Delhi Court February 1999 Judgments

General Exporters Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2000)67TTJ(Del)119

ORDERMiss Moksh Mahajan, A.M.In an appeal filed the assessed has challenged the order of the assessing officer on as many as eight grounds of appeal as under:'1. The learned assessing officer earned in denying the appellant the benefit of section 80HHC of Income Tax Act, 1961 on the income of Rs. 1,87,67,770 assessed in its hands even after holding that it has directly arisen from export of goods.2. The learned assessing officer has further erred in holding that the appellant had not made any regular export and even if the goods had been genuinely exported, the exporter is M/s A.V. Thomas & Co. and not the appellant. He failed to appreciate the voluminous evidence placed before him by the appellant to show that the exports had been both in law and in fact made by the appellant.3 Without prejudice to the above contentions and in any case, if the learned assessing officer was of the view that the exports were made by M/s A.V. Thomas & Co., he ought to have assessed the above income in th...

Premium Moulding and Pressing Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC469

1. Briefly stated relevant facts for disposal of this matter are as follows :- 1.1 The appellants herein manufacture steering wheels which is a motor vehicle part falling under TH 87.08. It was alleged by the department after a visit by the department to the appellants premises on 12-9-1995 that the appellants herein had been allegedly sending semi-finished steering wheels to one of the job workers, namely PPAI for finishing after carrying out two tests before the goods became marketable. Those two processes are (1) reaming process and (2) run out testing. These were sent out because it was alleged by the appellants that they did not have the facility for these two tests. Department in the course of investigation found on the basis of several statements and several challans and other records that PPAI was closed, that the goods so sent to PPAI were actually finished goods and it was only in the garb of semifinished goods, that they were cleared without payment of duty. The goods sent ...

Arfaat Textiles Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)LC370Tri(Delhi)

1. The appellants are aggrieved by the order of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Ah-medabad confirming a duty demand of Rs. 36,834/- by applying the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - duty confirmation is as a result of denial of benefit of Notification 48/90 to processed cotton fabrics manufactured by the appellants herein on the ground that they used power for the purpose of colour fixation on their fabrics while use of power in the processing of cotton fabrics disentitles them from the benefit of nil rate of duty under Sl. No. 3 of the Table annexed to Notification 48/90. The benefit of Notification 253/82 which was claimed in the alternative has also been denied on the ground that what the appellants carried out was colour fixation while SI. No. 10 of the Table annexed to this Notification only permits power in the processing of padding i.e. applying of natural starch on one or both sides of the fabrics. In a...

Karyt Overseas (P) Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(83)LC368Tri(Delhi)

1. M/s. Karyt Overseas (P) Ltd. had imported a consignment in June, 1995 and described the goods as semi-finished Alloys Steel Rolls. The importers have declared the classification of the goods under sub-heading 7224.90 of the Customs Tariff while the used Steel Rolls were classifiable under sub-heading No. 8455.30. The goods were found to be the parts of rollings mills and since used parts were covered by para 29 of the Export Import Policy 1992-97, it was alleged that the said import was not covered by the OGL and required a valid import licence. The proceedings were drawn against the importers and the Deputy Commissioner of Customs confirmed the allegations in the show cause notice including that relating to under-valuation. The duty was demanded under the revised classification as alleged in the notice, A redemption fine of Rs. 6.5 lakhs and a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs was also imposed. The order-in-original was confirmed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi.2. The matter was he...

Goyal M.G. Gases Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT364TriDel

1.1 The appellants herein obtained hydrogen gas through pipelines from Grasim Industries. They compressed the same filled in cylinders and cleared the same without payment of duty. The appellants had already paid duty on hydrogen gas received by them through pipelines from Grasim Industries. A question has arisen in the aforesaid facts and circumstances whether another duty liability on compressed hydrogen gas in cylinders devolves on the appellants herein or not.2. Learned Advocate, Shri Shiv Dass for the appellants submits that no new commodity has arisen as a result of process undertaken by the appellants. The process undertaken can be briefly summed as compressing, drawing and filling of the hydrogen gas in cylinders. The various purposes of the aforesaid three processes before their clearance from the factory is set out in their reply dated April 1997 to the show cause notice :- The act of compressing of the hydrogen gas is undertaken only for the sole purpose of filling in more ...

