Delhi Court April 2007 Judgments

CalvIn Wooding Consulting Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)7STR411

1. This group of ten appeals raises common questions and common contentions have been canvassed by both the sides.2. The Revenue has filed Service Tax Appeal Nos. 169 to 173 of 2005 challenging the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) by which the orders-in-original, to the extent of confirming the demand of Service Tax and imposing penalty on the recipient of service - Grasim Industries Limited, in India, was set-aside. The Original Authority had held that, the recipient of service, Grasim Industries Limited, (hereinafter referred to as 'Grasim'), had contract/work orders. Since the services were received prior to 16.08.2002, even though it (Grasim) may not have been directly liable to pay the Service Tax at that relevant time, as a recipient it was liable, in view of the contract by which it had undertaken the liability to pay the tax which was payable by the service provider. In all these appeals filed by the Revenue, recipient of service, who, according to the Revenue, had underta...

Woolworth (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(117)ECC465

1. The appellant has challenged the order of the Commissioner demanding Customs duty of Rs. 97,28,141/-, CVD amounting to Rs. 76,95,424/- and Special Customs duty to Rs. 13,09,342/- as well as textile cess of Rs. 93,665/- totaling Rs. 1,88,26,572/- and imposing penalties. The Commissioner on the basis of material on record came to a finding that the appellant company failed to install the machines in the bonded area within a period of one year from its importation and, therefore, it had violated the condition of Notification No. 53/97-Cus dated 3.6.97 and was not eligible for any exemption under that Notification.2. It appears from the record that the machineries were imported vide Bill of Entry dated 27.11.97 and at the relevant time, the said Notification admittedly did not prescribe the condition that the machinery should be installed within one year from the date of importation or within the extended period not exceeding 5 years. Such a condition was for the first time introduced ...

Dy. Cit Vs. Kapila Singla

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. The only ground taken by the revenue in this appeal is that the CIT (Appeals) erred in holding that the residential status of the assessee has to be taken as "not ordinarily resident" as against the status of "resident and ordinarily resident" adopted by the assessing officer.2. The appeal arises this way. The assessee is an individual. He is a consultant for pharmaceuticals formulations. He filed a return for the assessment year under consideration declaring income of Rs. 7,77,000.In the return, the assessee claimed that the status was that of a resident. In respect of the interest income of Rs. 3,07,328, he claimed exemption under Section 10(15)(/a) of the Income Tax Act. The interest arose from a fixed deposit in foreign currency. While completing the assessment, the assessing officer rejected the claim for exemption on the following grounds : (a) The assessee has claimed the status of resident, whereas the exemption is available only to an assessee who is a non-resident or "not...

Shubham Security Services Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)10STJ104CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. The learned advocate for the applicant has sent a communication for adjourning the matter on the ground that some information sought for from BSNL has not been received by the appellant. Neither the learned advocate nor the appellant is present. The proceedings of the Court cannot be thwarted by sending such unilateral communication for adjournment.2. We have gone through the records and heard the learned authorised representative for the department. The appellant seeks interim stay of the impugned order demanding service tax of Rs. 3,84,812/- with interest on the footing that the services provided by the appellant were in the nature of security service. The penalty imposed has also been challenged and interim stay sought. The principal contention of the applicant is that the applicant provided only man-power to BSNL.According to the appellant, if any security service was to be provided to BSNL, the same was bound to be only from DGR. It is also contended that the service provided ...

Compex Metal and Chemicals P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(118)ECC128

1. The applicant seeks interim stay of the order of the Commissioner upholding the duty demand of Rs. 2,40,723/- and imposing reduced penalty of Rs. 3,75,502/- as well as ordering differential duty of Rs. 80,585/-.2. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that scrap which was imported was contaminated. Though the bill of entry showed import of 27.300 MT of scrap, 16.649 MT shortage was attributable to concrete, plastic and glass etc. He, therefore, submits that duty demand was not justified and penalty could not be imposed.3. The record discloses that when the goods were imported, no such discrepancy was noticed on examination thereof under the warehousing certificate. The appellant has not produced any evidence to show that soon after the receipt of the imported scrap, they informed the supplier that out of 27.3 MT, more than 16 MT was not iron scrap but was concrete, plastic and glass etc. The segregation of the material which is alleged was not done under any intimation to...

