Delhi Court November 1996 Judgments

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Sunrise Technofab Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT468TriDel

1. This application arises from Tribunal's Final Order No.A/1388/96-NB, dated 9-5-1996. In this judgment, the Tribunal had held that a gate pass which was endorsed more than twice was an eligible document for taking Modvat credit within the ambit of Rule 57G and that such credit was available where the jurisdictional officer was satisfied that double credit had not been taken on the gate pass.Various questions of law, as posed by the appellant Collector, are as under : "(i) Whether the credit can be allowed on the gate passes endorsed more than twice i.e. a document which is neither prescribed under Rule 57G(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, nor prescribed by the Board in terms of powers conferred under Rule 57G(2) ibid. (ii) Whether Tribunal can allow Modvat credit on document not prescribed under Rule 57G(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944".2. I have heard Shri Y.R. Kilania, ld. DR for Revenue and Shri S.P.Bhatnagar, ld. Advocate for the respondents.3. The first proviso to Sub...

Moorco (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)LC586Tri(Delhi)

1. These appeals are directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 13-1-1989 of Collector of Customs (Appeals).2. The appellants imported certain components which they claimed are parts of Flow Meters. The Assistant Collector as also the Collector (Appeals) held that they have not produced evidence that these check the rate of flow, and therefore, they classified these products under old Tariff Heading 90.26. Appellants had claimed assessment in regard to goods imported vide Bill of Entry dated 19-5-1986 under Tariff Item 90.26 and under the old Tariff Item 90.24 in regard to goods imported vide Bill of Entry dated 18-3-1985.3. Arguing for the appellants, the Ld. Advocate submits that these goods do not merely measure volume but measure also the rate of flow and, therefore, should be assessed to duty under Tariff Item 90.24 read with 90.29 under the old tariff and under 9026.90 under the new tariff.He draws our attention to the literature placed in the file which indicates that these are...

Royal Surgical Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)LC191Tri(Delhi)

1. This appeal is directed against Order dated 14-9-1988 of Addl.Collector of Customs .2. The appellants imported I.V. Infusion Sets comprising of Intravenous cannulae with flexible plastic tubing, regulator for flow control and fitting for insertion in the bottle. The Addl. Collector held that these are not covered by the Entry under Open General Licence (OGL) and under Notification 208/81 as the item appear to be an ordinary infusion set and not intravenous cannulae for long-term use.3. Arguing for the appellants, the ld. Advocate submitted that the position in regard to intravenous cannulae which they imported is now well-settle through decision of Calcutta High Court rendered in case of Trio Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India - 1992 (57) E.L.T. 249 (Cal.) and followed by Tribunal' s decision in case of Equipment Sales Corporation v. Collector of Customs, Madras - 1996 (82) E.L.T. 236 (Tribunal). In the case of Equipment Sales Corporation, the Tribunal held that the items can be...

Mehta Parvesh Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These two appeals, by the assessee, are directed against the common order passed by the Dy. CIT(A) on 24th September, 1993 confirming the penalty of Rs. 4000 levied under s. 271A for asst. yrs. 1991-92 and 1992-93.2. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has qualified only upto middle class and was not conversant with the work of writing of books of accounts. He could not engage any accountant in spite of all efforts. The assessee has, however, kept the details of bank account, various investments made by him, his drawings, payment of taxes, contract receipts, credits outstanding on the basis of which he has even drawn his balance sheet from year to year. All these records, maintained by the assessee, enabled the AO to compute the taxable profits. Moreover, the Board has not prescribed any specified type of books of accounts required to be maintained by persons deriving income from business. He, therefore, urged that penalty levied in both the years shoul...

SkIn Institute and Public Services Vs. Assistant Director of Income Ta ...

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)65ITD125(Delhi)

1. This is an appeal by the assessee against an order of the CIT(A)-XVI, New Delhi, pertaining to asst. yr. 1992-93.2. The main grievance of the assessee in this appeal is against refusal of exemption under s. 10(22A) of the IT Act, 1961. Alternatively, it was also mentioned that denying of the benefit of exemption under s. 11 of the IT Act, 1961, is unjustified, unwarranted and illegal. While refusing the exemption as such, the CIT(A) has acted on the relevant considerations demonstrated in the ground Nos. 4 to 8 of the grounds of appeal ignoring the fact that in the past the trust had been allowed exemption under s. 10(22A). The last plea of the assessee was that the CIT(A) has also erred in not allowing depreciation under s. 35(1)(iv) of the IT Act on the ground that the assessee-trust had been allowed exemption under ss. 11 and 12 of the Act, which is factually incorrect and contrary to the material available on record.3. The assessee is a charitable trust duly registered under th...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Northern India Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1997]226ITR342(Delhi)

1. In respect of the assessment year 1974-75, at the instance of the Revenue, the following two questions have been referred for the opinion of this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the lease money received by the assessed during the assessment year 1974-75 was assessable under section 28 and not under section 56 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the assessee-company was entitled to development rebate and deduction under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. In so far as question No. 1 is concerned, relying upon the order of the Tribunal in the case of the assessed for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73, the Tribunal held that the income of the assessed from lease rent should be taxed under section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, under the head 'Business'. Consequent upon this fi...

