Delhi Court March 2007 Judgments

Kamal Auto Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)12STT66

2. The dispute is whether cost of engine oil used during servicing of two wheelers is required to be excluded while valuing the cost of service for the purpose of service tax. The contention is that exclusion in such a situation is specifically provided under Section 67(iii).3. Prima facie, there is merit in the appellant's contention. The stay application is allowed and requirement of pre-deposit is waived till disposal of the appeal....

Parijat Paper Mills Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)10STT485

2. The service tax demand is on the basis that the appellant is a clearing and forwarding agent.3. It is being pointed out that the appellant is a mere commission agent and did not perform any clearing or forwarding service. The submission is that it remains settled by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai as reported in 2006 (3) S.T.R. 321 (Tri. - LB) that a mere commission agent is not liable to pay service tax, as it is not rendering clearing and forwarding service.4. There is no material on record which indicates that the activity of clearing and forwarding of goods is undertaken by the appellant. In this factual situation, service tax demand is not sustainable in the light of our decision in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. 5. The appeal succeeds and allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellant....

Kamal and Company Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)8STR31

1. The dispute is about Service Tax on free service provided to automobiles. The submission is that the appellant rendered this service as a part of the free 'after sale service' and it receives no payment towards the service from any party. It is being pointed out that wherever payment is received for service, tax is being paid. The contention in regard to free service is that it remains included in the sale price of the vehicle and therefore, cannot be taxed again.2. Prima facie, there is merit in the appellant's contention. The stay application is allowed and requirement of pre-deposit is waived till disposal of the appeal....

Dr. S.K. Chugh S/O Shri Dharamvir Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. An order passed by the respondents on 20.6.2003, under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), dismissing applicant from service as well as an order passed on 6.12.2005, in pursuance of the directions of the Tribunal dated 31.5.2005 in OA-1008/2004, whereby review petition against the penalty has been turned down, are the subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal.2. A brief factual matrix requires mention. Applicant, who is well qualified in Cardiology, had joined as Assistant Divisional Medical Officer in Railways on 4.12.1986. In the year 1991 he was selected for doing Doctorate in Medicine in Cardiology from All India Institute of Medical Sciences. On sponsorship, a bond of Rs. 75,060/- to serve department for a period of five years had been executed. However, on completion of course, it was learnt that Cardiology department in Central Hospital, which has been proposed, in near future was not to be deve...

Sh. Bhopal Singh Dhaka S/O Sh. Vs. Director of Education, Govt. of

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA the applicant has sought direction to the official respondents to step up his basic pay w.e.f. 01.10.1997, i.e. the date from which his junior was granted a higher basic pay, and to fix his next date of increment accordingly.2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant joined the official respondents as TGT on 06.09.1982, whereas respondent No. 4 joined the official respondents as TGT subsequently, i.e. on 18.02.1983. Both were placed in the scale of pay of Rs. 440-750 at the time of joining. The applicant was straightaway promoted as PGT on 29.10.1992 and subsequently regularized as such on 06.01.1994, whereas respondent No. 4 was promoted as PGT on 13.07.1996 and regularized as such on 14.07.2000. However, in the interregnum, i.e. on 18.02.1995, respondent No. 4 was granted senior scale on completion of 12 years of service. As regards the pay drawn, as on 01.01.1986, the applicant was drawing salary @ Rs. 1520/- p.m. whereas respondent No. 4 was drawing the pa...

Shri Satbir Singh Son of Late Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Shri Satbir Singh, the applicant herein, seeks setting aside of the order dated 06.01.2006 passed by the Senior Administrative Officer by which he has been compulsorily retired and also the order dated 13.09.2006 passed by the Deputy Chief Administrative Officer by which his appeal carried against the aforesaid order has been dismissed.2. The applicant was holding the post of Peon (Group 'D'). He was served with memos with different dates on 25.02.2003, 12.03.2003 and 26.03.2003, respectively by Senior Administrative Officer, the 4th respondent herein. After receiving reply from the applicant and following required procedure, the applicant was compulsorily retired on 06.01.2006, which order as mentioned above, has been upheld by the Appellate Authority. The applicant was proceeded departmentally on the following charges: not intimating the transaction related to purchase of Santro Car by his wife. Bringing the said Santry Car unauthorisedly in the higher security zone of Sena Bhava...

