Delhi Court May 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/S. Pithampur Alloys Casting Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2012
Per Archana Wadhwa (for the Bench), J. 1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. 2. We have heard Shri R.K. Verma, learned DR. Nobody appeared for the respondents.3. As per facts on record, the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of MS ingots and cast article of iron and steel falling under Chapter 72 and 73 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Their factory was visited by the Preventive Central Excise officers on 25.7.96. Various checks and verifications were conducted. The stock of final product was found to be tallying with the recorded balance in RG I register. However, some of the raw materials like scrap, ferro manganese and ferri silicon were found short to the extent of 166.758 MT, 3.920 MT and 0.050 kg respectively. A panchnama was drawn. Scrutiny of private re...
M/S South Eastern Coalfields Ltd Vs. Cce, Raipur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2012
Per Mathew John, J. 1. The matter involved in this appeal relates to payment of service tax on services rendered by goods transport operators which is demanded from the Appellant as receiver of the service as per provisions of Rule 2 (d) (xvii) of the Service Tax Rules 1994, during the period 16-11-97 to 02-06-98. The Show Cause Notice in this matter was issued on 08-11-02. 2. Subsequently a corrigendum to the notice was issued on 02-11-2004 pointing out the retrospective amendment made in Finance Act, 1994 by Finance Act 2003 and the prospective amendment in section 73 of Finance Act 1994 made by Finance Act 2004. Finally the notice was adjudicated confirming demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 1466.73 lakhs with interest and penalties under different sections of Finance Act, 1994. 3. Before the year 2000, an issue came up that Rule 2 (d) (xvii) of the Service Tax Rules 1994 was ultra virus the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 in as much as the Act provided for demanding duty on...
M/S Bharti Airtel Limited Vesus Cce, Delhi
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2012
Per Mathew John : 1. The Appellants are engaged in the business of providing mobile telephone services. During 19.12.97 to 31.3.2000, they provided pre-paid and post-paid connections to subscribers. In the case of post paid connection the bills were raised for the sale of SIM cards and sales tax was paid on the value of SIM cards and separately another bills were raised for activation charges on which service tax was paid. In the case of pre-paid connections the same type of transactions were done through their agents. Sales tax was paid on the value of SIM cards and on such value service tax was not paid. 2. Revenue was of the view that the sale of SIM card was necessary for providing the service that the appellants were providing and without the sale of such SIM cards no service could be rendered. Revenue was of the view that the essential nature of their activity was that of a service and not that of sale of SIM cards. Therefore ...
M/S Ausmelt Limited and Another Vs. Cce, Jaipur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2012
Per Mathew John, J. 1. There are two appeals being considered in this proceeding. Both the appeals involve common issue and hence are being decided together. 2. Revenue has filed application No. ST-195/2012 for early hearing of appeal ST-453/2008. The application for Early Hearing is allowed and the appeal is taken up for hearing today itself. 3. The first appellant M/s Ausmelt Ltd is a public Limited company incorporated in Australia. The second Appellant is a company incorporated in Germany. These companies had provided services which were classifiable under the entry in Finance Act 1994 for services of Consulting Engineer. Such services were rendered to M/s Hindustan Zinc Ltd during the period 01-04-03 to 31-12-2004. These companies or M/s Hindustan Zinc had not paid any service tax on such services. Revenue issued Show Cause notices to these appellants, based abroad demanding service tax on the value of such services. The notices have been adjudicated confirming the tax deman...
Cce, Allahabad Vesus M/S Hindalco Industries Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2012
Per Mathew John, J. 1. In this proceeding two appeals, one by Hindalco Industries Ltd ("HINDALCO" for short)on whom demand is confirmed and another by Revenue against the same impugned order are being considered. 2. The matter relates to service tax demanded from the HINDALCO for the services of Clearing and Forwarding Agents received by the HINDALCO under provisions of Rule 2 (1) (d) (xii) of the Service Tax Rules. The Show Cause notice was issued on 11-10-2002. While adjudicating the notice the Commissioner confirmed the service tax along with interest. Further he imposed penalty under section 76 of Finance Act equal to Rs. 200 per day from the date of default to date of payment, penalty under section 77 and section 75A. HINDALCO has filed appeal challenging tax, interest and penalties. Revenue has filed appeal on the ground that the penalty imposed under section 76 should have been at the rate of 2% of the tax for every month instead of Rs. 200 per day imposed by the adjudicating of...
