Delhi Court April 2007 Judgments

Pratik Marbles (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)11STJ20CESTATNew(Delhi)

2. The issue that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the revenue could issue show-cause notice under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 for the recovery of Service Tax not paid during the period 16.11.97 to 1.6.98 in respect of goods transport service.3. The contention of the ld. Counsel for the appellants is that this issue had directly arisen before this Tribunal in the case of L.H.Sugar Factories Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut and the Tribunal held that such recovery is not permissible even in terms of the amendments to Section 73 under Finance Act 2003. It is also being pointed out that this decision was taken up by the Revenue in appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Supreme Court was pleased to dismiss the appeal. The contention of the ld. Counsel is that the issue is no more open in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.4. The ld. SDR would point out that the amendments under Finance Act 2000 and 2003 were the subject mat...

Raaj Khosla and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Common issue is involved in these applications, therefore, are being taken up together.3. The applicant is seeking waiver of pre-deposit of amounts of Service Tax of Rs. 12,06,021/- and Rs. 16,21,633/-. The demand is confirmed after denying the credit in respect of input services. The contention of the applicant is that the major portion of the demand is confirmed on the ground that the address given on the invoices is different from the address which is in the registration certificate issued by the Revenue authorities. The contention is that when this was pointed out to the applicant, the applicant applied for addition of new address in the registration, which was allowed subsequently. The contention is that there is no dispute that the invoices were in the name of the applicant. During arguments, the applicant submitted that they had already deposited amount of Rs. 12,051/- and Rs. 7226/-. The applicant also admitted that the credit of Rs. 37,220/- and Rs. 25,000/- is not admissi...

Rajasthan Textile Mills Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty. The applicant has already deposited an amount of Service Tax and penalty of Rs. One lakh. In these circumstances, the pre-deposit of remaining amount of penalty is waived for hearing of the appeal. The stay petition is allowed as indicated above....

R.C. Saxena, S/O Shri Atal Bihari Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through th ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant, while working as a Technican Grade-I had been compulsorily retired from service by order of Senior Divisional Engineer, 4th respondent herein, vide proceedings dated 6.9.2004. The order all fold, runs as following: After careful consideration of the facts and the findings given by the Enquiry Officer, I have come to the conclusion that Sh. R.C. Saxena who have called the police in the Shed premises without any valid reason resulting the loss of Railway work time and this fact is also accepted by Shri R.C. Saxena during the enquiry. Therefore, the charges imposed on him have been proved. In view of the above, I have come to the conclusion that due to irresponsible act of Sh. R.C. Saxena, I hereby impose the penalty of 'Compulsory Retirement with immediate effect' to Sh. R.C. Saxena, Tech.-I/TRS/TKD, Token No. 476.2. The appeal filed by him had been rejected by order dated 21.03.2005 and the revisional authority also had declined to interfere with the proceedings, as c...

Shri Ram Prakash S/O Late Shri Jeet Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through t ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

a) to allow the application and direct respondents to produce the records; b) to direct the respondents to hold the review DPC for the vacancies of the year 1994 in accordance with the Rules which prevailed in the year 1994, on vacancy base roster and not on post base roster. c) to further direct the respondents to also give all consequential benefits after considering the applicant against the vacancies for the years 1994 and 1995 against the vacancy quota.2. The brief facts of the case are that applicant was appointed as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on 15.6.1971 through the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). He belongs to S.C. category. He was promoted as Section Officer on 29.4.1994 on ad hoc basis. He was considered for regular promotion as Section Officer in Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting and was placed on the select list, issued on 31.7.1998 (Annexure A-1). Subsequently, applicant's name was deleted from this list (without giving him an opportunity to be heard...