Vimal Anand Gupta, Addl. Deputy Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 applicant seeks issuance of direction to the respondents to give promotion to him in the Junior Administrative Grade II in the scale of pay of Rs. 12000-375-16500 on ad hoc basis from the 29.11.2005 on the same basis on which his colleagues and juniors were promoted with all the consequential benefits of pay and seniority of ad hoc promotion.2. The brief facts, as may be necessary, for deciding a short question involved in the case reveal that the applicant is a Police Officer of Delhi and Andaman Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Daman & Diu and Dadra & Nagar Haveli Police Service (DANIPS, for short). He is serving as Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police in Delhi Police and presently working as Personal Security Officer to the Hon'ble President of India.A Memo dated 06.02.2004 regarding the charge of misconduct was issued against the applicant about an incident which occurr...

Mahesh Kumar and ors. Vs. Directorate of Education and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 140(2007)DLT509; 2007(96)DRJ589

Anil Kumar, J. 1. The petitioners are the students of R.R. College of Pharmacy, respondent No. 3, and they have sought that Directorate of Distance Education, Institute of Advance Studies in Education, respondent No. 1, be approved by Pharmacy Council of India as the examination authority and direct respondent No. 1 to conduct the examination of the petitioners. 2. According to the petitioners, respondent No. 1 is Deemed University recognized by Ministry of Human Resource Development vide notification dated 25th June, 2002, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Secondary and Higher Education in exercise of power conferred under Section 3 of University Grants Commission Act, 1956 declared Institute of Advance Studies in Education of Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Sardarshahar, Rajasthan as a Deemed University. By notification dated 17th July, 2003, respondent No. 1 was deemed to be a University with effect from 25th June, 2002. Respondent No. 1 was conferred the status of Deemed U...

Ahluwalia Contracts (i) Ltd. Vs. Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Spl. ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)213CTR(Del)157

V.B. Gupta, J. 1. Present appeal has been filed by the Appellant under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(for short as Act) challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) dated 16th June, 2006 in ITA No. 3134/Del/2001 for the assessment year 1991-92, dismissing the appeal of the assessed against the levy of penalty ofRs. 7,36,000/- for concealment of income under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessed-company is engaged in the business of construction. A search under Section 132 of the Act in the assessed's premises was conducted on 12th March, 1994. During the search, several documents were seized. One such documents was a photostat copy of two pages of cash book. One page showed the cash receipts from Balbir Singh and other showed the receipt from Ramesh Sindhwani. The receipts from Balbir Singh wereRs. 3,50,000/- in June, 1990,Rs. 14 lacs also in June, 1990 andRs. 7 lacs on 3rd July,...

Smt. Sharda Mahajan Vs. Maple Leaf Trading International (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2007]139CompCas718(Delhi); (2007)2CompLJ455(Del); [2007]78SCL367(Delhi)

Sanjiv Khanna, J. 1. The present petition for winding up under Sections 433(e), 433(f) and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been filed against Maple Leaf Trading International (P) Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent Company), by Smt. Sharda Mahajan, (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner).2. After filing of the present petition notice was directed to be issued to the respondent company vide order dated 3rd December, 2004 for 16th March, 2005. On 16th March, 2005, the respondent company did not enter appearance and this Court passed a detailed order admitting the company petition, inter alia, holding that the petitioner had made payment of Rs. 60,000/- for purchase of gold coins but the said amount has not been repaid inspire of service of notice and there were adverse reports about illegal activities of the respondent company in violation of various statutory provisions. It was also held that the provisions of Section 433 (f) of t...