Delhi Court January 2000 Judgments

Jai Commercial Co. Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2000)66TTJ(Del)731

ORDERLack of proper enquiryCatch Note:In the circumstances of the case, the assessing officer allowed interest for purchase of shares to assessee, as genuineness of the transaction was not in dispute, thereforee, Commissioner was not justified in invoking power under section 263.Held:The power conferred on the Commissioner under section 263 deals with corrective measure. If an error had crept in the order of assessment and that error is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, the Commissioner can assume jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. The Commissioner's action under section 263 must resemble that of a surgeon's knife. He cannot open the assessment wide and direct the assessing officer to consider everything de novo. Only errors, which had crept into the assessment need to be corrected. He must give a clear cut finding as to the error. He must establish that the said error is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. He should see that the justice is done. There cannot be a...

Anil Agarwal Vs. Institute of Chartered Accountants

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2000]110TAXMAN89(Delhi)

Nayar,J.This judgment will dispose of two writ petitions, C.W.P.No. 6426 of 1999 and C.W.P. No. 4139 of 1999 as common questions arise for consideration.2. The petitions have been filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter dated 20-5-1999 and subsequent communication dated 19-6-1999, respectively. By these communications The Institute of Chartered Accountants have rejected the plea of the petitioners to pass no-confidence motion against the Chairman of the Northern India regional council (NIRC) of The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, The communications dated 20-5-1999 and 19-6-1999 may be reproduced as below :'May 20,1999Shri Praveen Kumar Bansal,Secretary,Northern India Regional Council ofThe Institute of Chartered Accountants of India,I.P. Marg, New Delhi - 110 002Dear Sir,The Central Council in its meeting held from 15 to 17-5-1999 at Mumbai considered the matter related to 'No Confidenc...

District Excise Officer Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)68TTJ(Del)436

ORDERMoksh Mahajan A.M.These four appeals filed by the assessed against the consolidated order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) are taken up together as common issue is involved. These are disposed of by a single order for the sake of convenience .2. The facts in brief as gathered from the order of the assessing officer are that the District Excise Officer, Muzaffarnagar (referred to hereinafter as DETO) was required to furnish half-yearly returns to the prescribed authority within the prescribed time. This was as per provisions of sub-section (7) of section 206C of the Income Tax Act. The assessed furnished the returns as under :Period for which returns were furnishedPeriod for which returns were not furnished31-3-199330-9-199130-9-199431-3-199230-9-199530-9-199231-3-199631-3-1993On scrutiny of the aforesaid returns, the assessing officer found that the DETO had collected tax at 15 per cent on the cost price of country liquor only and not on the purchase price of Nirgam Mulay. Ac...

World Link Finance Ltd. Vs. M.R. Dixit

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. Since the abovementioned appeals, filed by the appellant named above, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) have common facts and also raise common questions for consideration, the same with the consent of the learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondent/learned Counsel for the respondents have been heard together and are being disposed of finally by this common order. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the abovementioned appeals, lie in a narrow compass. The appellant is a non-banking Company, duly incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Officer at 151, Maker Chambers, III-Nariman Point, Mumbai and a Branch Office at 1102, Akash Deep Building, 26-A, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. In all the abovementioned appeals, the respondents had made deposits with the appellant. The deposits, so made by the respondents, with the appellant, were to carry intere...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(68)ECC323

1. These are three appeals by the Revenue involving the issue whether the High Flash Low Sulphur (HFLS) manufactured by M/s. Indian Oil Corporation is classifiable under sub-heading 2710.31 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by them and confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) under the impugned order dated 24-9-1991 or under sub-heading 2710.39 as claimed by the Revenue.2. Shri H.K. Jain, ld. S.D.R., submitted that M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited manufacture H.F.L.S. which was classified by them under sub-heading 2710.31 and benefit of Notification No. 75/84, dt.1-3-1984 was claimed which was available to High Speed Diesel Oil; that H.F.L.S. is different from "High Speed Diesel Oil" as it has distinct properties and use; that the impugned product is used by Navy to maintain certain temperature even in sea level where high speed diesel oil is not useable. He, further, submitted that I.S. Specifications for both the oils H.F.L.S. and High Speed diesel oil are d...

Sanwarmal Durgadutt Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC186

1. The issue involved in these two appeals filed by M/s Sanwarmal Durgadutt is whether the casted articles of Aluminium and Zinc are classifiable under Chapter 76 and 79 of the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by the Appellants or under Chapter 87 as parts of motor vehicles.2. Shri V. Sejpal, Ld. Chartered Accountant, submitted that the appellants manufacture aluminum castings and zinc castings as per the requirement of their customers; that after delivery of the castings their customers were carrying out further process as per their need; that the castings cannot be considered as parts of motor vehicle to be classifiable under Chapter 87. He further submitted that the casted articles manufactured by them are extremely rough and in semi-finished condition which cannot be recognized or termed as any specific part of components of any machinery or automobile. He relied upon the decision in the case of Shivaji Works Ltd. v. C.C.E., Aurangabad in which it was held that castings of par...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. North West Switch Gear Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT646TriDel

1. These two appeals - one filed by M/s. North West Switch Gear Ltd. and other by the Revenue - involve common issue regarding classification of Regulator of Electrical Fans whether under sub-heading 8414.20 or 8414.99 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.2. Shri R. Santhanam, along with Shri R.C. Gupta, learned Advocates, submitted that the period involved for the demand in both the appeals pertains to from May, 1993 to February, 1994; that during this relevant period Central Board of Excise & Customs has clarified vide letter F.No. 150/4/87 CEX-4, dated 24-6-1987 that the Fan Regulators would be classifiable under 8414.20 along with Fans. He further submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranadey Micro Nutrients v. CCE, 1996 (87) E.L.T. 19 (S.C.) and Paper Products Ltd. v. CCE, 1999 (112) E.L.T. 765 (S.C.) has held that the department cannot argue against the classification given in the circular and the classification given at the relevant time of demand ...

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Deccan Mechanical and Chemical

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT756TriDel

1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal, dated 9-4-1992 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). In the impugned order, the Collector of Central Excise held that chain conveyor without drive is classifiable under heading 8428.2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of chain conveyors and during the period from 1-9-1990 to 30-9-1990, the respondents cleared the goods, in question, without drive after filing the classification list. The respondents claimed the classification under heading 8428 of the Central Excise Tariff as conveyors. The classification list was approved and thereafter a show cause notice dated 27-3-1991 was issued to the respondents for classifying the chain conveyors without drive under tariff sub-heading 8431 as parts of conveyors and differential duty was demanded. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and classified the chain conveyors without drive as parts of conveyor under sub...

Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT431TriDel

1. These are ten Applications filed by M/s. Haryana State Electricity Board for waiving pre-deposit of the duty amounting to Rs. 12,40,842/-.2. Shri J.P. Kaushik, ld. Advocate for the Applicants, submitted that the Commissioner has confirmed the demand of duty in respect of Copper and Aluminium coils fabricated by them and utilised captively in the repair of electric transformers within their own workshop. He, further, submitted that the Applicants convert Aluminium and copper wires and strips duly insulated with paper, cotton, or enamelled in the reels/robins and drums to wind them as transformer coils; that the question of duty liability of the Transformer coils has already been decided in their favour by the Tribunal in their own case vide Final Order No. E/275/93-B1, dated 24-9-1993 wherein it was held that making of transformer coils by the Applicants does not amount to manufacture; that similar view has been taken by the Appellate Tribunal in the case of Punjab Electricity Board...

Thomson Press (India) Ltd. Vs. M/S. Megh and Company and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)238; 84(2000)DLT475; 2000(52)DRJ820

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J. 1. This application has been filed under the provisions of Order XII, Rule 6, although at the time of arguments Order VIII Rule 5 of the CPC was also pressed into support by learned counsel for the Plaintiff. It is prayed in the application that the suit be decreed since, in the Written Statement filed on behalf of Defendants 3 and 4, the statements of facts contained in the plaint have been admitted. Defendants 3 and 4 have filed a Reply to this application in which it has been submitted that the Written Statement should be read as a whole and that if so read it would not reveal any admission on their part. In support of this submission learned counsel for Defendants 3 & 4 relied on Dudh Nath Panday (Dead by L.R's) Vs . Suresh Chandra Bhattasali (Dead by L.R's), : AIR1986SC1509 . This case undoubtedly sets down the proposition canvassed by him. However, it has to be seen, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, whether in fact admissions have been m...