Delhi Court July 2007 Judgments

Bwl Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)9STR568

2. The learned advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of the stay order. He submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) while deciding the stay order has totally ignored the relevant facts of the case. It is his contention that in this case, the freight element was borne by the appellant up to the destination. Such destination of buyer factory gate or buyer premises could be place of removal. He also states that the Commissioner (Appeals) erroneously proceeded on the basis of the place of removal as factory gate.3. The learned D.R. submits that prima facie the case is well covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Gujarat Ambuja Cement v.CCE, Ludhiana 2007 (6) S.T.R. 249 (Tri.) : 2007 (212) E.L.T. 410 (Tri.-Del.).4. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the record, I find that the issue involved falls in a narrow compass and, therefore, I decide the appeal after granting stay. It is seen from th...

J.K. Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In both these appeals, the appellant challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) made on 28-10-2005 upholding the order-in-original by which the Assistant Commissioner has rejected the refund claims of Rs. 8,59,494/- (Service Tax Appeal No. 44/2006) and Rs. 31,16,823/- (Service Tax Appeal No. 45/2006) made by the assessee under Section 11B in respect of the Service tax paid.2. The contention of the appellant was that, the amounts of Service tax were paid under protest in respect of the service of Goods Transport Operators for the period between 16-11-1997 and 2-6-1998, and that the said amounts were not payable since the assessee was not covered by the amendment, because Section 71A was not brought under the net of Section 73. The appellant relies upon the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut , in which reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharati v. Union of India .3...

Arunoday Steel Industries Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(121)ECC326

1. Heard ld. SDR. None appeared on behalf of the appellant in spite of notice.2. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby demand was confirmed in respect of storage tanks on the ground that the same are excisable goods.3. In the appeal memo, the contention of the appellant is that the storage tank in question are of huge capacity i.e. 100-200 K.L. and the same are fabricated at site. The contention is that the storage tanks are not goods as the same were not marketable as such. The tanks in question are fabricated and installed the same become immovable property, therefore, the same cannot be considered as goods liable for Central Excise duty. The appellant relied upon the Board's Circular No.58/1/02 dated 15.1.02 to submit that the board has clarified that such tanks are not excisable goods. The appellant also raised the issue of limitation in the appeal memo.4. The contention of the Revenue is that as per the contract, M.S.tanks was fabricated at site and t...

Suraj Mal, Huf Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)109ITD327(Delhi)

1. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order dated 15-12-2004 of Id. CIT(A), Panchkula for the assessment year 1996-97 on the following grounds: 1. That the appellant denies his liability to be assessed in the status of HUF granted and denies liability to be assessed at total income of Rs. 1,65,100 and accordingly denies his liability to pay tax, interest demanded thereon and Id. CIT(A) has erred in holding the appellant liable to be assessed at the income of Rs. 1,65,100. 2. That having regarding to the facts and circumstances of the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in framing the impugned assessment upon the appellant even though nothing was chargeable to tax upon him. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the Id. CIT(A) has erred to confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in framing the impugned assessment under Section 147 more so when statutory conditions prescribed were not complied wi...

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hotel Marina

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. On account of difference between the learned Accountant Member and the learned Judicial Member of ITAT, 'C' Bench, New Delhi, the following question has been referred to me for consideration Under Section 255(4) of the Income Tax Act: Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation in respect of foreign made car under Section 32(1) proviso of Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the assessee, Hotel Marina, Connaught Place, New Delhi, submitted its return declaring loss of Rs. 89,50,417. In the Profit & Loss account, the assessee had claimed depreciation on imported car which was disallowed with the following observations: The assessee is not in a business of running cars on hire for tourists. As this car is manufactured outside India, in view of clear provision of Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the depreciation claimed on this Mercedes car is not allowable. Therefore, depreciati...

