheld vide communications dated 21.11.2002 and 17.06.2003 besides communication dated 30.07.2004 rejecting mercy petition, have been challenged in present proceedings.3. Admitted facts are that Shri Prem Kumar was initially appointed in Railways in the year 1977 as Casual Labour. Subsequently he was regularized in the year 1982 as Gangman, promoted as Ticket Collector in 1993 and lastly promoted as T.T.E. in Northern Railway, Moradabad Division. A criminal case No. 1166/86 was registered against him before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Northern Railway, Morada...

Chaman Lal S/O Shri Asha Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through Shri

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. This is a petition alleging that the respondents are guilty of violation of orders of the Tribunal by showing disobedience and, therefore, contempt proceedings are required to be initiated.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to the order passed in OA No. 1377/2005 dated 09.06.2006 and submits that the operative portion of the order was clear that the respondents are to refix the pay of the applicant protecting the pay which he was drawing before medical decategorisation and treating the amount in excess of the maximum of the grade in the lower pay scale of the alternative post as personal pay. The allegation is that the proceedings issued on 8.1.2007 consequent to the order, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure CR-2, clearly overlooked the directions. It has been indicated in the above notice that the pay to be refixed was Rs. 270/- plus Rs. 8/- as personal pay on 23.11.1984. It has also been indicated that the pay after 1.1.1986 will be issued as a matter of course.3....

Kamdhenu Ispat Limited Vs. Kamdhenu Industrial Service

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2007(2)129; 2007(35)PTC50(Del)

Gita Mittal, J.1. The present suit has been filed by plaintiff alleging violation of its proprietary rights in the trade mark and trade name Kamdhenu by the defendant by dishonest intention and infringement of this registered mark. The suit has been filed by M/s Kamdhenu Ispat Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 through Shri Arvind Gupta, its company secretary who is stated to be its authorised official by resolution of the Board of Directors. The plaintiff has clarified that it is using the trade mark and trade name Kamdhenu since the year 1991. The plaintiff has asserted to be enjoying an established reputation in the market in relation to its goods by this trade mark and trade name in respect of which it has conducted extensive promotional activities as well. The plaintiff has alleged in the plaint that its application for registration of trade mark Kamdhenu was pending in certain categories. The plaintiff has contended that it also employs a unique lettering st...

Modi Rubber Ltd. Vs. Guardian International Corp.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(2)ARBLR133(Delhi); 141(2007)DLT822

Gita Mittal, J.1. This petition raises two very interesting questions which are required to be answered. The first question raised is whether a party can seek interim relief on the ground that the other side has raised a dispute before the Arbitral Tribunal. The second question which has been raised by the respondent is to the effect that on account of sickness of its partner in a joint venture under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, the underlying shareholders agreement between the parties is rendered frustrated and incapable of implementation. Consequently, the petitioner cannot base a petition for prohibitory relief based on a clause in this agreement which prohibited the parties thereto from undertaking any business similar to that of the joint venture during its currency.2. So far as the basic facts are concerned, there is no material dispute and to the extent necessary, they are noticed hereinafter. The petitioner M/s Modi Rubber Ltd., (hereinafter referred ...