Delhi Court May 1996 Judgments

Concord Controls Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These three appeals filed by the assessee are against separate orders of the CIT(A), dt. 23rd Aug., 1990, 10th Sept., 1990, and 12th Sept., 1990, for the asst. yrs. 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89 for which the previous year ended on 31st Dec., 1985, 31st Dec., 1986, and 31st Dec., 1987, respectively. Since common issues are involved in these appeals, they are being consolidated and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. The assessee is a partnership concern deriving income from manufacture and sale of switchgear items, like time delay relays, fuse base, etc.3. Ground No. 1 in the appeal for the asst. yr. 1986-87 is to the effect that the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 19,679 incurred for foreign travel. In the assessment order passed under s. 143(3) for the asst. yr. 1986-87 on 18th Nov., 1987, the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed Rs. 18,679 by observing as under : "In the P&L a/c, the assessee has debited a sum of Rs. 19,...

Hilton Rubbers (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1982)1ITD106(Delhi)

1. The appellant is a private limited company carrying on business in the manufacture of rubber belting. This appeal relates to its assessment for 1977-78 for the previous year ended 31-3-1977.2. The first objection in this appeal is to the disallowance of the appellant's claim for investment allowance under section 32A (1) of the Income-tax Act., 1961("the Act"). The appellant claimed before the ITO that it was entitled to such investment allowance under section 32A of the Act in respect of additions to plant and machinery of the value of Rs. 1,31,456 during the previous year. This claim of the appellant was based on the ground that it was a small-scale industrial undertaking within the meaning of section 32A (2) (b) (ii). The appellant claimed before the ITO that the value of two items of machinery, namely, "tensile tester" and "humidity control cabinet", amounting to Rs. 56,180, should be deducted from the value of plant and machinery, amounting to Rs. 10,29,524, as disclosed in th...

Lakshmi Precision Screws Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1996)56TTJ(Del)455

ORDERB. S. SALUJA, J.M. :The assessed is in appeal against the order of CIT, Rohtak, dt. 27th March, 1991, made under s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961, mainly on the ground of setting aside the assessment order whereby the Assessing Officer (AO) has set off an amount of Rs. 1,21,59,314 on account of depreciation against the profits and also allowed the balance amount of Rs. 11,60,225 to be carried forward in the subsequent years.2. The brief facts in this case are that on perusal of the assessment records for asst. yr. 1988-89 the CIT found that the assessee-company had worked out book profits at Rs. 19,09,097. He also observed that the AO had adjusted brought forward unabsorbed depreciation against the current income and allowed carry forward of the remaining unabsorbed depreciation for being set off against the income of the subsequent assessment years. The learned CIT referred to the provisions of s. 115J and observed that unabsorbed loss or unabsorbed depreciation, whichever is less, was...

Concord Controls Vs. Income Tax Officer.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1997)57TTJ(Del)143

ORDERA. SATYANARAYANA, VICE PRESIDENT :These three appeals filed by the assessed are against separate orders of the CIT(A), dt. 23rd Aug., 1990, 10th Sept., 1990, and 12th Sept., 1990, for the asst. yrs. 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89 for which the previous year ended on 31st Dec., 1985, 31st Dec., 1986, and 31st Dec., 1987, respectively. Since common issues are involved in these appeals, they are being consolidated and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. The assessed is a partnership concern deriving income from manufacture and sale of switchgear items, like time delay relays, fuse base, etc.3. Ground No. 1 in the appeal for the asst. yr. 1986-87 is to the effect that the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 19,679 incurred for foreign travel. In the assessment order passed under s. 143(3) for the asst. yr. 1986-87 on 18th Nov., 1987, the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed Rs. 18,679 by observing as under :'In the P&L; a/c, the assess...

Man Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT178TriDel

1. The appellants manufacture articles of iron and steel and had opted for availing of Modvat credit of duty on inputs for payment of duty on their final products. This appeal arises out of the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur, dated 16-12-1988, as confirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi in the impugned order dated 6-6-1991, whereby Modvat credit of Rs. 4,68,622.93 was held to be wrongly availed credit, and its recovery was ordered from the appellants under Rule 57-1 of Central Excise Rules, besides penalty of Rs. 5,000/- being imposed on this on the ground that scrap on which deemed Modvat credit was availed by the appellants was clearly recognisable as non-duty paid since the same was in the form of broken pieces of old and used machinery parts, and iron steel articles like Cycle parts, tin containers, etc. It may be mentioned that the fundamental requirement for earning Modvat credit of duty paid on inputs is that such input...

