Delhi Court August 1998 Judgments

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Triloki Nath Oberoi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2000]107TAXMAN382(Delhi)

JudgmentHeard finally.2. This is a petition under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') filed by the revenue seeking Mandamus to the Tribunal to draw a statement of the case and refer the following question pertaining to the assessment year 1981-82 to the High Court for its opinion:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in law:(a) in allowing the appeal of the assessed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) confirming penalty of Rs. 1,06,687 levied under section 271 (1)(c).(b) in discarding the overwhelming evidence and the conclusions drawn by the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal in the quantum appeal and in holding that the revenue has failed to establish with any cogent and positive evidence that the income represented assessor's concealed income without considering the position of law that by virtue of the Explanationns to section 271 (1)(c) the onus...

Unit Trust of India Vs. H.R. Gupta

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the complainant purchased 1,000 Master Shares of UTI from the secondary market for Rs. 22,266/- on 15.4.1994. He lodged the said shares with the UTI in two lots of 500 shares on 30th May, 1994 and 11.7.1994. He received back 400 shares out of the second lot on 19.1.1995 after transfer and the remaining 1600 shares in July, 1995 during the pendency of the complaint which had been filed on 1.5.1995. By the time the complainant received the shares after transfer the price had crashed and the complainant suffered heavy financial loss. He approached the District Forum claiming Rs. 15,899/-on account of compensation damages and costs. During the pendency of the complaint, however, he received the balance 1600 shares. 2. UTI impleaded as opposite party in the case, failed to file any written version. The complainant filed his own affidavit. 3. On a consideration of the matter, the District Forum-II allowed the compla...

Hindustan TIn Works Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT830TriDel

1. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of metal containers was using cardboard cartons provided by the buyers for parts of packing. The Assistant Collector and Collector (Appeals) rejected the appellants' claim was non-inclusion of the cost of cardboard cartons in the assessable value. The Tribunal reversed this decision in Order No.328/88, dated 23-8-1988 holding that the cost of cardboard cartons supplied free of cost by buyers cannot be included in the assessable value. Naturally since appellant had paid duty on assessable value inclusive of the cost of cartons, would be entitled to refund of excise duty paid. Appellant filed refund claims in respect of excise duty paid during the period from January, 1979 to March, 1990. The claims were filed on different dates during the period 21-5-1990 to 19-6-1990. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claims on the ground that original gate passes, PLA and TR-6 were not submitted in proof of the actual amount of duty paid and the appe...

Polymer Papers Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT436TriDel

1. In this case duty demanded of Rs. 24,987.00 has been confirmed by the Revenue on PVA Compound obtained by the appellants herein by dilution of Polyvinyl acetate emulsion with water, Di Butyl Phelate & Formaldehyde, holding that PVA compound is classifiable under Tariff Item 68 of the Schedule of the erstwhile GET, and liable to duty under that Tariff Entry.2. The appellants have asked for a decision on merits and hence we have heard Shri Satnam Singh, learned Senior Departmental Representative and perused the records.3. The Assistant Collector has considered the process of manufacture and found that Polyvinyl acetate emulsion is produced by hydrolysis of polyvinyl acetate and hydrolysis has been defined as (a) formation of an acid and a base from a salt by an interaction with water; it is caused by the ionic dissociation of water; (b) the decomposition of organic compounds by interaction with water either in the cold or on heating of esters alone or in the presence of acids or ...

A.C.C. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT169TriDel

1. The appelants in this appeal have challenged the order of Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur dated 31-1-1997 by which Modvat credit for Dumper and Loader was disallowed for purposes of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. A penalty of Rs. one lakh was also imposed on them.2. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that Dumper and Loader were used by the appellants for shifting and handling of raw materials inside the appellants' factory and this was integrally connected with a process of manufacture of their final product 'Cement'. The appellants have relied on the earlier decisions of this Tribunal in support of their contentions. They have relied on the following decisions : 1. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur - 1998 (101) E.L.T. 131Crasim Cement v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur - 1997 (96) E.L.T. 354Collector of Central Excise, Meerut v. Mansurpur Sugar Mills Ltd. -1996 (87) E.L.T. 91 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant Shri...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Madanganj Marbles Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT786TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue the matter relates to the Modvat credit in respect of the diesel engines under the provisions of Rule 57T of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The respondents, M/s. Madanganj Marbles Pvt. Ltd., were engaged in the manufacture of marble slabs. They had installed a gangsaw marble machine in which the diesel engine set had been used. They received the diesel engine set through the dealers and not directly from the manufacturers. The goods were received in the month of March, 1994, but the declaration was filed in the month of June, 1994. In terms of Rule 57T of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the capital goods were required to be received directly from the manufacturers. The Asst. Collector of Central Excise, Ajmer, who adjudicated the matter observed that M/s Madanganj Marbles (P) Ltd. had not received the diesel engines under the invoice/GP-1 directly in their favour. They had received the said goods from dealers and this facility was only extende...

