Delhi Court February 2010 Judgments

Cce, Delhi-iv and Others Vs. M/S A.R. Industries and Others

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per D.N. Panda: In all these three appeals, the ld. Counsel appearing preliminarily submits that it was not known to anybody about arise of liability on supplementary invoice till judgement in SKF India Ltd. came up. The assessees were under bonafide belief that the demand arising under supplementary invoices shall not call for payment of interest. When such a factual aspect was known to Revenue the limitation for recovery was also well known to that Authority. But unfortunately the limitation aspect has not been dealt by both the authorities below. Both ld. Counsels submit today that recently there was matter before Court No. 1 of Tribunal in the case of KEC International Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in 2010 (96) RLTONLINE 48 (CESTAT-Del.) granting fair opportunity of hearing on limitation issue. That judgement was made by Tribunal on 14.10.09. Shri Handa appearing for the respondent in Appeal Case No. E/654/08 of M/s A.R. Industries filed by Revenue submits that the demand is very negligibl...

Ex Sepoy Bharat Singh Versus the Union of India Through Its Secretary ...

Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi

1. This petition has been brought for quashing the order dated 30.08.2007 passed by respondent no.1 whereby converting his dismissal into the deemed to have been discharged from service despite the fact that SCM proceedings were found to be non sustainable and were set aside. 2. We have gone through the impugned order which in itself is self contrary and has left us guessing about the volte face. The order of the conversion appears to be on notional vulnerability of the appellant. The fact remains that SCM findings and the guilt so recorded all appeared to have been set aside. It is said that under such circumstances, the only course legally punishable to respondent no.1 is to have reinstated the petitioner in the service. 3. From the order itself, it is clear that the findings of guilt of the appellant has already been set aside vide the impugned order. In that event, the refusal of reinstatement of appellant is not in consonance with the law, the subsequent part of the order for deem...

Commissioner of Income Tax-xvii Vs. Idea Cellular Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2010)230CTR(Del)43

A.K. Sikri, J.1. These appeals were admitted on the following question of law:Whether on a true and correct appreciation of the relationship between the assessee and its distributors, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in holding that the payments paid by the assessee is not commission as envisaged under Section 194H of the Act?This question has arisen for determination for the Assessment Years 2003-04 and 2004-05.2. A survey under Section 133 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was conducted at the premises of the respondent-assessee (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'). It revealed that the assessee was not deducting tax at source. It was found that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of providing cellular telephone network through a card called Subscriber Identification Module (SIM). Prepaid or post paid connections are provided to the subscribers through distributors called 'Prepaid Market Associates (PMAs)' appointed by the ...

M/S Dms Corporation and Others Vs. Cce, Noida

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per: Shri Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar: Heard the learned Advocate for the appellants and learned DR for the respondent. 2. These appeals are being heard in terms of order passed today in stay application Nos. 2540 to 2544 of 2009. 3. Since common questions of law and facts arise in all these four appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 4. The appellants challenge the order dated 20.03.2009 passed by the Commissioner, Noida whereby the duty to the tune of Rs. 1,70,57,533/- had been confirmed against the appellants M/s DMS Corporation and sum of Rs.47,40,942/- against M/s MIT Corporation and equal amount of penalty has been imposed against both the parties besides payment of interest and further penalty against the Proprietor and father of the proprietary firm. 5. Though, the impugned order is sought to be challenged on various grounds, it is not necessary to address to those grounds and suffice to refer to only one ground namely failure on the p...

M/S Hindustan Handlooms Vs. Cc, Amritsar

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per D.N. Panda: The Appellant’s grievance is that six shipping bills which were subject matter of filing on 19.3.97, 28.5.97 and 7.6.97 were convertible from white shipping bill to green shipping bill for the purpose of drawback claim. But ld. Commissioner did not agree with the appellant for conversion. 2. Ld. DR Shri Srivastava submits that when the appellant’s claim for conversion on 3.11.97 was made by a letter of that date which was much belated stage after export of the goods, the claim was not considerable. So also he submits that when the goods were exported much after the respective notification came out, denial of conversion is not justified. 3. Heard both sides and perused the record. 4. Rule 12 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 permits for exercise of the right for exemption from the provisions contained in Rule 12(1) (a) of the said Rules. The proviso requires that satisfaction of the Commissioner is to be recorded befor...