Radio Vision Company Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT669TriDel

1. This appeal arises out of the order of the Collector (Appeals) dated 29-1-1985. The short facts of the case are that the appellants imported printed circuit boards against an additional licence valid for import of goods falling in Appendix 5 and Appendix 7 of AM, 1984 Policy. The goods on examination were found to be populated/loaded printed circuit boards. The lower authority held that these were covered by Entry No.564 and 576 of Appendix 3A of the said policy and also that the subject goods were covered by entry No. 100 of Appendix 2B. He held that the goods were not covered by the Import Licence. He confiscated the goods but permitted their redemption on a fine of Rs. 90,000/-. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the order. Hence this appeal.2. Shri Inder Kumar Panjwani, Proprietor appearing for the appellants drew our attention to Entry No. 564 of Appendix 3A and claimed that it had no relevance to the impugned goods. Referring to entry No. 564 of the said Appendix, he claimed the ...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Prajapati Metal Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT113TriDel

1. This appeal from the Revenue is directed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) New Delhi dated 31-7-1986. The short facts leading to the dispute are as follows :- 2. M/s. Prajapati Metal Works manufactured stainless steel castings out of stainless steel scrap purchased from the open market, without holding a Central Excise licence and without following the prescribed procedures. In adjudication proceedings, pursuant to the issue of a show cause notice, the Jurisdictional Assistant Collector held that the subject good's were classifiable under Tariff Item 26AA(V), that the goods were not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 74/62 and that M/s. Prajapati Metal Works had contravened the provisions as cited in the show cause notice. He confirmed the demand of Rs. 35,113.40 for the past clearances and imposed a penalty of Rs. 500/- on M/s.Prajapati Metal Works.3. In the order-in-appeal against this order, the Collector held that the goods merited classif...

Krishna Cold Rolled Sections Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT98TriDel

1. The appellants are aggrieved with the order dated 30-11-1995 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Allahabad. The appellants are manufacturers of angles, shapes and sections falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and availing Modvat facility in respect of inputs used by them in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product under Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules. During the month of April and May, 1994, the appellants availed Modvat credit to the tune of Rs. 44,163/- on the strength of Invoice No. 036 dated 26-4-1994 issued in the name of M/s. Agarwal Steel Corporation, Kanpur and endorsed by them in favour of the appellants. The Superintendent issued a show cause notice dated 2-8-1994 calling upon them to explain as to why the credit wrongly utilised to the extent of the above amount should not be recovered in terms of the proviso to Rule 57-I as there was contravention of Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and they were called upon to explain ...

Meenakshi Polymers (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT492TriDel

1. In the instant case the authorities below have denied the benefit of Modvat Credit under Rule 57G of the Central Excises Rules, 1944. The Collector (Appeals) in his impugned Order has stated that the certificate issued by the Supdt. of Central Excise is not sufficient for availing the Modvat Credit as according to him under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 57G the input is to be covered by the gate passes and the production of the certificate issued by the Superintendent in lieu of the gate passes cannot be treated as compliance of the said rule.2. In the Final Order No. A-788-89-96-NB, dated 7-3-1996 passed by this Tribunal in the other appeal of the present appellants it was held that the certificate of Superintendent in lieu of the Gate passes is sufficient to claim the Modvat Credit when there is no dispute that the inputs were received in the factory and were utilised as such. In the instant case since there is no dispute regarding the receipt and use of the inputs, I, following the ratio...

Union of India Vs. Eider Electronics Industries Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996VAD(Delhi)736; 63(1996)DLT330; 1996(39)DRJ721

M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J.(1) These are a batch of cases. The 10 LPAs arise-out of judgment of learned Single Judge dated 2.3.1995 in two writ petitions, C.W. 3774/92 and C.W. 924/93. There is one contempt case and again 4 writ petitions of 1996. (2) The question raised in the writ petitions C.W. 3774/922 and C.W. 924/93 was whether the omission to 'short-list' the writ petitioner (1st respondent) was arbitrary and illegal and vocative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. While 19 others (imp leaded as respondents 6 to 24 in the CWP) were short listed by the Union of India for the purpose of enabling them to make their financial bids, the Tender Evaluation Committee introduced additional criteria for eligibility and omitted the writ petitioners in the above two writ petitions from the list for not satisfying the fresh 'eligibility' conditions so introduced. The learned Single Judge held that the authorities could not, after the tenders were called for, introduce fresh conditions wh...