Delhi Court February 1998 Judgments

S. K. Gupta Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the block assessment made under s. 158BC(c) of the IT Act, 1961 determining undisclosed income of the assessee at Rs. 5,62,13,938. The search and seizure operation was conducted against the assessee on 17th November, 1995, along with other Aerens group of cases. Notice under s. 158BC dt. 20th May, 1996, was served on the assessee. In compliance of the notice the assessee filed his return for the block period on 14th August, 1996, declaring nil income. However, the AO after scrutinising the seized material, at the inquiry stage of the assessment and after making inquiries, sustained three major additions given as under :(a) 3.80 crores on the basis of loose sheet which was listed at p. 13 of the Annexure A-1.(b) 1,71,53,938 on the basis of torn papers seized by the raiding party from toilet and sewerage line.(c) 10,60,000 on account of gifts received from NRI staying outside India. Unaccounted receipt/receivable money to the tune of Rs. 9,50...

S.K. Gupta Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1999)63TTJ(Del)532

ORDERJ.P. BENGRA, J.M.:This is an appeal by the assessed against the block assessment made under s. 158BC(c) of the IT Act, 1961 determining undisclosed income of the assessed at Rs. 5,62,13,938. The search and seizure operation was conducted against the assessed on 17th Nov., 1995, along with other Aerens group of cases. Notice under s. 158BC dt. 20th May, 1996, was served on the assessee. In compliance of the notice the assessed filed his return for the block period on 14th Aug., 1996, declaring nil income. However, the AO after scrutinising the seized material, at the inquiry stage of the assessment and after making inquiries, sustained three major additions given as under :Rs. (a)3.80 croreson the basis of loose sheet which was listed at p. 13 of the Annexure A-1.(b)1,71,53,938on the basis of torn papers seized by the raiding party from toilet and sewerage line.(c)10,60,000on account of gifts received from NRI staying outside India.Unaccounted receipt receivable money to the tune o...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Triton Valves Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT197TriDel

1. The dispute in the appeal related to assessable value of valves manufactured and cleared by the respondent with bought out items such as dust caps, hex nuts and ring washers. The Assistant Collector held that Valves were sold after fitting the bought-out items and the value of the bought-out items was to be included in the value of the Valves.The Collector (Appeals) held that these items are not component parts of Valves since over 90% of the finished products were cleared without the bought-out items fitted on them. Department challenged this order before the Tribunal. We held that these bought-out items are really component parts of Valves and that being so, whether they were fitted or not, would not make any difference. Inevitably, the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) was to be set aside and the appeal allowed.Instead, we stated in Paragraph 5 that we found no ground to interfere and accordingly dismissed the appeal. This, it is said, is an error on the face of the record...

Cce Vs. Talbros Automotive Components

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(76)LC453Tri(Delhi)

1. Respondent's claim for deduction of cash discount declared in the price list was rejected by the Assistant Collector but was allowed by the Collector (Appeals). Collector of Central Excise being aggrieved has filed this appeal.2. There is no dispute that the cash discount as declared was allowed to buyers who made payment of the price within two working days of the receipt of the proof of despatch. The objection taken by the department is being based on the ground that cash discount was not being passed on to all buyers. It was passed on to all buyers who satisfied the condition imposed for the cash discount. In the circumstances, the Collector (Appeals) was justified in allowing deduction. We also notice that though five appeals were required to be filed and the Collector has filed only one appeal.3. The appeal is dismissed. Cross objection being merely supportive is also dismissed....

State Bank of India Vs. M/S. Jackson Maye and Co. and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998IIAD(Delhi)836; AIR1998Delhi206; 1998(45)DRJ38

ORDERK.S.Gupta, J.1. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that it is a corporate body constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 and is carrying on business of banking including at Model Town, New Delhi. S.K. Basu has been authorised to sign and verify the plaint and to institute the suit. Defendant No. 1 is a partnership concern of which defendants 2 to 5 are the partners. Defendant No. 1 had a current account No. 30201 since the year 1974 in the Model Town Branch of the plaintiff Bank. It is alleged that the plaintiff purchased two cheques from defendant No. 1. Cheque bearing No. 690627 for Rs. 23,995/- purchased on May 20, 1981 was issued by M/s. Aggarwal Industries, Amritsar defendant No. 7 in favor of defendant No.1. Cheque purchased on June 7, 1981 bearing No. 609405 for Rs. 27,420/- was issued by M/s. Jalan Sales Corporation, Rajpura defendant No. 6 favouring defendant No. 1. After the purchase of both the said cheques the amount equal to the value thereof was credited in the ...

Mohd. Shamim Ahmed @ Mohd. Shamim Vs. Smt. Naseeban

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 74(1998)DLT247; 1998RLR219

N.G. Nandi, J. 1. The order dated 16.9.1997, dismissing CR 753/97 under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which was directed against the order refusing leave to contest under Section 25-B(4) and (5) of the Act in the proceedings under Section 14(1 )(e) of the Act, is sought to be reviewed under Order 47, Rule 1, CPC by the applicant tenant.2. The main plank of the submission advanced by the learned Counsel for the applicant/tenant seeking review of order dated 16.9.1997 is that the dismissal of revision application under Section 25-B(8) of the Act vide order dated 16.9.1997 is by following the minority view in the case of Precision Steel Engineering Works and Anr. v. Premdeva Niranjandeva Tayal 1982(3) SCR 270 that as per the majority view in the aforesaid decision for the purpose of deciding leave to contest application under Section 25-B(4) & (5) of the Act it would be the affidavit filed by the tenant seeking leave to contest shoul...

Shri Krishna Polyurethane Ind. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT162TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the order of Additional Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi, dated 5-6-1991.2. Ld. Counsel drew attention towards the memo of appeal and the facts of the case as narrated therein and briefly recapitulated them as follows : 3. That the appellants in their only registered small scale Industrial unit and availing benefits under exemption Notification No.175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 as amended, are engaged in the manufacture of furniture and parts thereof wooden as well as those made from polyurethane foam (rigid) falling under sub-heading 9403.00.4. On 17-10-1988 officers of the Preventive Branch of Central Excise, MOD-I, New Delhi, visited the factory premises of the appellants seized 1,017 pieces of furniture parts, describing the same as 'Articles of Rigid Polyurethane Foam' valued at Rs. 1,45,440.00 and resumed their entire accounts statedly for reason that the said articles of P.U. Foam were being manufactured without obtaining a Central Excise Licence...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Haryana Concast Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT430TriDel

1. In the reference application, revenue has contested that the following points of law arise out of Tribunal's Final Order No.910/97-NB, dated 26-8-97 -1997 (96) E.L.T. 360 (T). (i) Whether the credit taken on scrap used in manufacture of steel billets/ingots which were used captively, without payment of duty, in the manufacture of CTD bars, flats, rounds and channels, would be admissible for discharging duty on CTD bars, flats, rounds and channels despite the fact firstly, that scrap was not an input for the final products and secondly, the scrap was not declared as an input for steel ingots/billets in declaration filed under Rule 57G. (ii) Whether embargo laid down by Rule 57C is absolute and categorical.2. Arguing the reference application Shri P.K. Jain, ld. DR submits that the respondent had not declared scrap as an input for steel ingots and billets and that scrap was not an input for the final product. He submits that the Modvat scheme envisages that the applicant shall not on...

VipIn Enterprises Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC126

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 19-3-1997 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, confiscating two consignments of Copper Cathodes covered by Bills of Entry No. 6569 and 6571 both dated 25-7-1996, allowing redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 10 lakhs, confiscating seven consignments and since thatconsignments had been released imposing penalty of Rs. 30 lakhs as alternative imposing penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs and determining the value of the goods at US $ 2245.00 per metric tonne CIF for the purpose of assessment under Rule 6 of the Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988.2. Appellant, a trader in India imported Copper Cathodes of CIS origin from a supplier in Canada who shipped the goods from Dubai. Nine Bills of Entry (three dated 8-7-1996 and three dated 25-7-1996) were presented along with copies of contracts dated 26-6-1996 for 60 metric tonnes and 240 metric tonnes respectively and invoices. On account of suspicion about the correctness of the value declared, inve...

Single Furnace Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT307TriDel

1. Both these appeals arise from a common order-in-appeal passed by Collector (Appeals) who has confirmed two orders-in-original passed by Dy. Commissioner, denying the Modvat credit and also confirming the imposition of penalty imposed by the Dy. Commissioner in respect of two orders-in-original. There are two show cause notices for the respective cases. The first show cause notice is dated 10/14-9-1993 and the other is dated 28-10-1993. In the first show cause notice dated 14-9-1993 it was alleged that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of steel ingots and are availing Modvat credit facility on duty paid inputs towards payment of duty on their final products in terms of declaration filed under Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules, 1944. During the period of May, 1993, they received 711.955 M.T. of Defective Blooms/Billets and other scrap as per details in Annexure A & B and in support of the same had produced duty paying documents in respect of S. Nos. 4 to 22 of Annexure...