Delhi Court September 2007 Judgments

Fiitjee Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)12STJ71CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. After hearing both sides and going through the relevant material on record, it appears that, prima-facie the adjudicating authority has not imposed penalty because at the time when the service was paid, the rate applicable was 8%. The fees for coaching services were charged in advance by the appellant. Having regard to the nature of taxable service and, the fact that the total amount chargeable for the academic period was taken in advance, and service tax was paid on that amount, the appellant could not have contemplated an increase in the rate of tax at that time. Therefore, there shall be waiver of pre-deposit of the amount of penalty payable under the impugned order, during the pendency of this appeal.2. The application stands disposed of accordingly. The appeal will now come UD for final hearing in its due course....

Vijay Shree Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)12STJ66CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs. 47,559/- and of Rs. 10,619/-. The applicants are providing the service of C&F agent. The applicants were not including some expenses which were reimbursed by their clients. The Revenue's view is that the applicant has to pay Service Tax in respect of the consideration received for providing C&F. The contention of the applicant is that as these amounts are reimbursed, therefore, they are not liable to pay Service Tax.2. The applicant relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Nandini Warehousing Corporation v. CCE reported in 2007 (5) STR 226 where the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit of Service Tax where the Service Tax was demanded in respect of loading expenses, cost service charges and godown charges. We find that the facts are different in the present case, the Revenue wants to Service Tax on the consideration received by the applicant for providing the service of C&F ag...

Singh Brothers Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of amount of Service Tax and penalty. The demand was confirmed on the ground that the applicants were providing Cargo Handling Service. The contention of the applicant is that they are not providing Cargo Handling Service but they are handling the movement of coal from railway wagon to the site of Thermal Power Station. The railway wagons are unloaded in the track hopper and from the track hopper the coal was carried through conveyor to the thermal plant. The applicant relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of S.B. Construction v. UOI reported in 2006 (4) STR 545 where the Hon'ble High Court held that similar service is not covered under the scope of Cargo Handling Service. In view of the above decision, the applicant had a strong case in their favour, therefore, the pre-deposit of amount of Service Tax and penalty is waived. Stay petition is allowed....

Rajasthan Tours Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)9STR175

1. After hearing both the sides and going through the material on record, it appears that the demand in question is governed by the provisions of sub Rule (6) of Rule 3 of the Service Tax Credit Rules, 2002 which provides that service tax credit on the service provided in relation to telephone connection shall be allowed only in respect of such telephone connections, which are installed in the premises from where output service is provided. In the present case, the service tax credit amounting to Rs. 17,528/- was availed by the appellant on mobile phone, which was not permissible under Sub-rule (6) of Rule 3 of the Service Tax Credit Rules, 2002. The appellant has not made out any case for waiver of pre-deposit of the service tax amount payable under the impugned order. It is, therefore, directed that on the applicant depositing the entire service tax amount payable under the impugned order within a period of four weeks from today, there shall be waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty a...

Cce Vs. Trela Footwear Exports Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(125)ECC105

1. These two appeals are filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dt.19.11.04, one by the assessee challenging the order to the extent that it upholds the order of the adjudicating authority and the other by the Revenue to the extent that the penalty is set-aside.2. When the premises of the appellant - assessee were raided, it was found that the goods P.V. Soles valued at Rs. 6,40,500/- manufactured by the assessee were removed during the period from 10.11.01 to 5.12.01 without issuing any invoice and without payment of duty.3. The adjudicating authority on the basis of the material on record particularly the admission of the Authorised Signatory, Shri Raghuraj Singh, and Director, Smt. Beena Sachdeva held that the goods were clandestinely removed and that the assessee was liable to pay Central Excise Duty of Rs. 1,02,480/-. He also imposed penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for suppression of the manufacture of the goods and their clandestine remo...

Mahendra Kumar Sharma, Legal Heir Vs. the Superintendent Post Offices,

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA, applicant challenges order dated 29.9.2006 that was passed in view of the direction given by the Tribunal in OA No. 1193 of 2006. He seeks direction to respondents to consider payment of gratuity with interest of his late father Shri Ganga Saran Sharma, Sub Post Master (Ex. SPM) w.e.f. 20.11.2001.2. Late Shri Ganga Saran Sharma was serving as Offg. SPM up to 24.9.1981 when he was placed under suspension. Applicant contends that his father was implicated in a false criminal case under Section 409/468 IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5-1 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was held guilty by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Dehradun vide its judgment dated 4.12.1984 whereby he was convicted and the following sentence was imposed: to undergo two years Regorous imprisonment and further to pay a fine of Rs. 1500/-. In default to payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of 4 months. The applicant was further convic...

Webcity Infosys Ltd. Vs. Registrar of Companies (Delhi and Haryana)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ710

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Facts are not in dispute. Undisputed position is that if it is not a case of a continuing cause of action, admittedly complaints being filed beyond a period of 6 months from the date when actionable knowledge was with the competent authority, they would be barred by limitation.2. Alleging violation of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2) of Section 205-A of the Companies Act 1956, complaint in question was filed beyond a period of 6 months from the date when the offence was completed i.e. reckoned with effect from 6 months after dividend was declared and remained unpaid and even beyond 6 months when knowledge of the offence was with the Registrar of Companies.3. Whereas petitioners urge that by virtue of Sub-section (8) of Section 205-A of the Companies Act the offence being punishable with only fine, limitation would be 6 months by virtue of Section 468(2)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, prosecution states that though limitation would be 6 months but ...

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Master Imran Khan and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2008Delhi26

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. The appellant is aggrieved with the impugned award mainly on the ground that prior to the passing of this award, the matter was settled before the Lok Adalat for a total sum of Rs. 30,000/- vide orders dated 26.8.2001.2. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that once the settlement took place before the Lok Adalat, the same could not re-opened by the Tribunal. Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Section 21 of the Delhi Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 and contends that every award of the Lok Adalat is a deemed decree of the civil court. The counsel further contends that such an order passed by the Lok Adalat is not appealable in any court of law.3. For better appreciation of the contention raised by the counsel for the appellant, Section 21 of the Delhi Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 is referred to as under:21. Award of Lok Adalat. - (1) Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court or, as the case...

Lily Thomas Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Secretary, Ministry of He ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2008Delhi43

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. The petitioner, who appears in person, submits that the Minister In-charge, Health and Family Welfare cannot act as the Chairman of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. According to the petitioner, such nomination of the Minister as the Chairman of an autonomous institution is vocative of Article 350 of the Constitution of India. The contention raised is that the Minister cannot act as the Chairman of the governing body; of AIIMS, for under Article 350 of the Constitution any grievance that any of the staff '. or employee of AIIMS may have, has to be considered by him as an appellate body.2. The aforesaid contentions are refuted by the counsel appearing for the respondents on the ground that the provisions of Article 350 of the Constitution of India has no application at all to the facts and circumstances of the case and that the Minister in-charge. Health and Family Welfare acts as a Chairman of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences on the basis...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Deltron Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]297ITR426(Delhi)

1. In this appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated February 6, 2006, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal'), Delhi Bench 'E', in I.T.A. No. 4115/Del/2002, relevant to the assessment year 1999-2000.2. The issue that is before us is whether the assessed had incurred a capital expenditure of Rs. 87,22,447 on purchase of axial machine along with machinery spares and computers which was claimed as a research and development expenditure allowable under Section 35(1) of the Act.3. The Assessing Officer ('the AO'), merely had a look at the brochure of the machine and came to the conclusion that the machine was not used for research and development work and on this basis disallowed the expenditure.4. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)('the CIT (Appeals)'), noted that Section 35(3) of the Act, prior to its substitution by the Finance Act, 1999, with effect from April 1, 2000, required an ...