Delhi Court February 1998 Judgments

Ceat Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT141TriDel

1. The stay application was heard for some time and thereafter the Bench felt in view of the directions given by the Bench by its Misc.Order No. M/192/97-NB, dated 3-10-1997 and detailed note order dated 9-1-1998, the stay application would be allowed by dispensing with the pre-deposit and the appeal itself to be taken up for disposal, as the matter lies in a short compass.2. By Show cause notice dated 5-1-1995, the appellants were called upon to explain as to why Modvat credit of Rs. 3,55,02,000/- should not be disallowed and recovered from them under Rule 57-I, of C.E. Rules, 1944. The reasons given are that during the scrutiny of the records of the appellants for the months of July, 1994 to Oct., 1994 it revealed that they had availed and utilised the Modvat credit wrongly on input 'Caprolactum' to the extent of the amount already indicated on the basis of invoices issued by Marketing Division of Gujarat State Fertilizers Company Limited, Laxmi Ganj Mandi, Gwalior (depot of the sup...

Escorts Tractors Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned CIT(A) on 22nd March, 1991 for asst. yr. 1984-85. "That the Hon'ble CIT(A) VIII, New Delhi, has erred in law and on facts in upholding the slashing down special rate of depreciation of 10 per cent in respect of factory buildings to general rate of depreciation of 5 per cent." 2.1 The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that this point is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of Tribunal in the case of a group company, namely Escorts JCB Ltd., wherein Tribunal has held in asst. yr. 1985-86 that depreciation @ 10 per cent as allowed in earlier years, may be allowed to the assessee on the entire building.He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT vs. Standard Motor Products of India Ltd. (1983) 142 ITR 877 (Mad). At page 900 of ITR the Hon'ble Madras High Court has observed that there is no definition of a factory building in the Act or in the Rules. From ...

Uttam S. Arora Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 2nd September, 1996, for asst. yr. 1993-94.2. The assessee has raised various grounds in this appeal but all those grounds relate to the confirmation by the learned CIT(A) of the order passed by the AO holding that the income earned by the assessee on the sale of his property was assessable as business income and not as capital gains declared by the assessee.3. The appellant is a senior citizen aged about 70 years and is engaged in social work and journalistic activities. The appellant filed return of income declaring taxable capital gain of Rs. 22,49,750 on the sale of property No. 15/1, Sarva Priya Vihar, New Delhi. The appellant booked a plot admeasuring 388.77 sq. yds. in Sarva Priya Vihar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. in the year 1962 and made aggregate payment of Rs. 40,820.85 on various dates during the year 1962 to 1982 on the following dates :14th November, 1962 2,700.009th November, 1966 900.0...

Karnal Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)66ITD521(Delhi)

1. These are counter appeals, preferred by the Revenue for the assessment year 1992-93 and the assessee for the assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 against the respective orders of the CIT (Appeals). Since issue involved is common, we have heard these appeals together and accordingly these are disposed of by this consolidated order.2. The common ground raised in these appeals is whether the assessee is entitled to exemption of income under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Income-tax Act.2.1 The assessee is a co-operative society incorporated for manufacture of sugar from sugarcane. The assessee in the years under consideration claimed deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(iii). In support decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Broach Distt. Co-operative Cotton Sales, Ginning & Pressing Society Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 177 ITR 418/44 Taxman 439 was cited. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee society buys sugarcane from its members, manufactures sugar out of su...

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Kailash Devi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(1998)ACC464; 1998IIAD(Delhi)279; 72(1998)DLT375; 1998(44)DRJ823

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent had given up their claim to the balance awarded amount in case the awarded amount of Rs.1,50,000/- deposited by the appellant was paid to the respondent without furnishing security. The appellant had accepted this suggestion and as a consequence of which the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was released to the respondents without security.2. The question which comes up for consideration is whether by giving up the claim on the balance awarded amount of Rs.50,000/- out of Rs.2,00,000/- the respondents have also given up their claim to interest on the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the said amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was released on the respondent foregoing the balance awarded amount, which also included the amount of interest on the said sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. I am unable to agree. The perusal of the order dated 25.1.1994 passed on C.M. No.1920/93 reveals that the appell...

Dr. K. Jagadeesan Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1998]231ITR755(Delhi)

R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated January 8, 1997, passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Delhi, communicated to the petitioner, by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, whereby the petitioner's request for compounding of the offences has been rejected by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Delhi.2. The petitioner is a doctor practicing at Chennai. He is also a shareholder of a company. He derives income from business and profession.3. In the assessment year 1985-86, the return of income was due to be filed on July 31, 1985. The same was filed on March 29, 1988. A complaint under Section 276CC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was filed before the ACMM, EO(I), Madras. Vide judgment dated April 19, 1996, the petitioner was held guilty of the offence charged and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the court of Ses...

Dr. K. Jagadeesan Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1998)150CTR(Del)379

R.C. Lahoti, J.By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 8-1-1997, passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Delhi, communicated to the petitioner, by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, whereby the petitioners request for compounding of the offences has been rejected by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Delhi.2.The petitioner is a doctor practicing at Chennai. He is also a share holder of a company. He derives income from business and profession. In the assessment year 1985-86, the return of income was due to be filed on 31-7-1985. The same was filed on 29-3-1988. A complaint under section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was filed before the ACMM, EO(I), Madras. Vide judgment dated 19-4-1996, the petitioner was held guilty of the offence charged and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the court of Sessions Judge, Madras, and, vi...

Jayprakash Agarwal Vs. Managing Director, Ashok Hotel

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. On 25.3.1993, Mr. Jayaprakash Agarwal, complainant for short, booked Convention Hall of Ashok Hotel, New Delhi for a dinner in connection with the marriage of complainant's relation Miss Neeru to be held on 7.6.1993. Menu was settled and the charges were to be made per plate. The case of the complainant is that the assured number of guests was 1,000 and the number could exceed by 10%. In the dinner arranged by the opposite party, there were a large number of deficiencies. Many guests were not served even with water. Many of the guests were not served several items on the menu including chapaties, nan. The number of buffet tables were removed while the guests were still taking their meals. About 60% of the guests were not served with salad. The staff of the opposite party was discourteous. The complainant asked for the complaint-book for lodging his complaint. The same was not made available. The complainant was obliged to lodge complaint in writing on a sep...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Aureola Chemicals (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT105TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi dated 24-9-1990.2. Learned DR stated that in this case, the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of 'Organic Surface Active Agents' such as Acid Slurry and Liquid Detergents. They filed classification list with effect from 1-3-1987 and 1-4-1987 wherein they had mentioned the products 'Spent Sulphric Acid' indicating Chapter Heading 2807.00 and seeking exemption under Notification No. 170/65, dated 23-10-1965. The respondents filed another classification list with effect from 21-12-1987 but, changed their earlier stand as apparent from the remark that Spent Sulphuric Acid was non-taxable either under Chapter 34 or 28.3. They also explained the process of manufacture of their goods as follows :- "While manufacturing acid slurry (an organic surface active agent) they mix sulphuric acid or oleum to react with LAB (Linear Alkyl Benzene) an organic chemical." The Departme...

Syntex Processors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT214TriDel

1. The appellants are aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh upholding the Dy. Commissioner's order of confirmation of duty demand of Rs. 98,358.30 on a quantity of 37,847.85 mtrs. of processed man-made fabrics found short on 16-7-1994, and imposing a personal penalty of Rs. 25,000/-.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 16-7-1994, Central Excise Officers visited the factory premises of the appellants herein who are engaged in the processing of man-made fabrics falling under Chapters 54 and 55 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985 and inspected the records. RG 1 register was found written up to date depicting nil balance of fully finished fabrics and on verification of EB-4, no fully processed fabrics were found, which tallied with the record. The statement of Shri Narender Kumar Khanna, Partner of the appellants unit was recorded on the spot, wherein he explained that, out of the total alleged excess, a quantity of 28,616 mtrs. was receive...