Karnail Singh Vs. Trilok Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008ACJ2540

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. On 22.3.1990, the appellant Karnail Singh aged 4 years sustained serious injuries in a vehicular accident. He is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded to him.2. Total compensation awarded to him is Rs. 2,52,000. Break-up is as under:(a) Expenses incurred on account of C.T. scan Rs. 2,000(b) Transportation expenses Rs. 15,000(c) Special diet Rs. 10,000(d) Mental and physicalpain Rs. 25,000(e) Non-pecuniary loss for deprivation of the amenities and enjoyment of life Rs. 2,00,0003. Since the injured Karnail Singh is in appeal and there are no cross-objections I need not deal with any other issue dealt with by the learned M.A.C.T., save and except, the adequacy of the compensation awarded.4. The date of accident is 22.3.1990. Age of the appellant as on the date of the accident was 4 years.5. On account of injuries sustained by the injured, his right leg was amputated below knee. In addition, he also suffered a deep lacerated wound on the left side of the ...

Gyanti and anr. Vs. Samunder Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008ACJ2492

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. On 22.11.2002 appellant No. 2 Chhaya Bharti sustained serious injuries in a vehicular accident. She is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded to her.2. Total compensation awarded to her is Rs. 1,65,455. Break-up is as under:(a) Medicines, medical treatment, special diet and conveyance Rs. 15,455(b) Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000(c) Loss of enjoyment, amenity and general damages Rs. 1,00,0003. Since the injured Chhaya Bharti is in appeal and there are no cross-objections, I need not deal with any other issue dealt with by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal save and except, the quantum of damages awarded.4. The date of accident is 22.11.2002. Age of appellant No. 2 as on the date of accident was 7 years.5. The period during which the injured remained hospitalised was 4 months, i.e., from 22.11.2002 to 29.3.2003.6. The entire treatment was at Sushrut Trauma Centre, Delhi. With regard to injuries suffered by the injured, it is relevant to note the test...

Adm India Enterprises Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)12STJ53CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. The appellant is a Commission Agent and Channel partner of M/s.Airtel. It has been alleged that on scrutiny of data provided by M/s.Airtel, it transpired that the appellant received the gross amount of taxable value involving service tax to the tune of Rs. 2,56,876/- during the period July, 2003 to December, 2004.2. The learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant submits that there was a dispute regarding levy of service tax on such activity.Therefore, the appellant obtained registration from the central excise office for payment of service tax on 30.11.2004 and paid entire amount of tax with interest during the period from December, 2004 to April, 2005. He submits that thereafter the department issued show cause notice dated 30.5.2005. It is his contention that there is no suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of tax in as much as the appellant deposited tax with interest before the issue of show cause notice. He further submits that in this case, no penal provision can...

Roopkala Photo Gallery Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)8STR622

1. This is an appeal filed along with the application challenging the order of Commissioner (Appeals) made on 8.3.2007. After going through the Board's circulars issued from time to time and also taking note of various decisions of this Tribunal and the Hon'ble Courts, the Commissioner has come to the conclusion that the appellants have to include the cost of the material to the value of the service provided by them for paying service tax.2. The show cause notice issued in this case observed that the appellants have paid the service tax on the amount worked out after deducting the cost of paper and materials used in providing the service to the clients.3. During the hearing we had an occasion to refer to some of the credit memos issued by the appellants to various parties. We find that in the credit memos issued by the appellants there is reference to various items. In each such credit memo the appellants have worked out the bifurcation of the total amount into the categories such as ...

Surender Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Validity of communication dated 01.12.2004 rejecting applicant's representation addressed to Hon'ble Minister for Shipping is challenged in present application with a further direction to Respondents to appoint him on Merchant Navy Vessels with effect from the date his immediate junior has been appointed with all consequential benefits.2. The facts as stated are that applicant being eligible and satisfying all prescribed conditions for selection in pre-sea training, applied.He was called for interview and finally selected for pre-sea training course. Vide letter dated 07.07.1982, he was directed to report Seamen's Employment Office with original certificates/transport certificate. After completion of all formalities, he was subjected to medical examination. On being found fit, he was directed to join training. On completion of said training from 01.03.1982 to 30.08.1982, a Certificate was issued to said effect. Vide communication dated 10.01.1986 (Annexure A-V) he was informed that...