Delhi Court August 2007 Judgments

Videocon International Ltd. Vs. Anil Kumar

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. For having sold a defective automatic washing machine the appellant has been, vide its order dated 1.10.2002 passed, by the District Forum directed to refund the cost of Rs. 9,000 along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase till the date of payment and also pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation besides Rs. 1,000 as litigation expenses. 2. The impugned order being an ex parte order has been assailed through this appeal firstly, on the ground that the appellant was not given an opportunity of being heard and secondly, that the respondent had taken contradictory stand inasmuch as that after washing machine developed glitches he made a complaint which was duly attended to and, subsequently, the machine was changed by another machine and, therefore, there is no deficiency in service on its part. However, appellant has also challenged the legality of awarding of interest by the District Forum 3. We have perused the impugned order and find that the d...

Uttam (Bharat) Electricals (P) Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(223)ELT84TriDel

1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of tax amounting to Rs. 2,46,021/- and penalty of Rs. 2,95,520/-. The learned Advocate on behalf of the applicant submits that the amount of Rs. 2,25,520/- was demanded on the ground that the balance of service tax credit lying in their account upto 10-9-2004 was utilized for payment of central excise duty for the month of March, 2005. According to the Department as per Rule 11 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the credit of Service Tax availed upto 10-9-2004 and lying unutilized could only be utilized for payment of service tax and not for payment of central excise duty. The ld. Advocate submits that both the authorities below while passing the order totally ignored Rule 3(6) of Service Tax Rules, 2002 (sic) (Service Tax Credit Rules, 2002), as amended from 14-5-2003, which says that credit can be taken on input service falls in the same category of taxable service for which invoice or bill or challan is issued on or after...

Cce Vs. Garage Tools Corporation

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)9STR112

1. The Revenue has filed application for stay of operation of the impugned order. The Revenue wants to levy service tax on the respondent who is simply selling sim cards as a provider of business auxiliary service.2. We find as the respondent is only selling the sim cards of the service provider, therefore, prima facie, it cannot be said that the respondent is providing business auxiliary service. We find no merit in the application and the same is dismissed....

Cross Road Auto Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicants have filed applications for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 1,95,057/- and penalties. The applicants have already deposited an amount of Rs. 34,485/-. The revenue is of the view that applicants are liable to pay service tax in respect of business auxiliary service. The contention of appellant is that whatever the commission they are receiving from the bank, some part of the same is being passed on to the customers. Therefore, they are liable to pay service tax on amount retained by them. The applicants now raised the issue that they are entitled for the benefit of Notification.We find that the claim of the applicant regarding benefit of notification was not raised before the lower authority. The only issue raised before the lower authority was that they were only liable to pay service tax on the amount of commission which they actually retained and whatever passed on to their customers, is not liable for service tax. In view of this, prima facie, it is no...

Shri Suraj Mal, Huf Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)110TTJ(Delhi)834

1. On account of difference between learned Members of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'F' Bench, New Delhi, this matter with following points of difference has been referred to me Under Section 255(4) of the Income Tax Act: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be said that there is a valid initiation of the proceedings Under Section 147 in the case of the assessee HUF although no reason to believe were recorded in the case of the assessee HUF nor any notice was served to the assessee HUF? 2. Whether there was valid service of notice Under Section 143(2) on the assessee HUF? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment order passed must be annulled or confirmed so far it relates to the validity of the proceedings initiated Under Section 147 and service of notice on the assessee Under Section 143(2) is concerned? 4. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer erred in framing the assessment in the status of H...

