Delhi Court July 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 12 of about 331 results (0.022 seconds)M/S Shakti Malt Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur I
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 100(RKS)CE/JPR-I/08 dated 17.4.08. 2. In the present case, the original authority dropped the demand of Rs.1,02,673/-. On appeal by the Department, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the original authority and confirmed the demand of Rs.1,02,673/- along with interest and imposed equal amount as penalty. 3. The appellant is a manufacturer of dutiable Barley Malt and non-dutiable Malt Roots. The appellant has not maintained separate accounts in respect of services utilised for exempted product and, therefore, credit was denied by the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. Learned DR fairly submits that the issue may have to be considered afresh in the light of the retrospective amendment to Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules by the Finance Act, 2010. 5. In view of the above, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration by the Commissioner (Ap...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E., Kanpur Vs. M/S R.S. Chemicals, Shri Rajesh Singh, Authorised S ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: These are two appeals by the Department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 30.4.2008. 2. None appears for the respondents. Notices issued to them have been returned back with the remark No such company exists in the given address. Heard the learned DR. 3. When the premises of the respondents were visited on 24.3.06, the stock of Sumo Gutkha was found to be 165 packets as against the recorded stock of 6735 packets and 1100 packets of Mast Bahar were found as against the recorded stock of 11980 packets. The shortage was ascertained in presence of independent witnesses and in presence of Shri Rajesh Singh, Authorised Signatory. In his statement given under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 Shri Rajesh Singh admitted the shortages and explained the shortages as due to removal of the goods by the employees of the factory without issue of invoices and without payment of central excise duty. The entire duty amount of Rs.2,00,049/- was paid on 27.3...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E., Allahabad Vs. M/S Deva Metal Powders (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal by the Department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 62-CE/ALLD/2008 dated 29.5.08, by which the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty of Rs.75000/- imposed under Rule 27 by the original authority to Rs. Rs.2,000/-. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The dispute relates to filing of returns by the respondents for the period April 2006 to June, 2007. The respondents were eligible for the benefit of exemption under Notification No.8/03 dated 1.3.2003, as amended. As the customers of the respondents wanted to avail cenvat credit, the respondents instead of availing exemption has chosen to pay duty from 1st April 2006 itself. However, they filed quarterly returns which were applicable to units availing exemption based on value of clearances. The quarterly returns filed by the respondents have been periodically acknowledged by the officer without any reservation/objection. By show cause notice dated 3.10.2007, it was alleged that the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Sepoy No.14603518m Cfn (Elect) Roor Singh of Hq 70 Inf Bde Camp Versus ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The appellant is aggrieved by the Summary Court Martial held on 30.11.1997 whereby he was sentenced to be dismissed from service. The appellant had completed approximately 11 years of service which was totally nullified by this dismissal. He therefore, seeks reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. 2. The appellant was serving in HQ 70 Infantry Brigade in Jammu and Kashmir in 1997 at the time of occurrence of this incident. He was granted casual leave from 28.08.1997 to 03.09.1997 but due to unavoidable family circumstances, the appellant overstayed leave and joined at 213 Transit Camp on 09.10.1997. The Officer Commanding Troops of HQ 70 Inf Bde Camp had a indifferent attitude towards the appellant and instead of charging him only under Section 39 (b) of Army Act for the offence of overstaying leave, purposely and wilfully falsely implicated the appellant in three other charges under Sections 41(I), 39(a) and 63 of the Army Act, thereby increasing the offences that...
