Delhi Court January 2010 Judgments

M/S Bassi Alloys P. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) No. 85/CE/CHD/2008 dated 25.1.2008. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The appellant removed some quantities of inputs on which credit was taken and after reversing the Cenvat credit availed on the said inputs in terms of Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The original authority held that while they received the inputs and took credit and not only they have taken credit of duty on the inputs received but also in respect of service tax paid on input service namely GTA services which was utilised for bringing the said inputs. He ordered recovery of credit amounting to Rs.1,05,708/- along with interest and imposed equal amount as penalty under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal of the party following his earlier decisions on identical issue in the cases of M/s Bansal Alloys and Metals Pvt. Ltd....

Prakash Rattan Lal Vs. Mankey Ram

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 166(2010)DLT629

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 7th July, 2007 passed by the learned trial court whereby the trial court allowed an application under Order XVI Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC made by the defendant (respondent herein) and allowed the respondent to summon two more witnesses to prove land holding of the respondent being in excess of 25 bigha 1 biswa of the land.2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the respondent, in the written statement, has taken specific stand that his total land holding was 25 bigha 1 biswa at village Bijwasan, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi. An objection was taken about the maintainability of the suit filed by the petitioner (plaintiff before the trial court) on the ground that since the respondent had executed Agreement to Sell only in respect of the part of the land and not in respect of its entire holding, namely, 25 bigha 1 biswa, the Agreement was void and not maintainable. However, in the appli...

Gurcharan Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 166(2010)DLT610

S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. The petitioner before his death was a CGHS beneficiary. He died during the pendency of the present writ petition filed for directions to the respondents to reimburse medical expenses incurred by him on the treatment of his wife in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital firstly on 02.07.2005 and again on 03.08.2005. After his death on 29.04.2008, his widow Smt. Surjeet Kaur was substituted as his legal heir vide order passed by this Court on 21.10.2008. 2. The only short question that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is whether the petitioner was entitled for reimbursement of medical expenses at the scale of approved rates approved by the Government in 2001 or was he entitled to reimbursement of actual expenses charged by the Hospital from him in 2005 for the treatment of his wife. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to the above question are that the wife of the petitioner was admitted in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital on an emergency call on 26.05.2005...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Woodward Governor India Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2010]321ITR147(Delhi)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.CM 628/2010 (Exemption)Allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.ITA 82/20101. The Revenue has filed this appeal in respect of the assessment year 2004-05 against the order dated 26th March, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in ITA No. 1973/Del/2008.2. The issue raised before the Tribunal was with regard to the disallowance of the provision made for warranty expenses amounting to Rs 31,35,150/-3. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had claimed warranty expenses as under:(i) Warranty on actual expense basis Rs 35,69,999/-(ii) Provision for warranty expenses Rs 31,35,150/-Rs 67,05,149/-4. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain as to why the provision for warranty expenses amounting to Rs 31,35,150/- should not be disallowed, inasmuch as the claim of provision for warranty expenses was contingent in nature. ...

Ashok Arora Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2010)229CTR(Del)427; [2010]321ITR171(Delhi)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This writ petition has been filed seeking the quashing of the assessment order dated 30th December, 2009.2. The events leading to the passing of the assessment order dated 30th December, 2009 in respect of the assessment year 2002-03 are as follows. A notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) was issued on 27th February, 2009. The said notice was sent by speed post as well as through a notice server. The said notice under Section 148 was hand delivered by the notice server on 16th March, 2009 at the chamber address of the petitioner at Tis Hazari Courts. However, said notice which was hand delivered on 16th March, 2009 is said to have been received by one Sandhya Mittal, whom the petitioner claims not to know. It is on this basis that the petitioner took the stand that the notice under Section 148 was not received by the petitioner.3. Be that as it may, it is an admitted position that the petitioner went to i...

C.C.and C.Ex., Indore Vs. M/S Sanctus Drugs and Pharma Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per M. Veeraiyan: This appeal by the Department is against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) No.IND-1/04/2008 dated 8.1.2008. 2. Heard the learned DR. None appears for the respondent in spite of notice. 3. It appears that (based on an order dated 18.6.97 issued by Mumbai Customs authorities) there was customs duty demand of Rs.1,22,131/- pending recovery from the respondent and that the Commissioner Customs (Import) has issued advice to Customs and Excise formations for recovery of the said amount. The Customs authorities, Mumbai also initiated proceedings for recovery which has been challenged by the respondent before the Hon ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh and an order dated 12.11.2007 has been issued containing certain directions. 4. In another matter, the respondent has been sanctioned a refund of Rs.one lakh by Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Pithampur and in view of recovery proceeding initiated by Mumbai Customs Authorities in respect of Customs duty pending for...

M/S. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Jaipur Ii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per M. Veeraiyan: This is appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 570 (RKS) CE/JPR II/2007 dated 23.11.2007. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The issue involved is whether the appellants are eligible for modvat credit on the inputs captively used in the generation of electricity used in places other than factory of production like residential colony, hospital, bank and school etc. The disputed amount is Rs.2,96,653/- and related to the period December, 2002 to February, 2004. 4. Learned Advocate fairly concedes that the issue is decided against the assessee by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE vs. Solaris Chemtech Ltd. [2007 (214) ELT 481 (SC)]. He also submits that in their own case by Final Order No. 647/09 dated 26.8.09 in Appeal No. 525/2006, the appeal has been disposed of by confirming the demand of duty along with interest and setting aside the penalty imposed on them. 5. Learned DR submits that the facts in the said case and the present case are identical....

C.C.E., Chandigarh Vs. M/S Durable Pipes Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per M. Veeraiyan: Appeal No.E/195/2008 is by the Department against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) No. 651/CE/CHD/2007 dated 23.11.2007. Cross-Objection No.105/2008 is connected to this appeal. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief , are that the respondent received a DG set vide Invoice No.235 dated 2.5.2002 and took credit amounting to Rs.55,448/-; they used the generator for some period and they removed; on sale the said generator for a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- in terms of Invoice No.216 dated 23.3.2006 and paid duty amounting to Rs.20,800/-, that is by adopting the sale value at time of removal on 23.3.2006. The original authority holding that DG set has been cleared as such that is DG set and they ought to have paid duty equal to the credit availed by them amounting to Rs.55,448/- and accordingly, confirmed differential duty of Rs.34,648/- along with interest and imposed equal amount as penalty. On appeal by the party, the Commissioner (Appeals) relying on the deci...

Maj General (Retd.)A.K.Lal Versus the Union of India Through Secretary ...

Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi

1. The present appeal is directed against the findings and order dated 13.09.2008 passed by General Court Martial whereby holding the appellant guilty for misconduct and sentencing him to be dismissed from service. Consequential relief.s have also been sought by the petitioner. Preliminary objection has been raised from the side of the UOI that this petition is not maintainable as being premature. Because the findings and the sentence awarded by GCM are still awaiting confirmation from the Chief of the Army Staff and so no validity can be attached to such findings or order. When the orders have not yet been promulgated there is no reason for the petitioner to have felt aggrieved from such findings/ order. It has also been submitted that the Chief of the Army Staff could not exercise his powers under Section 153 of the Army Act because of the undertaking given from the side of the respondents in the TP Civil Appeal (17/09) in Rajasthan High Court on 17.01.2009 to the effect that till th...

Ram Krishna Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 166(2010)DLT706

Mool Chand Garg, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition aggrieved from the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 23.5.2007 whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the application of the petitioner being OA No. 623/2006 seeking direction to the second respondent to further promote the petitioner on notional basis as Director (Scientist D) and further direct payment of pay and allowances for the said post on the ground that he became eligible for promotion to the post of Director (Scientist D) in view of the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 1958/2002 decided on 12th August, 2002 whereby he had been given seniority for the post of Meteorologist Grade I w.e.f. 1.10.1997 and which made him eligible for further promotion to the post of Director (Scientist D) in view of having completed four years in service in the said grade before his retirement. It was his case that his promotion for the post...