Anant Raj Industries Ltd. Vs. Joint Cit, Spl. Range-7

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. The appeal has been ref erred to me under Section 255(4) of the Income Tax Act on a difference of opinion between the Hon'ble Members who heard the appeal. The following points of reference have been referred tome for decision: (1) Whether on facts and in law could the assessee be treated as the owner of the "Katwaria Sarai" property as is the view expressed by the V.P. or was it the lessee of the property as held by the J.M. (2) Whether on the construction of the agreement between the assesseeand Vaitalik could it be held that it was the case of lease of land to theassessee and a part of the structure on the said land was owned by the assessee (entire cost expended by the assessee) as is the view of the V.P. or there' was no lease of land and the structure was not owned by the assessee as is the view of the J.M. (3) Whether in the light of construction agreement dated 27-7-1994 and lease deed dated 1-8-1995 could the assessee be said to be owner of property within the meaning of S...

ito Vs. Kedar Nath Bishan Lai

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These appeals are filed by the revenue and the cross objections are filed by the assessee. They are all directed against the consolidated order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 15-12-2005 pertaining to the assessment years 1991-92 to 2000-2001.2. The grounds of appeals raised by the revenue in all these appeals a reidentical except the difference in figures. The grounds of appeal as raised for the assessment year 1991-92 is reproduced below: 1. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,99,871 made by the assessing officer to the income of assessee on the basis of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Gopal Bansilal Inani 245 ITR 2 (SC). 2. The order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) be set aside and that of the assessing officer be restored.For other assessment years figures mentioned in the grounds of appeal are 3. In the cross objections also the grounds are similar and for assessment year 1991-92,...

Ex Recruit Manoj Deswal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 142(2007)DLT791

S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. The legality, validity and the effect of a discharge order terminating the services of the petitioner during training without giving him a show cause notice of proposed termination is the only question that calls for our consideration in this writ petition. The background facts of the case necessary to deal and decide the above referred question are not in dispute and are delineated herein below.2. The petitioner was recruited for the post of Store Hand Technical (SHT) in Army Supply Corps and he joined basic military training at Army Training Centre, Bangalore on 14.8.2004 He successfully completed his basic military training during the period between 23.8.2004 to 4.1.2005. He was granted annual leave for 28 days from 5.1.2005 to 1.2.2005. His technical training started in February, 2005. Immediately after start of his technical training, he fell ill and was hospitalised for four days from 4.2.2005 to 8.2.2005. Later he was granted 15 days casual leave from 24.2.20...

Surender Nath Vs. State of ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ628

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.FIR No. 274/05 dated 24.3.2005, Under Section 506 IPC, P.S. Saraswati Vihar1. Complainant at whose instance FIR is registered is a safai kar amchari in a complex of flats constructed by a co-operative group housing society. Petitioner is a resident of Flat No. 107 in said complex.2. Gravement of the allegation against the petitioner as per FIR is as follows:Shri Surender Nath Singh, resident of Flat No. 107 is harassing us because I do not lift and remove garbage from his flat and he has not paid any money since the past 3 years for working in his flat and now every day he is threatening me that he will get killed my wife and my child. He is a very big tantrik and throws the garbage of his flat here and there because of which all the residents of the society are troubled.3. According to the petitioner who is aged 67 years as of today, having retired as a Professor from the National Council of Educational Research and Training, his desire of living a peaceful life w...

Hawaldar M.T. Mohan Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(2)SLJ57(Delhi)

S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. The petitioner joined the service in the Army as a Driver in Army Supply Corps on 10.08.1979. He was promoted to the rank of Hawaldar w.e.f 12.05.1997. He was given extension of two years up to 31.08.2005 as per revised Policy of the Government contained in its Notification dated 03.09.1998. After he retired from service, he filed a statutory petition addressed to the Chief of the Army Staff and had prayed for reconsideration of his case for grant of promotion from Hawaldar to the rank of Naib Subedar. His said statutory petition was rejected by the Competent Authority vide impugned order dated 20.11.2006 (Annexure P-9). The relevant portion of the impugned order rejecting the request of the petitioner for reconsideration of his case for grant of promotion to the rank of Naib Subedar is reproduced hereinbelow:3. Your case for promotion to Nb Sub came up in your own turn based on your seniority in Havildar. Your case considered for promotion to the rank of Nb Sub by ...