Janak Raj Jai Vs. H.D. Deve Gowda and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)670; 63(1996)DLT271

Jaspal Singh, J.(1) On July 5, 1996 we had dismissed the writ petition filed by D'. Janak Raj Jai challenging the appointment of Shri H. Deve Gowda as the Prime Minister of India. The ground urged was that Shri Gowda being not a member of either House of Parliament, the President could not have made the said appointment. (2) On July 30, 1996 was moved this petition for review of our order on the ground that Shri Deve Gowda, being a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly, Karnataka, could not be sworn the oath of office of the Prime Minister of India and that consequently his appointment to the said office was 'bad in law, void ab initio and in violation of the provisions of the Constitution of India.' (3) Though Shri Deve Gowda bestrides the story, the learned Attorney General who appeared for him adopted the strategy of distancing him from us, as F. Scott Fitzgerald did in the Great Gatsby, by forwarding the argument that the review petition itself was not maintainable and by maki...

P.V. Narasimha Rao Vs. State (Central Bureau of Investigation)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997CriLJ961; 64(1996)DLT797; 1997(40)DRJ116

Mohd. Shamim, J.(1) A learned Single Judge of this Court was of the view while deciding Crl.M.(M) No 2341/96, entitled P.V.Narasimharao v. State (CBI), on September 26,1996 that an application for anticipatory bail in a case where summons only have been issued would not be maintainable as, according to him, there was no apprehension of arrest in such a case. However, when another petition being Crl. M.(M) No. 2733/96 entitled P.V.Narasimharao v. State (CBI) came up for hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the observations of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Puran Singh v. Ajit Singh, reported as 1985 Crl. L.J. 897 to the following effect: 'THE grant of bail under Section 438(1) by the High Court or the Court of Session is, to my mind, dependent on the merits of a particular case and not the order of the Magistrate choosing to summon an accused through bailable or non bailable warrant.'(2) The learned counsel thus on the basis of the above contended before the learne...

SkIn Institute and Public Services Charitable Trust Vs. Assistant Dire ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1998)61TTJ(Del)29

ORDERJ. P. BENGRA, J.M. :This is an appeal by the assessed against an order of the CIT(A)-XVI, New Delhi, pertaining to asst. yr. 1992-93.2. The main grievance of the assessed in this appeal is against refusal of exemption under s. 10(22A) of the IT Act, 1961. Alternatively, it was also mentioned that denying of the benefit of exemption under s. 11 of the IT Act, 1961, is unjustified, unwarranted and illegal. While refusing the exemption as such, the CIT(A) has acted on the relevant considerations demonstrated in the ground Nos. 4 to 8 of the grounds of appeal ignoring the fact that in the past the trust had been allowed exemption under s. 10(22A). The last plea of the assessed was that the CIT(A) has also erred in not allowing depreciation under s. 35(1)(iv) of the IT Act on the ground that the assesee-trust had been allowed exemption under ss. 11 and 12 of the Act, which is factually incorrect and contrary to the material available on record.3. The assessed is a charitable trust duly...

Mehta Parvesh Vs. Income-tax Officer.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1998)60TTJ(Del)278

ORDERB. M. KOTHARI, A.M. :These two appeals, by the assessee, are directed against the common order passed by the Dy. CIT(A) on 24th September, 1993 confirming the penalty of Rs. 4000 levied under s. 271A for asst. yrs. 1991-92 and 1992-93.2. The learned counsel for the assessed submitted that the assessed has qualified only up to middle class and was not conversant with the work of writing of books of accounts. He could not engage any accountant in spite of all efforts. The assessed has, however, kept the details of bank account, various investments made by him, his drawings, payment of taxes, contract receipts, credits outstanding on the basis of which he has even drawn his balance sheet from year to year. All these records, maintained by the assessee, enabled the AO to compute the taxable profits. Moreover, the Board has not prescribed any specified type of books of accounts required to be maintained by persons deriving income from business. He, thereforee, urged that penalty levied...