Delhi Court April 2007 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
H.K. Associates Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2007
Reported in: (2007)9STJ141CESTATNew(Delhi)
1. Heard both sides. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 60,10,268/- and penalty of equal amount. The contention of appellant is that they are receiving commission of 2% in respect of sale proceeds from M/s Kandhari Bevewrages Pvt Ltd as applicants were collecting the sale proceeds and they are also doing advertisement for the products of Kandhari Beverages. The contention is that the consolidated amount has been shown as advertisement and sales promotion expenses in the account books of Kandhari Beverages and the Revenue is of the view that this amount is in respect of advertisement made by the appellants. The contention is that they are only spending 10% to 20% of the total amount received as commission on advertisement. The contention is that part of the amount which they have received as commission, is not liable for of service tax. Therefore, demand is not sustainable.2. The Revenue contended that as per the case of applicant, they...
S.J. Enterprises Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2007
Reported in: (2007)9STJ144CESTATNew(Delhi)
1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax. The applicant has already deposited 50% of the amount of confirmed demand. The demand is confirmed by treating the applicant as Cargo Handling Service Provider. The contention of the appellant is that they are only providing labour to the manufacturer and the work of loading and unloading is being done by the manufacturer with their machines. Therefore, the appellants are not providing any service, which attracts service tax. The appellant relied upon the decision in the case of J.J. Enterprises v. CCE Raipur reported in 2006 (3) STR 655 to submit that where the assessee was not owner of the machines which are used for loading and unloading, their role being limited to supply of manpower, they are not rendering cargo handling service and were not liable to tax as such.2. In view of the decision of Tribunal, the amount already deposited is sufficient for hearing the appeals. The pre-deposit of remaining a...
Autoline India Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2007
Reported in: (2007)(118)ECC243
2. The duty demand has arisen on account of two disputes - one that the goods sold to the DTA unit of the appellant EOU had been under-valued.The duty demand on this count is Rs. 72 lakhs. The second is that the private record of the recipient DTA unit showed excess receipts than the clearances shown in the statutory record of the EOU. The duty demand on this count is Rs 14 lakhs.3. The explanation of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant on the issue of valuation is that the goods cleared to the DTA unit had been correctly valued in as much as the sale price (assessable value) to the DTA unit was the same as the export price of identical goods. It is also being pointed out that identical/similar goods were being imported into India at around the same price. In this factual situation, the learned Senior Counsel would contend that the finding regarding under-valuation is not sustainable at all. He would also point out that the valuation practice of the assessee was in conformity...
Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2007
Reported in: (2007)11STJ12CESTATNew(Delhi)
1. Appellant Bharat Aluminium Company is engaged in the manufacture of aluminium products. The sale of its products are carried out partly through consignment agents. In terms of the agreement between Bharat Aluminium Company and its consignment agents, goods are sent to the agent who clears them, warehouses them and sells them.2. Under a show cause notice dated 2.7.2002, the appellant was called upon to show cause as to why service tax of about Rs. 3.4 crores should not be paid in relation to service rendered by the agents. The allegation was that consignment agents were clearing and forwarding agents. The period of demand was 16.7.1997 to 31.8.1999. The notice alleged that in regard to the service of the agents, the recipient was liable to tax in terms of Rule 21(d).3. The appellant contested the demand and contended that the service of a consignment agent did not fall in the category of clearing and forwarding and therefore, the demand under that head was not sustainable. It was al...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hotline International Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2007
Reported in: [2008]296ITR333(Delhi)
V.B. Gupta, J.1. The present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( for short as 'Act') has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order dated 31st March, 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( for short as 'Tribunal' ) in ITA No. 2019/Del/2004 for the assessment year 1985-1986 vide which the appeal of the assessed was allowed.2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessed filed a return declaring loss of Rs. 47,493/- on 29th March, 1996, which was accepted by an order under Section 143(3) of the Act dated 16th January, 1998.3. An information was received from Deputy Director (Investigation), Gurgaon that during the investigation proceedings in the case of Raj Kumar Bhatia, statement of Shri M. Goenka, Proprietor of M/s. M. Goenka and Company was recorded under Section 131 of the Act on 28.01.2000. In his statement, Shri M. Goenka stated that he used to issue bogus bills of sale and purchase of the shares. He further stated that the transactio...