Sgt. Tek Chand Sharma Versus Union of India and Others

Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi

This petition has been brought by Sgt. Tek Chand Sharma for quashing the punishments awarded on 04.12.2002 and 11.03.2003. Other consequential reliefs were also claimed. It is contended by the petitioner that he has not only been discriminated but was also harassed by imputing false allegations. The Authority concerned has not afforded him a fair opportunity to ventilate his grievance and it ultimately awarded the punishment of admonition and reprimand for no fault on his part. Other allegations were made by the petitioner for assailing the said punishment. The preliminary point raised from the side of Union of India is that this petition is not maintainable as the punishment of admonition and reprimand cannot be questioned before this Tribunal i.e. this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain such petition in view of the arrangement made u/s. 3(o)(iii) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. It shall be useful to extract the provisions of Section 3(o)(iii) which read as under: 3. De...

Shri Pradeep Khanna, M/S. Sound Tarrific and Another Vs. Cc (iandg), N ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per RAKESH KUMAR: The facts leading to these appeals are, in brief, as under:- 1.1 Shri J.D. Marwah is the proprietor of a CHA firm M/s. J.D. Enterprises, Rajdoot Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi. On 15.9.2003 on receipt of an information that Shri Marwah has cleared various consignments by under declaring the value and mis-declaring the description or without payment of duty by production of false documents, in connivance with the importers, office premises of the CHA were searched by D.R.I. officers. In the course of search, among the documents seized were the files pertaining to imports made by M/s. Gurunanak Home Tech Exporter, M/s. E.I. Dupont India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as EIDIL), M/s. Sight and Sounds India, M/s. Sounds Terrific and M/s. Universal Electronics. Statement of Shri Marwah was recorded by the investigating officers on 15.9.2003 under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962, wherein he admitted that there is under valuation and mis-declaration of description in the impo...

Cce, Kanpur Vs. M/S Ganesh Polytex Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per D.N. Panda: Similar such matter on maintainability of Revenue’s appeal in absence of authorisation has been repeatedly coming before this Bench. When an order was passed on 31.12.09, a preliminary objection was raised by Respondent as to absence of authorisation for maintainability of appeal of Revenue. In view of such an objection, the matter was adjourned to 8.2.2010 to enable Revenue to defend. On 8.2.2010, copy of note sheet authorising the appeal was filed by Revenue. A copy thereof was served on the Respondent for examination and reply. Consequently the matter was adjourned to 16.2.2010. When the matter came up that day, to grant an opportunity to Revenue to defend in the light of the various judgements of Hon’ble High Courts, the matter was adjourned to 17.2.2010. Accordingly, the matter reached today for disposal. 2. Ld. Counsel Shri Bajaj has same repetition of objection as to the maintainability of appeal. He relies on the decision of the Hon’ble High Co...

Santaclaus Toys P. Ltd. Vs. Registrar of Companies

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2010]154CompCas412(Delhi)

Sudershan Kumar Misra, J.1. This petition has been filed under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking restoration of the name of the company on the register of companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies.2. M/s. Santaclaus Toys P. Ltd., was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, on December 26, 1996, as a private limited company with the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana. It is stated to have carried on the business of manufacture and distribution of toys.3. The Registrar of Companies, i.e., the respondent herein, struck the petitioner-company's name off the register due to defaults in statutory compliances which are required under Sections 159 and 220 of the Companies Act, 1956, namely, failure to file balance-sheets for the periods March 31, 2001 to March 31, 2009 and failure to file annual returns for the periods September 30, 2001 to September 30, 2009.4. The respondent had initiated proceedings under Section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956, fo...

Cc(Prev.), Lucknow Vs. Sh. Sheo Shanker Jaisawal and Smt. Malti Devi J ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per Rakesh Kumar: The facts giving rise to this appeal filed by the Revenue in brief are as under: 1.1 On 8.6.07, the Police Officer of Siddarth Nagar, a place near Indo Nepal Border, intercepted a Tata Turbo Truck No.UP-51 T/0733 loaded with 300 bags of sugar valued at Rs.2,10,000/-. The driver of the truck was Shri Abdul Khaliq. The truck loaded with sugar was detained and handed over to the customs as it appeared that it was going to Nepal. A statement of the driver Shri Abdul khaliq was recorded on the spot under Section 107 of the Customs Act,1962 and he told that the sugar was loaded from the firm of M/s. Rajesh Kumar Deepak Kumar, Baharaich owned by M/s. Akash Traders, Burdpur, Distt. Siddarth Nagar whose proprietor is Sh. Sheo Shankar Jaiswal and same is being taken to Nepal through Village Ganwaria. The sugar alongwith the truck was placed under seizure. Subsequently, statement of Sh. Sheo Shankar Jaiswal, proprietor of Akash Traders and owner of the sugar was recorded on 16.6...