Delhi Court August 2007 Judgments

Planner India (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)12STJ61CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order in so far as imposition of penalty of Rs. 12,047/- under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal vide Final Order No. 309/2006-SM (BR) dated 14.2.2006 remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to examine the imposition of penalty under Section 76 on the ground whether the appellant was in confusion in respect of payment of tax under the service tax on architectural services.2. Heard both sides and on perusal of the records, it is seen from the impugned order that service tax on architectural, service was levied on 16.10.98 and consulting engineering services was levied on 7.7.97. The service tax on the above mentioned services, in the present case, is related to the year 2000-2001. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that there is no evidence on record that the appellants had sought any clarification from the department, prior to their registration regarding tax liability on the above services. He also dis...

Cce Vs. M.P. Electro Craft

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the unpuged order. Wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty under Section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1998. The ld. DR on behalf of the Revenue submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty on the basis of amendment in the Amnesty Scheme, but the present case is related to March, 2006, He submits that the Amnesty Scheme is not applicable herein.2. After hearing the ld. DR and on perusal of the records, it is seen that delay in submission of Return was caused due to uncertainity and confusion and the delay was not deliberate but due to prevailing confusion. This finding is not challenged by the Revenue in their grounds of appeal. The Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata v. Malancha Photographer 2006 (1) SIR 101 (Tribunal-Calcutta) held that penalty under Section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 are not mandatory. Thus, there is no dispute on the delay in filing of return and payment ...

Agauta Sugar and Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)8STR496

1. These appeals raise a common issue i.e. whether Service Tax in relation to goods transport service, received by a party during the period November, 1997 to June, 1998, can be recovered by issuing show cause notice in 2004.2. It is seen that there is difference of opinion among the Benches of the Tribunal, as evidence by the decisions in the case of BPL, Engineering Ltd. v. CST 2006 (3) S.T.R. 747 (Tri.- Bang.), R.K. Marble Pvt. Ltd. 2006 (4) S.T.R. 201 (Tri.) : 2007-TIOL-29, Mangalam Cement Final Order Nos. 332-33/07, dated 30-5-2007 : 2007 (7) S.T.R. 673 (Tribunal). It is also of particular significance that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. 2006 (3) S.T.R. 715 (S.C.) : 2005 (187) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.) was delivered subsequent to the judgment in the case of Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. v.Union of India and the directly on the question of recovery of paid tax and it has been held that recovery is not permissible. The former judgment is on th...

Guru Nanak Dev Electricals Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)9STR100

1. None appeared on behalf of the appellants. By letter dated 29-8-2007, the appellants requested to decide the matter in their absence on the basis of record. Heard the Id. DR. and perused the record. It is seen that the show cause notice under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 was issued on 9-11-2006 and the date of hearing was fixed on 15-11-2006. The impugned order was passed on 21-11-2006. It is contended that sufficient opportunity of personal hearing was not given to the appellants. I agree with the submissions of the appellants.Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner to decide the matter afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants. The appeal is allowed by way of remand....

Shamsher Singh S/O Shri Phool Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant, presently Assistant Commercial Manager (ACM), Northern Railway has assailed the impugned order dated 16.8.2005, a response to his numerous representations, objecting to exclusion from consideration for promotion in selection processes for Limited Departmental Examination (LDE) held in 1992 and 1995 and also for non observance of the sealed cover procedure.2. Briefly, facts of the case are that applicant, an ST candidate, was appointed on 19.5.1977 as Coaching Clerk in Northern Railway in Group 'C'. Till 1984, he continued upwards in the hierarchy of Group 'C' to the level of Chief Booking Supervisor. His grievance starts from 1992, when a selection to Group 'B' was initiated on 29.7.1992. He gave written examination but he was not called for viva voce for reasons unknown. In the second selection held on 23.4.1995 he was not called to sit for the examination. However, one Shri C.L. Meena, junior to applicant, was allowed to sit in this second examination. Later, it wa...

