Delhi Court February 2008 Judgments

L.N. Gupta, Proprietor Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)10STR462

1. None appeared on behalf of the appellant. By letter dated 30.1.2008, the appellant requested to decide the case on merits in their absence on the basis of the submission.2. Heard the ld. DR on behalf of the Revenue and perused the records.The appellants are providing the services under the category of "Consulting Engineer Service". They obtained registration in the year 1997. During the period 1st April, 2005 to 30.9.2005, the appellant failed to deposit the tax within the stipulated period. The adjudicating authority appropriated the tax of Rs. 14,550/- as deposited by them before the issue of show cause notice by TR-6 Challan dated 21.1.2006 and also imposed penalty of equal amount under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. He dropped the penalty under Section 76 and 77 of the said Act in exercise with his power under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order but reduced the penalty of 25% of duty amount as the tax was deposited...

Som Distilleries Pvt. Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)13STJ37CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. These appeals were taken up for hearing on the point of stay. The appellants have filed application for waiver of the requirement of pre-deposit. It is submitted that the issue involved in these appeals is whether the activities carried on by the appellants are covered by the manufacturing process so as to stay out of the ambit of the service tax. Learned Counsel has placed strong reliance on a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Som Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., reported in 1997 (2) MPLJ 376.2. On behalf of the Revenue, on the other hand, it was submitted that the activity involved in the case of M/s Som Distilleries Pvt. Limited was bottling of country liquor whereas in the instant case, the appellants are also engaged in packaging and labelling activities and, therefore, that part of the activity is covered by the definition of 'taxable service' in the Finance Act, 1994. In support of the contention, reliance is placed on the another decision of the Madhya Pradesh...

Shri Kishan Chand S/O Late Shri Vs. the Delhi Development Authority

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By way of this OA, applicants want a direction from this Tribunal to the effect that while appointed on contract basis they were offered the post of LDC whereas they were fully eligible to be appointed on the post of Draftsman. (i) The applicants state that by Memorandum dated 21.10.1980, 12 technically qualified persons were given appointment on contract basis. Applicants were appointed as Field Surveyors but in fact worked as Draftsmen on contract basis. By order dated 29.4.1982, Delhi Development Authority (DDA) created a large number of posts for Planning Department which included 13 posts of Surveyors in the pay scale of Rs. 425-700 (pre-revised) besides a large number of posts of Junior Engineer, Planning Draftsman and Field Investigators. By letter dated 23.10.1984 Director (Personnel) asked the persons recruited on contract basis to give their consent, if they were willing to be considered for the post of LDCs in the pay scale of Rs. 260-400. All 12 persons gave their conse...

Col. B.S. Sarao Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]143CompCas541(Delhi); (2008)3CompLJ242(Del); [2009]89SCL137(Delhi)

ORDERS. Muralidhar, J.1. These petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`CrPC') seeking the quashing of criminal complaints filed against several plantation companies by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) for offences under Sections 11B, 12(1-B) read with Section 24 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (`SEBI Act') read with Regulations 5(1), 68(1), 68(2), 73 and 74 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Collective Investment Schemes) Regulations, 1999 (`CIS Regulations'). These petitions raise common questions of law and are, thereforee, being disposed of by this common judgment.2. In the early 1990s, a large number of plantation companies came to be incorporated. Each of them promised attractive returns to persons prepared to invest their monies in what were known as 'collective investment schemes'. When it transpired that many of these schemes were in fact non-starters, and the investors were not getting back thei...

Safari International and anr. Vs. Subhash Gupta and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2008(2)416; 2008(36)PTC610(Del)

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28th July, 2006 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein against the order of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. Vide order dated 9th March, 2006 the Intellectual Property Appellate Board allowed the application of the Respondent No. 1 against the order of Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks.2. Respondent No. 1 herein had been manufacturing tricycles, bicycles and baby cycles under his sole proprietorship concern M/s. Shagun Udyog since 1974 under the trademark 'SAFARI'. In April 1979 he filed an application for registration of the said trademark and the same was registered in July, 1988 bearing registered trade mark No. 348290. In the meantime, in the year 1981 respondent No. 1 incorporated a private limited company under the name and style 'M/s.Safari Cycles Private Limited' wherein the respondent No. 1 and his brother were equal shareholders...

Cce Vs. Chandra Motor

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) whereby penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 was set aside, 2. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of record, I find that the Adjudicating Authority found that the Respondents deposited the tax on 10.10.2006 for the period 1^st April, 2005 to 31^st March, 2006.Show cause notice was issued on 28.2.2007. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the tax of Rs. 16,280/- and imposed penalty of equal amount under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty imposed under Section 76. The Revenue contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not appreciated the provision of Section 73(4), which provides demand of tax in respect of suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of tax.3. I find that after considering the facts and circumstances of the case in detail, Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the respondent has acted in a bonafide manner which was ...

Arisht Spinning Mills Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicant filed these applications for waiver of pre-deposit of tax and penalty. The relevant facts of the case in brief are that the applicants are manufacturers of excisable goods and the goods manufactured were exported by them. The applicant made payments to foreign based commission agents for procuring orders of the exported goods. The Revenue raised the demand of tax on the payment of commission to commission agents.2. The learned Advocate submits that the Tribunal in the case of Foster Wheeler Energy Ltd v. CCE Vadodara reported in 2007-TIOL-785-CESTAT held that services rendered outside India are made liable to service tax in view of Section 66A which has been inserted in the Service Tax provisions of Finance Act, 2006 with effect from 18.4.2006. He also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Dimensional Stones v. CCE Jaipur 3. The learned DR submits that the adjudicating authority observed the service was rendered in India and therefore, demand of tax ...

Rattan Singh Roop Vs. Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 148(2008)DLT256; [2008(117)FLR467]; 2008(3)SLJ397(Delhi)

Anil Kumar, J.1. The petitioner has sought quashing of office order dated 23rd March, 1996 relieving the petitioner on afternoon of 23rd March, 1996, (24th being Sunday) from Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd and a direction to respondent No. 1 to reinstate the petitioner in the services and pay the salaries and allowances after correcting his date of birth from 8th March, 1938 to 9th March, 1939 as recorded with the respondent No. 1.2. The petitioner has contended that he did his metriculation from Punjab University in the examination held on March 1995 and a metriculation examination certificate was issued to him where his date of birth was recorded as 8th March, 1938.3. According to him, his date of birth was recorded wrongly in the school on account of clerical mistake while converting the date of birth recorded in Vikrami Era (Hindi Calendar) to Esvi Era (English Calendar) on admission of the petitioner in a different school for his metriculation examination. After completing his schoo...

Signaps and anr. Vs. Bumpy Udyog

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2008)BC94; 149(2008)DLT185

ORDERS. Muralidhar, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of Criminal Complaint No. 214 of 2002 (Bumpy Udyog v. Signaps) pending in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi (ASJ) and an order dated 28th May, 2003 passed by the learned ASJ dismissing the application for recalling of the summoning order dated 15th September, 2000 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi (MM).2. At the outset, learned Counsel for the Petitioners fairly states that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal 113(2004) DLT 356 he cannot really challenge the impugned order of the learned ASJ declining to recall the summoning order and that the only remedy available to the accused is to challenge the summoning order by way of the present petition under Section 482 CrPC. He accordingly confines his arguments in the present case to questioning the summoni...

Anil Mahajan and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(101)DRJ473; 2009(235)ELT430(Del)

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. A search was carried out by the customs authorities on 30.07.1999 in the premises of New India Agencies, which is stated to be a proprietorship concern of petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 was stated to be the Executive-Cum-Caretaker of the said concern. The said concern was engaged in the business of import in trading of textiles and some other consumable goods. The statements of both the petitioners were recorded and the petitioners were arrested for the offences under Section 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 ( hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the said Act' ) on account of alleged false declaration, false documents and evasion of customs duty. Simultaneously adjudication proceedings were also initiated under the said Act.2. In the course of adjudication proceedings, on the written request made by the petitioners, the Commissioner of Customs appointed three Officers to examine the goods afresh in order to find out whether the goods were co-related wi...