Delhi Court March 2010 Judgments

Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Cater to Cater Enterprise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per Rakesh Kumar: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against order-in-appeal No.237/CE/CHD/09 dt.30.6.09 passed by Commissioner(Appeals), Chandigarh. 2. None appeared for the Respondent though notice for hearing had been issued to them and had been received by them. Accordingly, in accordance with the provisions of Rule (2) of the CESTAT(Procedure) Rules,1982, the appeal is being taken up for hearing ex-parte in respect of the Respondent. 2.1 Heard learned DR who pleaded that the only issue involved in this case is as to whether penalty under Section 76 and Section 78 can be imposed simultaneously, that the Commissioner(Appeals) while upholding the impugned order, has wrongly set aside the penalty under Section 76 on the ground that imposition of penalty under Sections 76 and 78 is mutually exclusive and if penalty is imposed under Section 78, penalty under Section 76 cannot be imposed and that this view is incorrect in view of the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala at ...

Cce, Meerut Vs. M/S. Sapan Mehrotra

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Heard both sides. Both the sides agree that the only issue involved in this is as to whether the activity of the Respondent falls under the category of taxable service namely rent-a-cab service and is chargeable to service tax or not. While the adjudicating authority had held that Respondent’s activity is rent-a-cab service, chargeable to service tax, the Commissioner(Appeals) had set aside the adjudicating authority’s order holding that the activity is not covered by the definition of rent-a-cab service. Since the issue pertains to the classification of service, Single Bench is not competent to decide this appeal. Registry may list this appeal before the appropriate Division Bench....

Cce, Meerut Vs. M/S. H.L.Papers Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per Rakesh Kumar: The facts leading to this appeal filed by the Revenue are, in brief, as under: 1.1 The Respondents are manufacturer of M.S.Ingots chargeable to Central Excise Duty. For receipt of various inputs, they had availed GTA Service in respect of which service tax was paid by them as service recipient during the period from March-08 to June-08. The Respondent paid service tax on the GTA on the gross amount, without any abatement while they were required to pay service tax only on the value equal to gross amount minus 75% abatement. Since after payment of service tax on GTA service on gross amount, they had taken full Cenvat credit, the Department objected that since they were required to pay service tax only on the net amount after deducting 75% abatement and since they had paid higher amount of service tax on the gross amount, then Cenvat credit eligibility would be limited only to the amount of tax actually payable and they must reverse the excess amount of Cenvat credit. T...

Orbit Peripheral Private Limited Vs. Airport Authority of India

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Barkat Ali Zaidi, President (Oral): 1. The short facts of the case are that the complainant which deals in computer parts had imported computer parts worth USD 13975 equivalent to Rs. 6,86,172 (arrived at a rate of Rs. 49 per dollar) from M/s. Celetron Lanka Pvt. Ltd. It reached Delhi on 9.7.2002 and was kept with the godown of OP Airports Authority agent of the Customs Department. 2. The complainant thereafter for obtaining airway bill invoices, etc. i.e. the delivery order paid to the Punjab National Bank, Nehru Place, New Delhi the invoice value and obtained the delivery order which he produced on 24.7.2002 along with the bill of entry before the Customs Department, New Delhi for the customs clearance as to obtain the delivery of the consignment from the godown of the OP Airports Authority agent of the Customs Department. 3. The complainants allegation is that on 26.7.2002 when the Customs authorities approached the godown, for giving the delivery of the consignment to the complaina...

Navshakti Industries P. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2010(174)LC95(Delhi)

S. Muralidhar, J.1. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2228 of 2008 by Navshakti Industries Pvt. Ltd. (NIPL) seeks a direction to the Respondents to release on an urgent basis the consignments lying in the godowns situated at Khasra No. 421, Village Hiran Kudna, Rohtak Road, Delhi and 11/16, Kavita Colony, Nangloi, Delhi after taking a bond.2. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8243 of 2008 is by Mr. Pradeep Kumar, the Proprietor of Rakesh Paper Company (RPC) for a direction to the Respondents to release the consignments of the Petitioner lying at the godowns situated in Khasra No. 421, Village Hiran Kudna, Rohtak Road, Nangloi, Delhi without any preconditions.3. NIPL is an importer of newsprint and facilitator of newspaper/magazines. It is also an importer and indenting agent for certain consignments of Light Weight Coated Paper (LWC), GNP and SNP papers on behalf of the RNI registered publishers as per their entitlements and requirements for printing of newspaper. Mr. Praveen Goel, s/o Mr. K.C. Goel i...

Cce, Allahabad Vs. Shri R.K. Srivastava

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per RAKESH KUMAR: The respondent provides taxable service of Rent-a-Cab Scheme Operator service. The Asst. Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 29.4.2008 confirmed the demand of service tax of Rs. 62,826/- against the respondent under Section 73 (2) of Finance Act, 1994 along with interest on this amount as per provisions of Section 75 of the Act. Besides this, he also imposed penalty of Rs. 500/- under Section 75, Rs. 1000/- under Section 77; Rs. 62,826/- under Section 76 and of Rs. 62,826/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The service tax demand was confirmed and penalties were imposed on the ground that during the period October, 2000 to September, 2005, the respondent was providing the taxable service to various clients without obtaining registration and without payment of service tax and without observing other formalities. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 6.2.2009, while upholding the penalty under Section 78 set aside the p...

Kuljuot Kaur BhasIn Vs. Wg. Cdr V.P. Singh and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

M.L. Sahni, Member (Oral): 1. This appeal has been filed by the complainant Mrs. Kuljyot Kaur Bhasin who has been awarded refund of a sum of Rs. 20,000 out of total payment of Rs. 1,15,000 made to the OPs for her promised immigration visa for Australia. The appellant has prayed in this appeal that in view of the observations made in the impugned order dated 13.6.2008 passed by the District Consumer Forum X, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi in her complaint case No. 630/05/1290/04, she is entitled to be paid back the entire amount received by the OP from her for their failure to get her the promised immigration visa. 2. The case of the complainant/appellant before the District Forum was that she approached the respondent No. 1 for getting immigration visa for Australia who directed her to contact respondent No. 2 and, therefore, she appeared before respondent No. 2 and provided all the relevant documents including those of her educational qualifications and experience as a teacher f...