Gondal Prestressed Concrete Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT512TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad confirming the duty of the Assistant Collector's order of provisional assessment of broken prestressed concrete poles under Heading 68.07 of the Schedule to the CETA 1985.The appellants have asked for a decision of merits and have forwarded a copy of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Prestcon v. C.C.E., Rajkot reported in 1998 (77) ECR 44 (Tribunal) wherein it has been held that broken prestressed concrete poles are not excisable goods liable to any Central Excise duty, and Shri U.M. Udhoji, learned DR who reiterates the findings of the Revenue authorities.2. We have perused the Tribunal's order cited by the appellants and find that it squarely covers the issue of non-excisability of broken prestressed concrete poles which is the product in dispute. We, therefore, direct the jurisdictional Assistant Collector to finalise the assessment in the light of the Tribunal's decision cited supra...

Jyoti Limited Vs. International Pumps and Projects Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]103CompCas103(Delhi); 1999(49)DRJ145; ILR1999Delhi362

Usha Mehra, J.1. M/s. Jyoti Limited filed a petition under Sections 433(e), 434 and 439 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 (in short the Act) seeking winding up order against M/s. International Pumps and Projects Ltd., inter alia, on the ground that the respondent is indebted and has not paid the debt due to the petitioner. 2. That facts as alleged in the petition are that the respondent placed a purchase order on the petitioner pertaining to the specified Switch Board vide letter dated 10th July, 1995. The transaction emanated from agreement for the Kharagpur Augmentation Water Supply Scheme belonging to Public Health Engineering Department, Government of West Bengal Undertaking at Keshpal Augmentation Water Supply Scheme Pumping Station, Midnapore, West Bengal. The petitioner had also asked for Mobilisation Advance of 10% but no reply was given by the respondent. According to the petitioner, respondent's order was kept in abeyance for want of required clarification regarding terms of ...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. G.S.C. Industries (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1999)155CTR(Del)640

ORDERBY THE COURT:This is a reference at the instance of Revenue with respect to asst. yr. 1972-73. Opinion of this Court is sought on the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that license income enjoyed by the assessee-company from letting out of the 'Palace Cinema' was assessable under the head 'Profits and gains of the business'?'2. A similar question of law with respect to asst. yrs. 1963-64 to 1969-70 was referred to this Court and by judgments dt. 5th May, 1981, and 17th Feb., 1994, in IT Ref. No. 7/71 and 179/74, respectively, this Court answered the question in favor of the assessee, holding that the license income enjoyed by the assessee-company from letting out the cinema was assessable under the head 'profits and gains of business'.Following the said decisions, we answer the question referred in the affirmative....

Narinder Jeet Singh Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against Adjudication Order No. Addl. (APK)/111/93, dated 25-8-1993 under which a penalty of Rs. 2,50,000 has been imposed on the appellant for contravention of section 9(1)(f)(i) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (the Act). The charges are based on the allegation that the appellant had paid a sum of Rs. 64,583 to Gurpal Singh (whose real name is alleged to be Surinderpaul Singh) in consideration of the receipt of Hongkong $ 29,356.26 by Ashok Kumar in Hongkong. 2. Shri S.C. Puri, the learned counsel for the appellant, stated at the outset that the appellant was also prosecuted by the department under section 56 of the Act for the same charges as were adjudicated under the impugned order but in view of the order made by the adjudicating authority exonerating the appellant of the charge of violation of section 8(1) of the Act, the learned ACMM framed the charge of contravention of section 9(1)(f)(i) only; that on the appellants own plea, the learned ...

Silver Oak Labs Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT293TriDel

1. The appellants herein imported goods described as "synthetic perfumery compound" and claimed ITC (HS) classification under 33029001.10. The Revenue drew a sample of a consignment so imported by the appellants and sent it for test. They asked the following queries from the Chemical Examiner :- "The sample is a mixture of odoriferous substances in the form of light brown colour liquid and it is free from alcohol. It is a synthetic perfumery preparation." In the meantime another consignment had been imported by the appellants. Based on the aforesaid test report Revenue felt that it should be classified under ITC (HS) Classification 33029001.20.Classification as claimed by the appellants required a special import licence which was produced by the appellants. It is not disputed by the appellants that classification as proposed by the Revenue required a licence which was not produced by the appellants. Hence the adjudication order was passed by the adjudicating authority, on waiver of a ...