Delhi Court May 2010 Judgments
Cce New Delhi Vs. M/S Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-12-2010
Per D.N. Panda: Learned Joint CDR submits that there are instructions from the authorities that the appeal need not be forwarded to Committee on Disputes for which this appeal has become non-maintainable. Upon such a submission, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Sardar Swaranjeet Singh Vs. Anil Kumar Dixit
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: May-12-2010
M.L. Sahni, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal filed by the OP against order dated 22.1.2010 recorded in Complaint Case No. 1727/2009 has been challenged mainly on the ground that the dispute falls within territorial jurisdiction of District Forum-X whereas respondent/complainant has chosen to file the complaint before District Forum No. VI and that another case with same cause of action had already been pending under different Complaint Case No. 506/209 and the learned District Forum-VI had entertained the present complaint and granted ex parte interim order on 4.1.2010. 2. Taking these objections the appellant/OP filed an application and requested for deciding the preliminary objections regarding territorial jurisdiction because the instant complaint was not maintainable on the ground that OP/appellant has been residing and work for gain at Lajpat Nagar for which District Forum-X alone has jurisdiction. The District Forum rejecting this contention of the appellant/OP passed the impugne...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Allahabad (U.P.) Vs. M/S. Ankur Udyog Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2010
Per M. Veeraiyan: Appeal No.E/885 of 2008 is by the Department against the Order-in-Appeal NO.213-CE/ALLD/2007 dated 22.12.2007. Cross objection No.E/274 of 2008 is connected to this appeal. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The respondents are manufacturer of yarn and are availing Cenvat Credit on inputs services. The respondents are availing services of GTA in respect of goods despatched by them. In respect of the said GTA services, they as recipients, are required to pay service tax in terms of Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Show cause notices were issued proposing to disallow the use of Cenvat Credit in paying service tax on the said GTA services. The Original Authority dropped the proceedings. On appeal by the Department, the Commissioner (Appeals), upheld the order of the Original Authority and rejected the appeal of the Department. The department has shown perseverance and filed this appeal against the concurrent findings of the Original Authority and the Commissioner (Ap...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Raipur Bright Steel and Wire Weld Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissione ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2010
Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals ) No. 417/RPR-I/2003 dated 9.9.03. 2. The matter is before the Tribunal as remanded by the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh by order dated 15.1.2010 in Central Excise Appeal No. 26/2004 by which Final Order of the Tribunal No. A/821/04/NB(SM) dated 18.3.04 was set aside. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The appellant received re-rollable iron and steel products and took deemed credit in terms of Notification No. 3/MF/DR/332/30/87 TRU dated 20.10.87 as amended by Notification No. 3/MF/DR/342/1/88/TRU dated 1.6.89. 5. A show cause notice was issued contending that the material has been received from a manufacturer under challans and, therefore, it was clear that no duty has been paid and, therefore, deemed credit was not available accordingly, proposing recovery of Rs.6,468/-. The original authority dropped the proceedings initiated by the show cause notice. On appeal by the department, Commissioner (Ap...
Tag this Judgment!No. 3983839a Ex. Sep. (Nk) Purshotam Lal Versus Union of India Through ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2010
1. The appellant craves for quashing the entire Summary Court Martial (SCM) proceedings whereby he was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 64(e) of the Army Act (the Act, for brevity) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, reduced to ranks and dismissed from service. The appellant also seeks to be reinstated in service with effect from 15.10.2002 and granted backwages and all consequential benefits. On transfer under Section 34 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the petition was treated as an appeal. 2. The background facts, in a nutshell, as set out by the appellant, are: The appellant was enrolled in the Army (Regiment of Dogra) as Sepoy (GD) on 1.9.1983 and was initially posted to 7 Dogra, then 26 Rajput and later to 19 Battalion, Dogra Regiment. During this period, the appellant was promoted to the rank of Naik with effect from 10.10.1997. During the course of his service, he performed his duties in various environmental conditio...