Seema Rani Vs. St. Stephen Hospital

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. The complainant has claimed a sum of Rs. 7,93,397 as compensation for the negligence of doctors of O.P. Hospital in performing open heart surgery resulting in further complications and need for second surgery. 2. On the factual matrix the case of the complainant, who is a 35-year-old young lady, is that she developed some problems like vomiting, breathlessness and other complications on 18.8.1996 and was shown locally to various doctors as well in G.B. Pant Hospital and was finally referred to the O.P. Hospital, where after Ecocardiogram and Doppler study, the consultant Cardiologist Dr. B.B. Chanana, opined that CMV (Closed Mitral Valvotomy) be performed, i.e., open mitral valve without opening the heart, as this procedure would be more effective and less expensive. On depositing Rs. 50,000 the complainant was operated upon but instead of carrying out close mitral valvotomy (CMV) the cardio-specialist of O.P. hospital resorted to open heart surgery an...

Som Nath Vs. Union of India and Others.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Alleging negligence, carelessness and deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps., the complainant has claimed compensation of Rs. 10.00 lacs on account of various operations, he has become completely a disabled person. 2. Facts, which gave rise to this complaint, in brief, are that the complainant in the year 1986 suddenly developed chest pain. He approached AIIMS for by-pass heart surgery. He was admitted on 3.11.1998 for operation. His operation was conducted by Dr. M.L. Sharma and he remained admitted in AIIMS from 3.11.1988 to 13.11.1988. After the said operation, the complainant developed side effect as his left foot was totally swollen and the chest pain increased and the condition became worst. The complainant was again admitted in AIIMS on 15.7.1992 and remained till 21.7.1992. The condition of the complainant did not improve and again on 24.8.1994, the complainant was admitted in AIIMS and remained admitted till 27.8.1994. 3. The complainant appr...

Shivam Overseas, Shri Harjit Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(118)ECC273

1. These appeals have been filed against order-in-original No.22/Commr./2003 dated 26.11.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2. The appellants filed two shipping bills both dated 20.9.1999 under the drawback scheme on behalf of M/s. Oversky Associates, Gurgaon, Haryana to export 24,750 pcs. of viscose/cotton power loom ladies blouses (declared value at Rs. 22,82,281/- FOB) and 11500 pcs. of similar goods (declared value at Rs. 11,46,608/- FOB) respectively.Examination of the consignment was carried out and it was found that the goods were old and used garments of foreign origin. A detailed investigation was carried out. The investigations of the departmental authorities revealed the following facts: (1) H.S. Grewal with one other person came to Jamnagar to study the scope of export readymade garments somewhere in the month of December, 1998. (2) Mr. H.S. Grewal met Mr. Ashfak Ismail Khatri of Jamnagar in STD-PCO near Custo...

V.K. Suri Vs. Dr. Sushma Aggarwal and Another.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Seeking compensation of Rs. 15,00,000 for alleged medical negligence on the part of O.Ps. present complaint has been filed by the complainant as his son Master Chintu has been declared physically handicapped on account of failure of O.Ps. to diagnose the problem prior to his birth or afterwards. 2. Brief facts leading to the present complaint are that the son of the complainant was born on 16.6.1992 at the Shubham Hospital, DD-15, Kalkaji, New Delhi and the delivery case was also handled by Dr. Sushma Agarwal. The post-natal treatment was given by Dr. Arun Gupta, Neonatal and Child Specialist, Consultant at Shubham Hospital. 3. Dr. Sushma Agarwal and Dr. Arun Gupta, O.Ps. have shown gross negligence in performing their legitimate duties toward the child as they could not diagnose any problem prior to the birth of the child or during the birth and exact problem during the post-birth care and kept the child on tonics and vaccinations. The child was under...

Riba Textiles Ltd. and Mr. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(117)ECC451

The appellants have filed appeals and stay petitions in respect of the orders-in-original No. 172/COMMR(AH)/05 dated 31.10.2005 and 15/Commr.(AH)05 dated 31.5.2006. In terms of the impugned order the appellants are required to deposit the following amounts of duties and penalties: 2. The learned Counsel for the appellants pointed out that the appellants are 100% EOU and on the strength of the CT-3 obtained by them, two suppliers have supplied PTY and PFY, in terms of Notification No. 1/95 which enables a 100% EOU to receive goods from other 100% EOUs without payment of duty on execution of a bond with the proper authority. The learned Counsel pointed out that they had actually received the entire goods and there is ample evidence for the same.However, the departmental Inspector/Superintendent later on have stated that they simply signed on the documents and have disowned the fact of the verification of the goods. The learned Counsel urges that the case of the department is that these ...