Sanjeev Arora Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT416TriDel

1. Shri R.K. Handoo, ld. Advocate for M/s. Elekta Electronics and Ors.makes a mention that though restoration of the Stay Petition request, according to the receipt given to him, was supposed to be listed for 14-8-1998. However, on seeing the cause list, he submits that the case does not appear to have been listed. He submits that in the meantime his three appeals have been dismissed by the Tribunal under the Final Order Nos. E/673-75/98-NB, dated 5-8-1998. He submits that his Stay Petition was listed for hearing on 14-4-1998 which subsequently was declared as a holiday and the cases listed for 14-4-1998 were listed for some other day and in this case they were listed for hearing on 15-5-1998. He submitted that he had not received any intimation regarding the date of hearing fixed for his Stay Petition. He submits that in support of his contention he has filed an Affidavit. Ld.Counsel submits that since he did not have any intimation, the Stay Petition was dismissed on 15-5-1998 and h...

Baba (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT460TriDel

2. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants herein alleging that the appellants had been manufacturing package tea by packing loose tea in Unit containers put up for sale, without payment of duty, although as required under the law. Inasmuch as Chapter Note 2 to Chapter Note 9 envisaged the packing of tea in Unit containers amounts to manufacture of tea. On a visit by the Central Excise Officers 1,691 K.G. of packed tea of tea packets was seized similarly packet tea weighing total at 20 Kgs. in the shape of 500 pouches of 40 Gms. each were seized from the trading premises of the appellants. Certain records were also seized. The statement was also recorded from Shri Mohan Lal Vijay, Managing Director for the firm. On the basis of the scrutiny of records and the statement of Shri Mohan Lal Vijay, it was alleged in the show cause notice that the appellants had cleared 1,71,248 K.G. of packet tea as per chart attached from 15-3-1989 to 1-1-1990 without payment of duty and had thus...

Pacific Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT522TriDel

1. The appellants M/s. Pacific Exports Atlanta had imported a consignment of Sodium Lauryl Sulphate and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 224/85-Cus., dated 9-7-1985 as leather penetrator. The Appellate Tribunal vide Order No. 1259/90-C, dated 13-11-1990 allowed the appeal of the appellants holding that there is no stipulation in the notification that the import should be made by one who is in the leather industry. On appeal by the Revenue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2139/91 [1998 (99) E.L.T. 488 (S.C.)] set aside the Tribunal order and remanded to the Tribunal with the direction to dispose of the matter afresh after affording an opportunity to the importer to adduce evidence to show that the goods were meant for use in the leather industry.2. When the matter was called none was present on behalf of the appellants in spite of notice to both the appellants as well as their Advocate. Shri Satnam Singh, learned Senior Departmental Representative drew our attentio...

H.C.L. Hp Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT604TriDel

2. The appellants herein imported software in the form of diskettes along with the accompanying manual (Users Guide and Reference). In the Invoice, produced by them at the time of filing of Bill of Entry they had declared 60% value Of the total value towards diskettes and 40% value towards the aforesaid manual as per the established practice of the Customs House which is not denied by the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order. The goods were examined by the Customs. Software in diskette form was classified by the Customs under Heading 85.24 and the manual in the printed book form under Heading 49.01, as per the said practice.2. Later on, it appears that the Department had change of mind consequent to decisions in some Collectors' Conference. In August, 1991 they, therefore, issued a show cause notice alleging that the appellants had misdeclared the description of the goods and value by describing the goods in the aforesaid two categories thereby causing an evasion of duty. The ...