Delhi Court March 2008 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2008 Page 12 of about 163 results (0.034 seconds)Nova Chemicals (international) Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
2. The applicant who became the successor in business to M/s Du Pont, a manufacturer of polyethylene and they hold by inheritance the patent for processes/ technology associated with the manufacturing of the said product. The original patent holder M/s Du Pont and M/s GAIL had entered into a license agreement in 1993 permitting the latter to use the technology and the said agreement was limited to manufacture of 160 million kgs. of the said product per annum. M/s GAIL wanted to expand the capacity and accordingly the applicant and M/s GAIL entered into a supplementary license agreement on 10.9.2001 permitting increase of the capacity from 160 million kgs. to 210 million kgs. per annum on payment of one time fees amounting to US$ 4 million. The commissioner held them as rendering the services under the category of consulting engineer and confirmed demand of duty amounting to Rs. 33,93,475/- besides imposition of penalties under various Sections of the Finance Act 1994.3. We have been t...
Tag this Judgment!Ex. S.i./Rajesh Kumar S/O Late Sh. Vs. the Govt. of Nct of Delhi Throu ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. By this Original Application, applicant has impugned the following orders: No. 3830-3929/HAP/NE/(P-I) dated 24.04.2007 (Annexure A/1) passed by Disciplinary Authority whereby applicant was dismissed from service, while dispensing with departmental enquiry invoking Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India; and No. 6013-17/SO/NDR dated 05.12.2007 (Annexure A/2) passed by Appellate Authority confirming the order dated 24.04.2007 passed by Disciplinary Authority.2. Facts leading to filing of the present Original Application, briefly recapitulated, are that applicant was enlisted as Head Constable (Min) w.e.f. 11.03.1991 & subsequently as Sub Inspector (Executive) w.e.f.10.05.1995 in Delhi Police. While posted as Sub Inspector at Police Station, Seema Puri, Delhi under the Respondent No. 4, he was falsely implicated in a case FIR No. 24/2007 dated 23.04.2007 under Section 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S.: Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi, inter-alia on the allegation of...
Tag this Judgment!Cce Vs. Hfcl Satellite Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
2. Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the product in question, manufactured and cleared by the respondents, is computer software classifiable under Sub-heading 8524.20 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.3. The case of the Revenue is that the item in question is classifiable under Sub-heading 8524.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act as other computer software. Contention is also that the product in question is application software used in telecommunication. Contention is that computer software classifiable under Sub-heading 8524.20 of the Tariff is only operational software. As the present software is application software, therefore, it is classifiable under sub-heading 8524.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act.4. Contention of the respondents is that Heading 85.24 of the Tariff covers Records, tapes and other recorded media for sound or other similarly recorded phenomena. Sub-headings covers Gramophone r...
Tag this Judgment!C.M. Bhandari, Ambassador of Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
(i) to quash and set aside the recordable warning entered in the applicant's CR-dossier vide the impugned Memorandum dated 07.5.07, as well as the decision, communicated with the impugned Memorandum dated 21.8.07, to reject the representation of the applicant there against.2. It is stated by applicant that he is a 1974 batch officer of the Indian Foreign Service. While he was Ambassador of India to the United Arab Emirates, a letter was written on 06.08.2006 by the Minister of State for Cabinet Affairs, UAE, to the Minister for Commerce and Industry, India, Mr. Kamal Nath, that they were organizing under the Patronage of HH Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, VP and PM of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, on 4-6.12.2006, the Arab Strategy Forum in Dubai and on 7.12.2006, the first India-Arab World Business Summit would be held for which invitation was extended to the Minister directly. In the letter itself, it was mentioned that the Summit was to be organized by the Confederation of Indi...
Tag this Judgment!Surender Nath Dass S/O Shri Bhagat Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through (t ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
(i) set aside and quash the impugned orders dated 01.02.2007, Annexure A-2, along with orders dated 15.3.2007, Annexure A-10, so far they relate to the DIES-NON and penalty of reduction to the initial stage in the same time scale for a period of 4 years with cumulative effect. (ii) direct/command the respondents to fix the applicant's pay taking into account the increments earned by the applicant prior to his dismissal from service and make payment of the resultant arrears with 24% p.a. interest.2. It is sated by the applicant that he was appointed as loco cleaner in the loco/Mechanical Depot of Railway on 01.09.1976 and posted at Diesel Shed Tughlakabad. On 26.8.1983, he was falsely roped in a staff agitation. He was served with a show cause notice on 1.8.1983 and simultaneously, dismissed in September 1983 under Rule 14 (11) of Railway Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (page 17). Without holding an enquiry or giving any opportunity to the applicant, to defend himself by observin...