VipIn Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2007
Reported in: 139(2007)DLT470
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Appeal Nos. 468 of 2002 and 196 of 2002 seek to challenge the common judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 127/1999 arising out of F.I.R. No. 908 of 1998, Police Station Dabri whereby the learned Judge vide his judgment dated 15.9.2001 has held the appellants, Vipin Kumar and Ramesh, guilty for the offence under Sections 120-B, 364-A, 302 and 201 IPC. Further, by his order dated 19.9.2001, the learned Judge sentenced both the appellants to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each and in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for one year each; imprisonment for life under Section 364-A IPC with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for one year each; rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 201 IPC with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for nine months each. ...
Peeraswami Vs. State Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2007
Reported in: 139(2007)DLT456; 2007(95)DRJ363
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this common judgment, I shall dispose of above two appeals preferred against the common judgment dated 10.04.2006 passed by learned Special Judge under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short 'the Act') whereby he convicted both the appellants under Section 20 of the Act. Both appellants are husband and wife. Appellant Peeraswami was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months since the quantity allegedly recovered from him was only .035 gms of smack being a small quantity. The learned Special Judge, however, sentenced appellant Chambai to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.1 lac since the alleged recovery of charas made from her was about 5' kg , being commercial quantity.2. Briefly, facts relevant for purpose of deciding these two appeals are that Sub Inspector Raj Kumar, posted in Special Staff South Delhi, received a secret information through a secret informer that Peeraswami and his wife Chambai used to de...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Eqbal Singh Sindhana
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2007
Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Del)341; [2008]304ITR177(Delhi)
V.B. Gupta, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 13th July, 2006 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short as 'Tribunal') in ITA No. 3259/Del/2004 relevant for the assessment year 2001-02, the Revenue has filed the present appeal.2. The brief facts are that assessed filed his return of income on 31st October, 2001 which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short as 'Act') on 31st October, 2002. Thereafter, the return was taken up for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 25th October, 2002 by registered post at the address given in the return of income i.e. B-226, Vivek Vihar, Delhi. The said notice was returned undelivered by the Postal Authorities with the remarks that 'Plot No. - 226 does not exists.'3. Thereafter, another notice was served under Section 143(2) of the Act on 14th November, 2002 and the assessment was completed on a total income of Rs. 56,70,560/- by order dated 4th March, 2004 passed under Sectio...
Ghanshyam Singh Vs. C.E.O. Bses Power Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2007
Reported in: 149(2008)DLT578; [2008(118)FLR53]; 2009(1)SLJ437(Delhi)
Rekha Sharma, J.1. The petitioner was working as Assistant Engineer in the erstwhile Delhi Vidhyut Board (DVB). In the year 1998 he faced a departmental enquiry. We need not go into the charges or the report of the Enquiry officer. They are not material so far as the present order is concerned. What, however, needs to be noticed is that the Enquiry Officer exonerated him of all the charges but not the Disciplinary Authority which found the order of the Enquiry Officer unsustainable and not only returned a finding of guilt against the petitioner but also imposed upon him the penalty of 'reduction by three stages for a period of three years with further stipulation that during the period of reduction he will earn increments of pay and on expiry of this period reduction will not have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay.' 2. It is alleged that the Disciplinary Authority before reversing the finding of the Enquiry Officer neither gave a copy of the Enquiry report to the pe...
Ankoo Kohli S/O Late Sri Inderjit Kohli Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2007
Reported in: 2007(218)ELT356(Del)
V.B. Gupta, J.1. Present appeal has been filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the order dated 25th July, 2003 passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal( for short as Tribunal) in Appeal No. C/509/2002 NBC.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 28th October, 1999, the officers of Custom Department conducted a search of the godown belonging to the Appellant and Ball Bearings of foreign origin worth Rs. 1,11,76,250/- were recovered. Since the Appellant could not produce proof in respect of the lawful import/possession of the Ball Bearings, the same were taken into possession. In his statement, the Appellant stated that these Ball Bearings belonged to one Mr.Ram Niwas who sent them through transport company and gave the telephone number of the transport company. Enquiries were made from Ram Niwas who denied any relation with the Appellant. Further, enquiry was also made from the transporter who also denied that any consignment was delivered to the...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »