Delhi Court April 2007 Judgments

Sepco Electric Power Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)8STT327

2. Service Tax demand is in regard to the construction of a power project. The finding is that drawing, design etc. portion of that contract will be taxable as "engineering consultancy'.3. The contention of the Id. Counsel for the appellant is that this issue had arisen before this Tribunal in the cases of Daelim Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara and harsen & Toubro Ltd. v. CCE and the Tribunal held that a works contract cannot be subjected to Service tax as engineering consultancy. It is also being pointed out that the decision in the case of Daelim Industrial Co. Ltd. remains confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.4. Another submission is that, as such contracts, do not attract Service tax under the existing provisions, a fresh provision has been introduced in the current Finance Bill, 2007 to expand the scope of the levy.5. The Id. SDR would point out that this Tribunal has held in the case of Indian Farmers Fertilizer Co-op. Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut 20...

Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(119)ECC299

1. The appellant Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. is engaged in the manufacture of sugar in its sugar mill. Under an agreement dated 28th September 2001 with Indo Gulf Industries Ltd., it took over the management of the sugar mill of the latter at Maizapur. Central Excise Authorities treated the above agreement as a Management Consultancy agreement and demanded the service tax. The present appeal challenges that demand as well as the penalty imposed for failure to pay the said tax.2. The contention of the appellant is that the agreement was not a Consultancy Agreement but a Management Agreement and the revenue authorities are in error in treating the agreement as a Consultancy Agreement. It is also being pointed out that this Tribunal dealt with a similar case in its decision in the case of Rolls Royce Industries Power (I) Ltd. v. CCE, Vishakhapatnam and held that Service Tax as consultant is not attracted to a case where, under a contract, the operation and management of an industrial unit...

Ajanta Color Lab 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 adjudication order passed by the adjudication authority was challenged by the applicant as well as by the Revenue. In the appeal filed by the applicant, the adjudicating authority upheld the adjudication order. This order is challenged before the Tribunal vide stay order dated 4.10.2006 held that the amount already deposited was sufficient for hearing of the appeal. In the appeal filed by the Revenue, the Commissioner (Appeals), in the revisionary provisions enhanced the amount of penalties. In view of the earlier stay order passed by the Tribunal, the pre-deposit of penalty is waived for hearing of the appeal. The Registry is directed to list this appeal along with Appeal No. ST/345-346/2006....

Cce Vs. Chandan Chemicals

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)10STJ43CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. The respondent sells Glycerin, Nickel catalyst, Aroma chemicals & Perfumery compound manufactured by Hindustan lever Ltd. at Varanasi.The sale is under an agreement dated September 2001. The agreement describes the appellant as a "commission agent". The basic arrangement is that Hindustan Lever Ltd. would despatch the said products to the commission agent, he would clear the consignments, store them in his godown and sell them at prices indicated by M/s Hindustan Lever Ltd. The sale proceeds are remitted to Hindustan Lever Ltd on a weekly basis, after keeping the agents commission.2. Under the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the service tax demand of about Rs. 19,000.00 made on the respondent agent.The demand had been made by treating it as a "clearing and forwarding agent". The Commissioner set aside that finding and held that a commission agent came within the scope of "Business Auxiliary Services", another service subject to service tax during the relevant p...

Shri Brij Bhushan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The present RA has been filed by the review applicant seeking review of our order dated 14.2.2007 passed in OA 1878 of 2003.2. In the RA, the applicant has prayed for a direction to call for the answer books of the applicant and investigate into the manipulations done by respondents No. 6 and 7 in the evaluation of the answer books of the applicant of SAS Part-II Examination held in November-December, 2002. We have dealt with all the issues raised in the RA in detail in the OA. As such, applicant is estopped from raising this issue in the RA. By means of this RA, applicant wants to re-agitate the whole case again, which is not permissible.3. We have perused the relevant record and order dated 14.2.2007 and do not find any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record nor is there discovery of new and important material. No new evidence has been produced in this review application even after exercise of the due diligence. If the review applicant is not satisfied with the order...

U.C. Tewari S/O Late Shri J.D. Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant by virtue of this OA has assailed respondents' order dated 3.3.2005 whereby his request for promotion as Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Grade-I (RPFC) against the vacancies for the year 1997-98 on review has not been found to be meritorious.2. At the outset, learned Counsel of applicant states that applicant was promoted as RPFC Grade-I on ad hoc basis on 5.7.1995. One Shri R.K.Kureel, junior to applicant, was promoted as RPFC Grade-I w.e.f.9.12.1996.3. Representation of applicant for expunction of adverse remarks for the year 1990-1991 though acceded to, on a review DPC his claim was not found meritorious by the review DPC on the ground that whereas benchmark for promotion was 'very good', applicant fell short of that benchmark. In this regard, learned Counsel has relied upon respondents' order dated 1.10.2003 wherein it is provided that when adverse remarks are below benchmark, the same may invariably be communicated to the concerned. A communication dated 22.4.19...

Bahadur Singh S/O Shri Om Prakash Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Throu ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The present RA has been filed by the review applicant seeking review of our order dated 19.2.2007 passed in OA 1475 of 2005.2. In the RA, the applicant has again prayed for a direction to quash the impugned orders dated 15.4.2002, 5.12.2003 and 3.5.2005. We have dealt with all the issues raised in the RA in detail in the OA. As such, applicant is estopped from raising this issue in the RA. By means of this RA, applicant wants to re-agitate the whole case again, which is not permissible.3. We have perused the relevant record and order dated 24.1..2007 and do not find any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record nor is there discovery of new and important material. No new evidence has been produced in this review application even after exercise of the due diligence. If the review applicant is not satisfied with the order passed by the Tribunal, remedy lies elsewhere. The Apex Court in Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das 13. The Tribunal passed the impugned order by reviewin...

Sh. Bharat Hegde Vs. Smt. Saroj Hegde

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 140(2007)DLT16; I(2007)DMC815; 2007(96)DRJ110

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. I do not intend to catalog the various decisions under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955. It would be sufficient for me to note the judicial principles required to be applied while deciding an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955. 2. Since the Section relates to entitlement of the appellant spouse to receive interim maintenance from the non-applicant spouse, it is obvious that the focus of enquiry has to be the means of the applicant spouse to maintain him/her self as also the financial means of the non-applicant spouse. The issue of conduct or misconduct of either spouse is irrelevant for the reason, in every proceedings for divorce, dissolution or judicial separation, there is bound to be some allegations or the other pertaining to matrimonial misconduct. Thus, if conduct or misconduct were to be considered, no spouse would get any interim maintenance under Section 24. 3. The Section contemplates a summary enquiry and not a trial...

Rajinder Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 148(2008)DLT502; 2007(95)DRJ638

J.P. Singh, J. 1. In this Petition it is prayed that a Writ, Order and/or direction in the nature of Certiorari be issued for quashing the Notification dated 25.11.1980 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act bearing No. F-9(16)/80/L&B; and Declaration dated 18.6.1985 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act bearing No. F-9(28)/85/L&B; and for quashing the Award bearing No. 10/87-88 in respect of land measuring 15 bighas 16 bids was in Village Satbari and to restore possession/reverse revenue entry in the records. 2. We have heard Sh.Ravi Gupta, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned Counsel for the Respondents.3. Perusal of the order-sheet dated 22.9.1994 indicates that the matter was to be heard with another batch of Petitions. Rule DB was issued. The Registry put up a note that a batch of Petitions for quashing the same Notifications and the Award was dismissed and thereforee the matter was fixed for hearing but none appeared on behalf of the petiti...

Shri Ajit Singh Vs. Smt. Prakashi Devi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 142(2007)DLT249

J.M. Malik, J.1. In this case the mother, Smt. Prakashi Devi, respondent herein, has crossed swords against her son Shri Ajit Singh, the appellant herein. The facts of this case are these. The plaintiff/respondent had filed a suit for possession and recovery of damages/mesne profits in respect of property No. P 7D, Narela, Delhi. In the suit it was averred that the plaintiff/respondent is the owner of the said property which was given to her by her father. The defendant/appellant was in possession of four rooms on the ground floor as a licensee. The respondent terminated the license of the appellant vide legal notice dated 16th April, 2001 and required the appellant to vacate the suit premises. The respondent had also claimed mesne profit for use and occupation of the suit property at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month from March 2001 till she got the actual possession of the suit premises. 2. The defendant/appellant defended the above-said suit. He enumerated the following defenses in ...