Tag this Judgment!Director of Income Tax Vs Dharamshila Cancer Foundation and Research
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No ORDER1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity "Act, 1961") challenging the order dated 14th May, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short "ITAT") in ITA No. 1223/Del/2008, for the assessment year 2005- 2006.2. Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, learned counsel for Revenue submitted that both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short "Commissioner") and ITAT had erred in law in directing the assessing officer to allow the assessee to avail the deductions under Sections 11 and 12 of Act, 1961. According to Ms. Bansal, the assessee was not a charitable institution as its hospital was being run on commercial lines for profit motive.3. Upon perusal of the paper book, we find that the ITAT while passing the impugned order has relied upon its own ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Jayanti Shipping Co. Ltd. Vs Dr. Dharma Teja and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers YES may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not? YES3. Whether the judgment should be YES reported in the Digest?ORDER1. The plaintiff, by way this suit, claims recovery of ` 1,39,64,197.98 against the defendants. Since they were proceeded ex-parte by order dated 30.09.2004, the Court considers it appropriate to discuss the facts as established through the evidence by the plaintiff.2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, involved in the shipping business. The first defendant was appointed as a Chairman of the Board of Directors of the plaintiff on 14.02.1961 and the second defendant was appointed as its director on 11.11.1961. Sometime in the same year, i.e. 1961 the two defendants negotiated a deal on behalf of the plaintiff for purchase of 7 liberty vessels and two sales contracts dated 15.11.1961 were entered into on behalf of the plaintiff. The plain...
Tag this Judgment!Sub-inspector Ranvir Singh Vs Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?ORDER. (Oral)The petitioner has filed the application for permission to file the order dated 12.11.1998 passed by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi imposing the penalty of dismissal from service. The application is allowed.1. The petitioner was working as Sub-Inspector with the Delhi Police. The Government of NCT of Delhi initiated disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules) against the petitioner on 16.2.1995 which resulted in the petitioner being held guilty and the imposition of penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated 12.11.1998. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the order of disciplinary authority before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'CAT') which dismissed the p...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Krishan Kumar Aggarwal and ors. Vs Life Insurance Corporation of ...
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers YES may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not? YES3. Whether the judgment should be YES reported in the Digest?ORDER1. In the present suit, the plaintiff seeks money decree for Rs. 21,35,984/- and a further decree for Rs. 3,18,750/- with effect from 01.12.2008.2. The facts which are not in dispute are described as follows. The plaintiff leased-out the premises, being CGF-1, 2, 3 and 4, Ground Floor, C-Block, Dilkhush Industrial Estate, G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi (hereafter referred to as "the suit premises") to the defendants through a registered Deed dated 09.05.2008. The premises measure 3700 sq. feet and the lease was with effect from 01.05.2008. The total term of the lease was agreed to be 12 years, renewable at the end of the first three year term, at the option of the lessee, with increase of 15% rent upon the expiry of three years. The defendants paid Rs. 2,92,485/- by a cheque dated 13.06.2008 towards monthly r...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Kedar Nath and anr. Vs Vijay Kumar Kapani
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YesORDER.(Oral)1. The question of law formulated in the memorandum of appeal reads on internal page 17. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the memorandum of understating dated 1.7.1985 entered between the plaintiff and the defendant was an understanding between the parties that the property will be passed on to the defendant after five years if the money paid by the defendant to the plaintiff is not refunded back by him; further the finding of the trial court that this document required registration has raised substantial questions of law. The evidence adduced before the trial court has been ignored; the trial court could not have concluded that the defendant had paid only small amount of Rs.3,000/- in the purchase of the disputed property; the unimpeachable evidence before the Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and anr. Vs Lakshmi Chand and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?ORDER: 1. The petitioner has filed the aforesaid writ petition aggrieved by the directions given by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") vide order dated 17.09.2002 in OA No. 1272/1999 and order dated 16.08.2005 in MA No. 1233/2004 filed by the second respondent herein.2. Vide impugned order dated 17.09.2002, the Tribunal set aside and quashed the promotion of respondent Nos.5 and 6 respectively to the post of Security Supervisor (SS), a post which requires five years service in the grade of Rs.800-1150/-. Directions were also given to the petitioner to convene a review DPC and to consider the claim of the second respondent for the vacancies which became available for promotion to the post of Security Supervisor (SS) as he was senior to respondent Nos. 4 and 5...
Tag this Judgment!