Tag this Judgment!Nihal Singh S/O Shri Babu Lal, Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through (the
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. MA No. 459/2008 has been filed for condonation of delay. In view of the facts, as mentioned in M.A., delay is condoned. MA is allowed.2. This RA has been filed by the respondents against order dated 26.10.2007 on the ground that there is error of law inasmuch as this O.A. could not have been entertained by the Principal Bench and there is also error of fact inasmuch as in the order it was recorded that applicants would be called for consideration and screening as per rules after giving them age relaxation whereas all the applicants had already crossed the upper age limit even after grant of relaxation.3. Perusal of order dated 26.10.2007 shows that the order was passed on the statement made by counsel for respondents that applicants are being called for consideration and screening as per rules after giving them relaxation. In view of the above statement, it was recorded that OA has become infructuous because applicants had only sought consideration for screening for appointment in ...
Tag this Judgment!Karun Dube Vs. A.C.i.T.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2009]184TAXMAN467(Delhi)
V.B. Gupta, J.1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short as 'Act') by the assessed challenging the impugned order dated 8th December, 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short as 'Tribunal'), Delhi Bench 'D' in IT(SS)A No. 26/DEL/2004 pertaining to block assessment period from 1st April, 1990 to 10th August, 2000.2. The brief facts of this case are that a search was conducted at the premises of the assessed on 20th July, 2000. Thereafter, notice under Section 158BC of the Act was issued to the assessed and the assessed filed the return for the block period on 22nd June, 2000 declaring undisclosed income of Rs. 47,93,000/-, details of which have been mentioned in the assessment order.3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer brought to the notice of the assessed that the undisclosed income of the family members of the group concerns had wrongly been disclosed by the assessed in the return o...
Tag this Judgment!L.P. Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Ta ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2008]301ITR377(Delhi)
V.B. Gupta, J.1. Present appeal has been filed under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenging the order dated 17th August, 2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench 'F' in ITA No. 3032/D/2004 relevant for the assessment year 2001-02, vide which the appeal filed by the assessed was dismissed.2. The brief facts of this case are that the assessed company during the assessment year in question has entered into an agreement with Moet's Kababs by virtue of which, it transferred 85% of its daily restaurant and bar sales to Moet's Kababs in lieu of materials and labour supplied by it. No written agreement to this effect has been executed between the parties. The assessed's stand was that it was prudent business arrangement.3. The Assessing Officer in his assessment order has observed that the assessed did not run the business of bar and restaurant during the year; that it had made no purchases of raw material and had not deployed any man power to run the bar an...
Tag this Judgment!Karamvir Singh Vs. D.D.A.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 148(2008)DLT498
ORDER'Taking into consideration the nature of the averments made in the writ petition as well as in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 4, I am on the considered view that disputed question of facts are involved which can not be decided except by adducing evidence. I am thus of the view that parties should be relegated to the civil suit for determining the controversy raised in the petition. Writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the civil court.No. 4968/CM 2001 and 1454 of 2002Interim order dt. 7.5.2001 shall continue to ensure for the benefit of the petitioner for a period of two weeks in order to enable the petitioner to seek remedy before Civil Court. Applications stand disposed off. dusty.Sd/-Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.August 14, 20023. The plaintiff, thereforee, filed the present suit on 13.9.2002. The defendants i.e. the DDA, Delhi Jal Board and Govt of NCT of Delhi entered appearance after summons and objected to the maintainability of th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Espn Software India (P) Limited
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2008)218CTR(Del)427; [2008]301ITR368(Delhi); [2009]184TAXMAN452(Delhi)
V.B. Gupta, J.1. The short question before us in this appeal is as to whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short as 'Tribunal') was right in allowing the deduction of expenditure incurred by the assessed on or after 15th August, 1995 holding that the business has commenced on this very date.2. Brief facts of this case are that the assessed Company was incorporated on 1st August, 1995 and as such this was the first year for which the assessed had filed its return declaring a loss at Rs. 3,01,78,033/- on 29th November, 1996.3. On 15th August, 1995, the assessed had acquired license from ESPN Inc to sub-license for distribution of ESPN Programming Services in India via Cable Television System, Satellite Master Antenna Systems and Direct to Home via Satellite. By virtue of this license, the assessed entered into an agreement on 1st October, 1995 with M/s. Modi Entertainment Network (P) Limited (MEN) and appointed MEN as its sole distributor for distribution of ESPN Programmes to ...
Tag this Judgment!