Mrs. Manju Singh W/O Maj. Gen. R. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Ch ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Mrs. Manju Singh, who started her career as a TGT (Home Science) in Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Kalyanpuri on 19.4.1984, clamors for grant of senior scale admissible to a teacher after putting in 12 years of service. The applicant, for denial of the desired relief squarely blames the respondents for dealing her case in a careless, indifferent, irresponsible and callous manner.2. The undisputed facts reveal that the applicant was appointed as TGT (Home Science) on 19.4.1984. Having put in service of 12 years she became entitled to senior scale of Rs. 6500-200-10500 w.e.f. 19.4.1996.She joined Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya, Malviya Nagar on 21.8.2001. The DPC for grant of senior scale to the applicant and others was held on 29.1.2004 wherein the applicant was recommended for grant of senior scale which would be effective from 19.4.1996. Having not received her due despite her eligibility and recommendation made by the DPC, she addressed a letter to the Education Officer on ...

Jasbir Singh Vs. N.C.B.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ404

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. By above captioned petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure petitioner is seeking recall of 2 orders of even date i.e. 6.8.2005 passed by the Court of Special Judge, NDPS, Delhi.2. On 20.11.1987 Drug Enforcement Administration Officials, USA seized narcotic drugs from 2 Indians and informed Narcotics Control Bureau about the same. On 22.6.1988 NCB, Delhi filed a complaint against 6 persons including petitioner under Section 21, 23 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.3. Facts pertaining to Crl.M.C. 4872/2005 are that on 18.5.2005 an application was moved by the petitioner seeking permission to inspect the file brought by Devender Dutt, PW-6. The file was sought for cross-examining said witness.4. Vide impugned order dated 6.8.05, application of the petitioner was dismissed by the Special Judge5. It is not in dispute that file in question relates to investigation conducted by the official of the respondent NCB in connection with commission of the all...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Honda Siel Power Products Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Del)314; [2008]300ITR56(Delhi)

S. Muralidhar, J.1. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') is directed against the decision dated 16th June, 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C' Delhi ('Tribunal') in ITA No. 3539/Del/1999 for the Assessment Year 1992-93. 2. Admit.3. The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration:(a) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the payment of Rs.23,21,865/- made by the assessed as an advance to the suppliers for manufacturing tools and dies was a revenue expenditure?(b) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in allowing deduction of Rs.41.30 lakh being provision made by the assessed estimating the expenditure on foreign trips by its dealers under the Holiday Incentive Scheme and negativing the contention of the Revenue that this was contingent liability?4. Printing of paper books is dispensed with. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the ...

Gayatari Projects Limited Vs. Airport Authority of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(3)ARBLR418(Delhi)

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. In January 1995, the respondent invited tenders for the extension and strengthening of runway at 28 end of the Calicut Airport. In response thereto, several bids were received by the Respondent. The petitioner/claimant is stated to have submitted its bid on 10.04.1995. The bid submitted by the petitioner was found suitable for the award of the contract.2. It is stated that after the bidding, the respondent stipulated a reduction in time period for the completion of the work from 48 to 42 months. The petitioner/claimant avers that the reduction of the time period was made after a lapse of nine months since the submission of the bid i.e. in December 1995. The petitioner/claimant accepted the reduction in time period vide a letter dated 13.12.1995 and requested the issuance of the letter of intent within seven days for immediate commencement of the work.3. The contract was awarded to the petitioner vide a letter dated 19.12.1995 which stated that the reduced time ...

Sarvjeet Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2008Delhi37

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner in this Court as a Public Interest Litigation. When the matter was listed yesterday and since the issues raised pertain to an important question of law, applicability of the provisions of Article 143 of the Constitution of India, we desired that the Central Government should be represented by the Additional Solicitor General. We had also requested Mr. Jagmohan Sabharwal, Senior Advocate, who was present in court, to assist us in this matter as amices curiae. Consequent to the orders passed yesterday, both the Additional Solicitor General and Mr. Jagmohan Sabharwal, Sr. Advocate are present in court today and have addressed us.2. In this writ petition the petitioner seeks a direction to the Union of India to approach the President of India under Article 143 of the Constitution of India to refer 'questions of law and fact' arising out of the agreement being signed between India and the United States of America, commo...