Commissioner of Police and Others Vs. Sandeep
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2012
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. Oral: 1. The Commissioner of Police is aggrieved by the order dated 20.01.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. This case concerns the cancellation of the candidature of the respondent who had applied for the post of Constable (Executive) in the recruitment of 2006 with the Delhi Police. We may also point out that the said OA 4298/2010 was the third round of litigation in respect of this subject matter. 2. The facts are that the respondent had filed an application dated 22.03.2006 seeking appointment as a Constable (Executive) with the Delhi Police. In the said application form, he had disclosed his alleged involvement in a criminal case arising out of the FIR No.104 dated 04.08.2003 registered under Sections 148/149/323/427/452/506 IPC at Police Station Ateli, Haryana. He had also disclosed that the trial in respect of the said criminal case was pending. However, the respondent had not disclosed the factum of an earlier ...
M/S. Modipon Ltd. Vs. the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2012
SANJIV KHANNA,J. (ORAL) 1.Modipon Ltd. has filed writ petition No.1623/1990 impugning reassessment notice for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 both dated 19th July, 1989. In the writ petition No.1624/1990 Modipon Ltd. has impugned reassessment notice for the assessment year 1984-85 and 1985-86 issued to them as successors of Indofil Chemicals Ltd. These two notices are dated 18th October, 1989. In the third writ petition No.2215/1991, Modipon Ltd. has challenged reassessment notice dated 4th March, 1991 for the assessment year 1986-87. This notice was issued to Modipon Ltd. as a successor of Indofil Chemical Ltd. 2. The reasons to believe for issue of the said notices are not been placed on record. However, there is a letter dated 1st September, 1989 written by the Assessing Officer to the petitioner indicating and stating why the assessment proceedings have been initiated. The said letter is reproduced for the sake of convenience:- “2. The re-assessment proceedings for t...
State of Nct of Delhi Vs. Rakesh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2012
S.P. Garg, J. Crl. M.A.19421 /2011 (U/S 5 of the Limitation Act) There is a delay of 58 days in filing the appeal. The delay is accordingly condoned for the reasons as mentioned in the application. The application stands disposed of accordingly. CRL.L.P.582/2011 1. The State has preferred the present petition for leave to appeal against the Judgment dated 19.07.2011 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.193/2009 by which the Respondents were acquitted of the charges for committing offences punishable under Section 498A/406/304B read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution alleged that the marriage of the deceased (Gunjan) took place with Rakesh on 21.11.2008. After the marriage the Respondents treated her with cruelty for not bringing sufficient dowry. On 06.02.2009, she committed suicide in the matrimonial home. Manjeet Singh, Executive Magistrate, recorded the statements of her parents and brother, they levelled sweeping allegations of harassment and cruelty to the de...
Govind Lal Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2012
M.L. MEHTA, J. 1. This revision petition assails the order dated 25.4.2012 of ASJ, Saket District Courts, New Delhi. 2. The petitioner was convicted by the M.M. under Section 138, N.I.Act and was sentenced to SI of six months and fine of Rs. 2,50,000/-. The entire fine amount was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal to the court of ASJ, Saket Courts. The learned ASJ suspended the substantive sentence subject to the petitioner depositing the entire fine amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- with the Trial Court and on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount. It is this order of the ASJ that has been challenged in the present petition. 3. The petitioner challenges the impugned order of the ASJ and the order of the M.M. on two grounds. Firstly, that M.M. could not impose fine of Rs.2,50,000/-. In this regard, it was submitted that as per Section 29 (2) CrPC, the M.M. could not impose fine exceeding R...
Sonia Associates Vs. B.B. Sabharwal and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2012
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Having heard arguments on May 08, 2012 in RFA(OS) No.36/2011 which lays a challenge to the impugned judgment and decree dated January 14, 2011 as also in CM No.8376/2012 which is the Cross-Objection filed by the respondents challenging the same judgment and decree, we are deciding the appeal and the cross objection, noting at the outset that suit seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell Ex.P-1 dated June 20, 1997 has been disposed of under the impugned decree, denying relief of specific performance but granting damages in sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs) i.e. double the amount of the earnest money paid by the respondents to the appellant when agreement Ex.P-1 was executed. 2. As per Ex.P-1, appellant Sonia Associates, the sole proprietary firm of Ms.Sonia Ahuja wife of Dinesh Ahuja had agreed to sell to the respondents the first floor with roof rights of the property bearing Municipal No.D-144, New Rajinder Nagar for a sale consideration of...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »