Delhi Court February 2008 Judgments

Cce Vs. Skypack Services

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby adjudication order was modified insofar as penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was upheld for the period upto August, 2004 and the amount of penalty was reduced from Rs. 7,85,095/- to Rs. 2,61,185/-.2. Ld. DR submits that the respondent failed to file the Returns during the material period. He submits that they submitted ST 3 Returns in August, 2007. He also submits that delay in filing of the Return indicates the suppression of facts with intention to evade payment of tax.3. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the respondent obtained registration certificate in the year 2004 and also furnished data for the period September, 2004 and October, 2004 to March, 2005 on 1.11.2004 and 12.8.2005 respectively. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the allegation of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty after August, 2004 is not sustaina...

Abdul Rehman and ors. Vs. Anees-ul-haq and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2008)DMC34; 2008(101)DRJ688

S. Muralidhar, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') seeking the quashing of the Criminal Complaint No. 180/1 of 2002 titled K.M. Anees-Ul-Haq v. Abdul Rehman and Ors. pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ('MM') New Delhi and all proceedings consequent thereto. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this petition are that Shri K.M. Anees-Ul-Haq the respondent complainant in this petition was earlier serving in the office of the Director General of Doordarshan. It is stated that the Petitioner Shri Abdul Rehman, his wife and two daughters became friends of the Respondent No. 1 Shri K.M. Anees-Ul-Ha q during the time that he was serving as Deputy Director General at the Doordarshan. During the periodic visits to the Petitioner's house during the year 1999 he proposed the name of his nephew, K.M. Furkhan-ul-Haq @ Muneeb for marriage with the Petitioner No. 3 Ms. Aalya Rehman, the daughter of the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. It ...

K.M. Anees-ul-haq and ors. Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008CriLJ4611

S. Muralidhar, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') seeking quashing of the FIR No. 260 of 2001 under Sections 406/420/34 read with Section 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act registered at P.S. Mayur Vihar, Delhi and all proceedings consequent thereto.2. The Petitioner No. 1 states that he retired as a Deputy Director General in Delhi Doordarshan. Petitioner No. 1 approached the Respondent No. 2 Abdul Rehman, an Advocate, for legal advice in connection with a defamatory publication in the Indian Express on 15th August 1999. Respondent No. 2 advised him to file a suit for damages to the tune of Rs. 1 crore against the Indian Express and its editor and publisher. Respondent No. 2 assured Petitioner No. 1 that he would be successful in the suit. On the basis of this assurance, the Petitioner No. 1 paid Respondent No. 2 Rs. 7.27 lakhs towards his fee, court fees and other expenses. It is stated that despite this, the suit was not filed ...

Bani Arora Vs. C.B.i. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008CriLJ2805

S. Muralidhar, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') filed by the Petitioner seeking the quashing of the FIR No. RC 42(A)/97 DLI dated 2nd June, 1997 under Sections 120B read with Sections 420, 467 and 471 IPC and Section 13 (2) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA 1988) registered at P.S. ACB, CBI, New Delhi and all proceedings arising there from pending in the court of learned Special Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.2. The allegation in the complaint on the basis of which the FIR was registered was that the co-accused Shri S.S. Wadhwa while working as Chief Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce at its Saket Branch, New Delhi during the period 1993-96 conspired with one Shri N.K. Arora with an intent to provide wrongful gain to Shri N.K. Arora detrimental to the Bank's interest. The Petitioner Smt. Bani Arora, the wife of Shri N.K. Arora, is a Director of Muradabad Builder, M/s. Growgold Exim & Leasing Limited and ...

Nath Trader's (India) Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Ors ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(101)DRJ521

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.CM No. 11535/2007, 11537/2007Having perused the applications and having heard the counsel appearing for the parties, we are satisfied that the appellant has been able to make out sufficient cause for condensation of delay of 51 days in filing the appeal and delay of 141 days in refiling the appeal. Accordingly, delay in filing and refiling the appeal stands condoned. The applications stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.LPA No. 1166/2007 and CM No. 11536/2007 (stay)1. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties on merits. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29th November, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein, which was filed challenging the validity of the order dated 3rd November, 2000 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal allowing the appeal of the appellant herein and setting aside the order dated 7th October, 1999 passed by Regional Pro...

Shashi Goyal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008CriLJ2459; 148(2008)DLT382; 2008(101)DRJ696

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The Petitioner, Shashi Goyal, has filed this Petition for the annulment of the Detention Order bearing F.No.673/07/2007-CUS-VIII dated 27.12.2007 issued by Ms. Rashida Hussain, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, in respect of her husband Shri Bhimendra Kumar Goyal. The Detention has been ordered 'with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods in future'. The Grounds of Detention narrate inter alias that the Detenu was arrested on 0200 hours on 29.10.2007 under Section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962 and on production in the Court of learned ACMM, Patiala House, New Delhi was lastly remanded to judicial custody till 28.12.2007. It appears that predicated on the impugned Order dated 27.12.2007 the Detenu was detained on that very day in Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi. Inasmuch as the Petitioner had been arrested on 29.10.2007 he would have been statutorily entitled to be enlarged on bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) ...

Smt. Bimla and anr. Vs. Shri Narender and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2008Delhi141; 2008(102)DRJ549

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. By way of present appeal the appellant seeks to challenge the impugned Award dated 13.4.2007 whereby an amount of Rs. 3,30,680/- has been awarded in favor of the appellants.2. Brief summary of the facts of the case are that on 5.2.2006 at about 9:45 pm, Ms. Shagun Singh (now deceased) along with her cousin Sh. Yaduvender Singh was traveling on motorcycle as a pillion rider and received fatal injuries when hit from behind by a bus bearing Registration No. DL-1PB-5602. A criminal case vide FIR No. 51/2006, under Section 279/304-A IPC was registered at P.S. I.P. Estate against Sh. Narender, driver of the offending bus.3. Mr. Manish Mannie, counsel appearing for the appellants contends that the Tribunal has not correctly assessed the income of the deceased. The contention of the counsel for the appellants is that the deceased was working as Customer Care Executive with M/s Chawla Electronics, Daryaganj, Delhi and was drawing a salary of Rs. 6,000/- per month, but the ...

Cce Vs. Target Institution of

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby penalty under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was set-aside in exercise of power under Section 80 of the said Act.2. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, it is seen that the Commissioner (Appeals) set-aside the penalty on the ground that appellants were providing coaching service and were not aware the service tax liability on them. But, they recorded all the fees in their accounts and admitted the service tax liability subsequent to visit of officer and discharged service tax liability before issue of the show cause notice.3. Learned DR submits that the respondent obtained registration on 27.07.2004 and the officers conducted search on 9.2.2005 and thereafter, the respondent paid the tax for the period 8.12.2003 to 21.12.2004 in the month of February 2005 and March 2005. The learned Advocate submits that service tax was levied on coaching centre and there was di...

Mohan S/O A. Krishan and Bashisth Vs. Nct of Delhi Through Chief

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this common order, we propose to decide two connected Original Applications bearing Nos. 2479/2006 and 2482/2006 as common questions of law and facts arise therein. The Learned Counselrepresenting the parties also suggest likewise. The bare minimum facts that need to be noted have, however, been extracted from OA No. 2482/2006 in the matter of Bashisth Singh.2. Applicant, Bashisth Singh, Welfare Officer-II, was departmentally tried on the charge that he was on anti-begging squad duty on 20.1.2000 to nab beggars; that he along with other members of the team extorted/robbed Rs. 9000/- from one Gian Chand Gupta, a retired DESU employee and after thrashing him badly threw him from running vehicle No. DL-IV-1892 near village Kapashera, New Delhi; that he misused the intervening period between 12.00 noon and 4.00 pm of the officials hours and enticed the driver, Mohan, to manipulate the route from Azadpur to Bijwasan in log book pertaining to the vehicle in their use, to cover-up the ...

Sh. Bal Anand S/O Sh. Daya Ram Ranga Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. None appears for applicant even in the revised call. We have heard counsel for respondents and perused the pleadings. OA is being disposed of, on merits by attracting Rule 15(1) of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987.2. By this OA applicant has challenged order dated 21.3.2007 and sought a direction to respondents to grant him benefit of ACP Scheme w.e.f.01.7.2004 on which date it was granted to his immediate juniors.3. It is stated by the applicant that since in the departmental enquiry applicant has already been given punishment of censure by not granting him the benefit of ACP Scheme in time, it would amount to double punishment for the same cause, that too without complying with principles of natural justice. His case for financial upgradation could have been considered only by Screening Committee and not by respondent No. 2 as has been considered in the instant case. No reason or justification has been given in the impugned order, therefore, it is liable to be set aside. There is no r...