Chander Singh Vs. General Manager, Dtc

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 140(2007)DLT32

Hima Kohli, J.1 The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alias for a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 9th February and 19th July, 1996 passed by the respondent removing the petitioner from service and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner to the post of Driver with full back wages.2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was employed with the respondent as a Driver. It is claimed by him that on 16th September, 1995 due to certain emergency, he left for his village in District Rohtak in Haryana and could send his application for leave through UPC only on 17th September, 1995. He joined back in service on 3rd November, 1995. The respondent served the petitioner with a charge sheet dated 6th November, 1995 calling upon him to explain as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for remaining absent from duty unauthorizedly from 17th September to 2nd November, 1995, without prior perm...

D.K. Rastogi Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(95)DRJ660; 2007(217)ELT26(Del)

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The petitioner in these proceedings under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) claims quashing of a criminal complaint filed by the respondent Chief Enforcement Officer, alleging commission of offences under Sections 56 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereafter 'FERA') read with Sub-section 3 and 4 of Section 49 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999.2. The facts necessary to decide the petitions are that M/s. Kudos Exports Pvt. Ltd. (KEPL) had imported worthless material claiming to be computer software from M/s. Ganton Limited, London, of Abhishek Verma arrayed as accused No. 5. The consignment was imported through 13 invoices, of which ten were dated 12.4.1996 and three, dated 25.7.1995; the amounts towards the ten consignments were remitted through Bank of Rajasthan, South Extension., New Delhi. The rest were remitted through Union Bank of India, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi. A total sum of US$ 17,74,000/- were remitted to the account maint...

Cit Vs. Coastal Power Co.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]296ITR433(Delhi)

ORDER1. The revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 30-6-2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A' in ITA Nos. 1914-1918/ Delhi/2001 relevant for the financial years 1994-95 to 1998-99.2. The assessed is a non-resident company and in December, 1997, it had set up a liaison company in India, prior to which it had no presence in India.3. The assessed entered into agreements captioned as 'Consulting Agreement' with several individuals. These agreements were entered into in the USA and one sample agreement is with Anil Kumar Bhatnagar, with which we propose to deal.4. According to the revenue, Anil Kumar Bhatnagar was not a consultant but was an employee of the assessed and, thereforee, payments made to him under the agreement were subject to tax deduction at source under Section 192 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.5. However, the assessed was of the view that since Anil Kumar Bhatnagar was a consultant, tax was liable to be deducted at source under Section 194J of the A...

Neeraj Gupta and ors. Vs. C.B.i.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ380

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The petitioners have challenged an order on charge, made by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate ('the trial Court') on 17.9.12005. They were charged with committing offences punishable under Section 498-A/406, read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code (hereafter called as 'the IPC').2. The first petitioner (hereafter 'the husband') is the son of petitioners No. 2 and 3 and the brother of the fourth Petitioner. The husband got married to the informant, (hereafter variously 'the wife' and 'the complainant') Ms. Juhi Modi, on 3.7.1998. According to the first information report, (FIR) lodged by the informant wife with the police on 11.5.2000, the marriage was preceded by her parents' gifting valuables to the petitioners. When she joined the matrimonial home, the parents in law namely petitioners No. 2 and 3 expressed disappointment with the marriage arrangements and stated that their expectations were unfulfilled. It was alleged that they wanted a Mercedes car, b...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Feather Foam Enterprises P. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]296ITR342(Delhi)

V.B. Gupta, J.1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short as 'Act') has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order dated 13th January, 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( for short as 'Tribunal' ) in ITA No. 224/Del/03 for the Assessment Year 1996-97 whereby the Tribunal has held that no new material has come on record nor any new information has been received by the Assessing Officer and it was only a case of fresh application of mind by the Assessing Officer to the same sets of facts which tantamount to a change of opinion and thereforee, it cannot be the basis for re-opening of a completed assessment and the Tribunal also deleted the additions on merits.2. The brief facts of this case are that the assessed Company is carrying on the business of manufacturing PU foams and its products. The assessed filed its return of income on 30th November, 1996 declaring an income of Rs. 30,93,980/-. However, the assessment was completed under S...