Delhi Court October 1998 Judgments

indcon Polymech Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT159TriDel

1. Question involved is regarding classification of Carbonaceous Molecular Sieve imported by the appellants herein. The appellants claimed classification of the same under Tariff Heading 8485.10 with benefit of Notification No. 155/86-Cus., whereas according to the lower authority, namely Collector of Customs, Mumbai the aforesaid goods are classifiable as a chemical under Tariff Heading 3802.10.2. Learned Advocate, Shri J.S. Agarwal has taken us through the impugned order from where he points out that these are in the form of cylinders fitted into the generator for manufacturing Nitrogen gas and it has a long life inasmuch as it is auto-generated. He has also taken us through the two opinions of Chemical Examiner and Deputy Chief Chemist available at pages 27 and 28 fo the Paper Book. It is clearly stated in the opinions of the said authorities that this system i.e.Carbonaceous Molecular Sieve (CMS) is a continuous process wherein CMS is regenerated and used. In the process CMS does ...

Thomson Press India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT1095TriDel

1.2 The appellants herein imported certain spare parts of printing machine. The spare parts have been confiscated on account of importation from a country different from what was alleged to be permitted to the appellants under the licence issued to them by Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. A fine in lieu of confiscation was imposed. The appellants here did not succeed up to the revision petition before Government of India.1.3 Thereafter, they filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi. The High Court has set aside the order of the Government and directed that in case the revisional power is now transferred to any other Tribunal, the Government shall make an appropriate order transferring the revision remitted back to it under the said order.Consequently, this appeal has come before us.2.1 Learned Advocate, Shri Anshun Tyagi submits that the allegation and finding by the lower authorities to the effect that the goods have been imported from a country different fr...

Balaji Paper Boards (P) Ltd. and Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(62)ECC631

1. Prior to its amendment on 27.12.1985, Section 11A of the then Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 {now called Central Excises Act, 1944, and hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), provided that for recovery of central excise duty not levied or not paid or short levied or short paid, notice was to be served, on the person chargeable with the central excise duty, which had not been levied or paid or which had been short levied or short paid, by a Central Excise Officer. The power to determine the amount of duty of excise due from such person on whom the notice had been served, was to be exercised by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, A question had arisen whether this power could be exercised by the Collector of Central Excise. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise was an officer subordinate to the Collector of Central Excise. There were a few decisions of the Tribunal wherein it had been held that even though under Sub-section (2) of Section 11A of the Act, Asstt. Collector ...

Alok Agarwal Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. The assessee filed an appeal against the order passed under s.158BC/143(3) of the IT Act. The grounds of appeal as raised originally were revised subsequently which read as under : "(1) That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Dy. CIT was not correct in law in determining a total aggregate income of Rs. 25,50,69,506 as undisclosed income of the appellant for the block period as against nil income returned as undisclosed income, as summarised below :--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 4 Rs.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(i) Other valuable 2,84,29,400 89-90 & 92-93 Para (D) on p. 9 assets (shares)(iii) Loans advanced 1,40,71,250 92-93 to 94-95 Paras 14 & 16 on by various Companies/(iv) Consolidated 8,91,86,382 89-90 to 96-97 Pages Nos. 30 to undisclosed income(v) Sales made by 86,90,314 93-94 & 94-95 Para 9 on page B. P. Marketing Ltd.(vi) ...

G.K.W. Ltd. Vs. Shriram Bearings Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1999Delhi27; ILR1998Delhi855

Usha Mehra, J.1. The present petition by G.K.W. Limited has been filed seeking winding up order against respondent primarily on the ground that the respondent company placed order upon petitioner for the supply of diverse quantities of materials of iron and steel. These orders were placed by the respondent company upon petitioner from April 1994 to August 1996. For the sale and delivery of these diverse quantities of materials of iron and steel petitioner raised 23 invoices/bills amounting to Rs. 54,84,784.85 paise. The respondent company paid Rs. 5,77,000/- having the balance of Rs. 49,07,785.85 paise against the outstanding bills. This amount of the bills has not been paid by the respondent company inspire of repeated demands. Finally statutory notice was served on the respondent company. As per petitioner; the respondent company is still indebted to it to the tune of Rs. 49,07,785.85 paise.2. Respondent challenged the claim of the petitioner on legal grounds as well as on merits. Le...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M/S. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998VIAD(Delhi)322; 1998(47)DRJ259

ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. By this petition under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 the Revenue seeks a mandamus to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for drawing up the statement of case and referring the following question of law for the opinion of the High Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law in having failed to appreciate that assessed company had furnished inaccurate particulars of income in its return and also in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) imposed by the Assessing Officer.'2. The Assessment Year in question is 1986-87. The assessed filed a return declaring an income of Rs.15,700/-. During the course of survey it was found that the assessed had additional income. On 9.12.87 the assessed filed a revised return surrendering an income of Rs.5,50,000/- over and above what was declared earlier. On 29.12.97 the assessed made yet another communication to the Assessing Officer stating it to be in continuation of his ea...

N.K. Nayyar Vs. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IAD(Delhi)425; 76(1998)DLT949; 1999(48)DRJ398

Anil Dev Singh, J.1. The petitioner calls in question the order dated August 13, 1996 (Annexure P-7) whereby allotment of flat No. 1707, Kalyan Vas, Delhi, in his favor was cancelled on the ground of alleged sub-letting. The necessary facts giving rise to the writ petition are as follows:On July 1, 1988, the petitioner was allotted quarter No. 1707, Kalyan Vas, Delhi. Vide notice dated July 21,1995 the allottees of the flats in Kalyan Vas,Delhi , including the petitioner, were asked to vacate their respective flats as the same were declared unsafe and unfit for habitation. It appears that in the beginning the petitioner had some hesitation in vacating the premises, but subsequently he is stated to have vacated the same. On September 11, 1995 the petitioner made representations to the respondents for an alternative accommodation on September 11, 1995. However, no alternative accommodation was provided to him. On August 13, 1996 the Joint Secretary (L&B;/PWD) cancelled the allotment of t...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2000]246ITR568(Delhi)

R.C. Lahoti, J.1. By this petition under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Revenue seeks a mandamus to the Income-tax AppellateTribunal for drawing up the statement of case and referring the following question of law for the opinion of the High Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in having failed to appreciate that the assessee-company had furnished inaccurate particulars of income in its return and also in deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) imposed by the Assessing Officer ?'2. The assessment year in question is 1986-87. The assessed filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 15,700. During the course of survey it was found that the assessed had additional income. On December 9, 1987, the assessed filed a revised return surrendering an income of Rs. 5,50,000 over and above what was declared earlier. On December 29, 1987, the assessed made yet another communication to the Assessi...

Good Media Limited Vs. the Prasar Bharti

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999(48)DRJ399

S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. This order will dispose of the application of the plaintiff for the grant of an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering and/or withholding the plaintiff from broadcasting of its programme for P.M. Channel of All India Radio, Delhi in accordance with the terms of the agreement dated March 16,1998 alleged to have been executed between the parties. The facts in brief are: That the plaintiff was broadcasting its programme on the P.M. Channel of the All India Radio, Delhi since November, 1993. In 1993 it was decided by the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting to invite private parties to take up broadcasting on the P.M. Channels by allotting various time slots for certain license fee to be payable by them. On 13.10.1993 on an application made by the plaintiff the Government allotted to it one hour time slot every day except Friday for the city of Delhi from November 1,1993 to August 14. 1994. In terms of this licence, the plaintiff commenced broadcasting ...

Alok Agarwal Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2000)67TTJ(Del)109

ORDERMiss Moksh Mahajan, A.M.The assessed filed an appeal against the order passed under section 158BC/143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The grounds of appeal as raised originally were revised subsequently which read as under :'(1) That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Deputy Commissioner was not correct in law in determining a total aggregate income of Rs. 25,50,69,506 as undisclosed income of the appellant for the block period as against nil income returned as undisclosed income, as summarised below:Head wise AdditionAggregate amount of un dislcosed incomeAssessment yearsReference in assessing officers order1234 Rs. (i) Other valuable assets (shares)2,84,29,40080-90 & 92-93 to 96-97Para (D) on p.9 to 1st para on p. 11 read with Annexure A(ii) Bogus share holdings 5,42,21,07091-92 to 96-97Last para on p. 22 to lst para on p. 30 read with Annexure D.(iii) Loans advanced by various Companies/firms1,40,71,25092-93 to 94-95 & 95-96Paras 14 & 16 on pp. 38 and 39(iv) Cons...