Tag this Judgment!Ex. Rfn. Rajvir Singh No. 3177424n Unit 18 Garhwal Rif Versus Union of ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2010
1. This petition has been brought by the petitioner to set aside the Summary Court Martial proceedings of 9.5.1995, wherein he was dismissed from service. The petitioner seeks to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that despite being a case of neurotic depression and mental disorder and having been placed in Low Medical Category CEE (Psy) since 13.3.1995, he was still subjected to disciplinary proceedings knowing fully well that he was unable to understand or grasp the proceedings. He was supposedly undergoing anxiety and depressive symptoms which was not appreciated by his Commanding Officer. The petitioner has also challenged the medical opinion of 2.5.1995 declaring him fit to stand trial on the ground that he was never brought before a duly constituted Review Medical Board and that the opinion of the Psychiatrist of 2.5.1995 is perverse and suffers from substantial legal infirmity. The petitioner contends that he was...
Tag this Judgment!Sergeant P.L. Dhaka (Retd) New Delhi Versus Union of India Through Its ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2010
1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India had been brought to Delhi High Court for declaring Air Force Order 15/90 (hereinafter referred to as the AFO) relating to search, to be unconstitutional and ultravires. The search so made in the married Quarter C-8, New Wellington Camp, Air Force Station, Race Course, New Delhi-110003 on 19.12.1998 on the basis of the powers drawn by respondent no.4 from the aforesaid AFO 15/90 is said to be illegal, invalid and non-est. Further exemplary damages are also claimed for the violation of his fundamental rights under Article 21 and 19(1)(d) which caused irreparable damages to his social reputation. It is contended by the petitioner that he was posted to the Directorate of Personnel (Airmen) with effect from 14.07.1997 from National Defence Academy Khadakvasala, Pune and continued to work till attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2000. The petitioner being a Sergeant was member of the Senior Non Commissioned Officer...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Excel Consultancy Vs. Cce, Bhopal
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-10-2010
Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No.592/BPL/2009 dated 06.10.2009 dated 06.10.2009. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The appellant is providing Manpower Recruitment Services. Based on computer print-outs showing details of bills raised by the appellants and payments received, show cause notice was issued proposing demand of Service Tax of Rs.3,72,805/- and proposing penalties under various Sections. The Original Authority confirmed demand of service tax and appropriated a sum of Rs.2,78,489/-. He also imposed penalties of Rs.69,622/- and Rs.26,855/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal. The appellant is disputing Service Tax demand of only Rs.11,358/- relating to five bills raised by them during February, 2007, March, 2007 and May, 2007 on the ground that total amounting of Rs.1,04,153/- was not yet received by them from their clients. They are disputing the penalties on this ground. 4. Ld. Advocate submits that the Service T...
Tag this Judgment!Cce Panchkula Vs. M/S Lekh Raj Narinder Kumar
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-10-2010
Per D.N. Panda: None present for the respondents. 2. Revenue being aggrieved by waiver of penalty has come in appeal challenging the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) made in para 4 of the appellate order. According to the learned DR, for no good reason section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 is invokable in this case to waive penalties. When the learned Adjudicating Authority examined the issue, he found that there were deliberate breach of law made by the Respondent for which he levied penalty under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. On each count of penalty, appellate order should have been passed without a summary disposal. 3. Heard Revenue in absence of the Respondent who was issued notice for hearing. 4. When the adjudication order brings out that the Respondent pleaded that he acted on the wrong advice, veracity of such statement was not examined by the learned Appellate Authority. He has not gone into the breach of law made by the Respondent under three...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Natural Slate and Sandstone Exports Pvt Ltd Vs. Cce, Jaipur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-10-2010
Per D.N. Panda: Notice has gone for this case on 7.4.2010 fixing the hearing date for today. None present for the Appellant. There is also no adjournment application. Acknowledgment in respect of service of notice is available on record. 3. Heard the learned SDR. 4. He brigs out that in para 8, learned Commissioner has brought out three claims of the appellants. He has examined all the claims and has dealt with the same very neatly. He found that the appellant failed to satisfy the requirement of Notification and failed to adduce evidence for which the appellant was not entitled to the refund claim. It appears from record that the manner in which the examination was done by the Appellate Authority clearly shows that he has applied his mind and did not fail to discharge the duty testing the written agreement available before him. Therefore, finding no infirmity in the decision, there is no scope to interfere with the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority. Accordingly, the appe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »