Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. This is a bunch of six appeals by the assessee relating to different assessment years i.e., 1980-81 to 1982-83, 1984-85 to 1986-87 involving identical issues, hence consolidated and being disposed of by single order for the sake of convenience. 1. That the CIT(A)-XVIII, New Delhi has grossly erred on facts and in law in holding that the business of the appellant company has been discontinued during the year. 2. That the CIT(A)-XVIII, New Delhi has grossly erred on facts and in law in upholding the action of the AO in treating the interest income of Rs. 42,205 as "Income from other sources" instead of business income.3. In ground No. 2 in all these appeals, the interest income involved was to the extent of Rs. 42,205, Rs. 31,940, Rs. 41,543, Rs. 60,426, Rs. 37,965 and Rs. 15,259 for the asst. yr. 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83, 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 respectively.4. Facts relating to these grounds for asst. yr. 1980-81 are like that assessee is a closely held private limited compan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)69ITD124(Delhi)
1. These three appeals filed by the Revenue separately in the cases of three parties are taken up together and disposed of by common order.This is for the reason that the facts are common and the finding in one case has a direct bearing on the others.2. Facts in brief as gathered from the orders of the Revenue authorities as well elaborated on both sides are that the searches were conducted in the premises of Steel & Steel Fabricators, Industrial Fabricators and Mohit Steel Febricators on 17th January, 1989. On the basis of documents as discovered in the premises and on the strength of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ladhu Ram Taparia vs. CIT (1962) 44 ITR 521 (SC) and in the case of McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. CTO (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC), the registration granted to three firms was cancelled under the s. 186(1) of the IT Act. The firms were treated as unregistered and the income of the two firms namely Industrial Fabricators and Mohit Steel Fabricators wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)LC520Tri(Delhi)
1. In this case refund claim of Rs. 31,434.72 for the month of April, 1991 has been rejected on the ground that the assessees had not filed revised price list claiming discount of 7.5%. Assessees, under an agreement, were to supply 25 Km. of cables at the rate of Rs. 5,64,000 per KM ex-works. They filed price lists with effect from 5-4-1990 in Part-II. Cables were to be supplied in standard drum length of 600/800 Mts plus 5% tolerance as per purchase order conditions. The appellants despatched 22.13 Km. in standard length and balance 2.831 Km. in non-standard length. After clearance of the goods in accordance with the price list approved by the department they wrote to the department seeking revision of price on the ground that part of the quantity of cables were of non-standard length and there was a price reduction, while the assessees had already paid duty on the full value of Rs. 5,64,000 per Km. Both the authorities below have rejected the refund claim.2. We have heard Shri J.P. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2000)(117)ELT492TriDel
1. This Appeal is filed by Shri Anil Kumar Rai against imposition of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- and confiscation of his 2 trucks and their redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. 1.5 Lakh each.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 29-5-1996, Customs Authorities intercepted Truck No. UHX 308 at Dohrighat on Gorakhpur-Varanasi Highway. Shri Phoolchand was the Driver and with him Shri Ramjeet was sitting in the Truck. On search of the Truck, 10 Bags of Chinese Silk Yam were recovered from the hood of the truck. Another Truck No. UHX 307 was parked on the otherside of the Bridge. On search of the hood of the truck, 9 bags of Chinese Silk Yarn were recovered.Shri Phoolchand, Driver in his statement dated 29-5-1996 stated that Shri Jiut Ram, Munim of Shri Anil Kumar Rai had told him that if he transported the Chinese Silk Yarn, on return after delivery of the boulders, he will be paid some money; that he had discussed this aspect with Shri Anil Kumar Rai. Shri Phoolchand, Driver in hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)(108)ELT495TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal is the Central Excise classification of bearings for water pumps. The 'Central Excise authorities have classified the products under 84.82 while appellant claims that the correct classification would be under Heading 87.08.The appellant's claim is on the basis that these bearings are for use in water pumps which are meant for motor vehicles -like Fiat Car Ambassador Car, Jeep etc. He submits that classification should appropriately be based on criterion of use.2. None appeared for hearing but the appellants have Written a letter saying that the case may be decided on merit. Shri R.S. Sahghia, learned JDR 'Submits that Tariff Item 84.82 specifically covers "Ball or Roller bearings".He also submits that when the tariff heading in terms covers an item the correct classification would be under that heading. He also drew our attention to H.S.N. Notes to Section XVI (84.82) Which reads as under :- "This heading does not cover machinery parts incorporatin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)(108)ELT126TriDel
1. This appeal from the Revenue was argued by Shri D.S. Negi, SDR.Respondents were not present, having requested for the decision on merits.2. The jurisdictional Assistant Collector vide his Order dated 14-2-1990 classified the product "Pressed steel Radiators for Transformers" under subheading 84.04 on the logic that they were parts of transformers but rejected the assessees' claim for benefit under Notification No. 160/86, dated 1-3-1986. The Collector (Appeals) in his impugned order held that the impugned goods were parts of transformers and not a transformer. In this manner, it was not covered by the exclusion and could benefit from the subject notification. In the appeal memoradum it has been claimed that a part of the machine which is suitable for use solely or principally with that kind of particular machine would merit classification under the same heading as that of the main machine. It is, therefore, claimed where a machine stood excluded, the part also would stand excluded....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2000)(116)ELT581TriDel
1. The assessees imported goods and took the Modvat credit of the CV duty paid. The rate of the CV duty initially was shown as 20% which was later corrected on the original and duplicate copies of the bill of entry as 30% and the duty was calculated and paid accordingly. On the triplicate copy however these corrections were not incorporated.Therefore although the duty was paid at the rate of 30% the credit taken by the assessee was a sum calculated at the rate of 20%. The duty was paid on 8-6-1995 and the credit was taken on 20-6-1995. Later when the assessees realised their error, they took the differential credit on 24-5-1996. The Assistant Collector after issue of show cause notice denied the differential credit later taken, citing the provisions of Rule 57G(2) as amended by Notification No. 28/95-C.E. (N.T.), dated 29-6-1995. He also rejected the arguments of the assessee to the effect that the additional credit taken by them was in the nature of variation of credit under Rule 57....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998(46)DRJ842
Vijender Jain, J. 1. By this writ petition the petitioner challenges quashing of the impugned order dated 19.8.1982, whereby the order passed by the Joint Registrar interalia stating that the membership of the petitioner could not be cleared as the petitioner was dealing in the business of purchase and sale of immovable property in the Union Territory of Delhi. Further prayer has been made to issue appropriate direction to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner by respondent No.2 society. Vide order dated . 4.12.1982 a plot of 200 sq. yards was reserved for the petitioner. The petitioner died during the pendency of the writ petition on 20.11.1985. The legal heirs of the petitioners were brought on record vide order dated 3.4.1986. Affidavits have been filed by the L.Rs. to the effect that son of the petitioner Pradip Jain was entitled for the plot in question, if ultimately, the petitioner succeeds in the writ petition. Affidavits to that effect have been filed by Smt.Sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 74(1998)DLT696; 1998(46)DRJ788; (1998)120PLR20
K. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The plaintiff bank has instituted the suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs.1,32,962/- against defendants 1 to 3 with interest @ 19.5% p.a. from 16.1.1986 onwards. The suit was instituted on the 31st of January, 1986. Defendants 2 & 3 had been set ex parte. The allegations in the plaint could he abridged in the followingterms:2. The second defendant, M/s.Dhanarjan Enterprises, was borrowing money from the plaintiff. The stocks at the defendant No.2 factory premises were hypothecated with the plaintiff bank. The first defendant was permitted to take delivery of stocks of 3,000 pairs of ladies white shoes from the factory of the second defendant vide letter dated the 25th of February, 1983. The first defendant undertook that the stocks would continue to be under the charge of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 was taking delivery of those shoes for reprocessing. The first defendant undertook that at the time when the goods were handed over to the clearing agents for exp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(62)ECC410
1. Matter called. No one for the appellant. There is however a letter dated 18-5-1998 praying for decision on the Revenue's appeal on merits in the absence of respondents. Hence we have heard ld. SDR Shri A.K.Agarwal in support of the Revenue's appeal. "One parcel containing spare parts of Cone penetrometer which were despatched by M/s. A.P.V.D. Berg, Netherlands through DHL courier services vide AWB No. 5794362696, dated 16-10-1994 have been detained at IGI Airport vide Detention Receipt No. 27258, dated 15-12-1994 for payment of customs duty amounting to Rs. 8,000/-. The above mentioned spare parts have been sent to them under the UNDP Project but due to lack of communication the vendor had sent these spare parts through courier direct to the Central Soil and Materials Research Station, New Delhi instead of to the Resident Representative of UNDP. As the consignment had come through courier they were asked to pay duty on the same and they had cleared the consignment on payment of dut...
Tag this Judgment!