Delhi Court November 2000 Judgments

Jalan Castings (P) Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT184TriDel

1. These are 2 appeals. Since the facts and issues in the two appeals are similar, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Cross-objections have been filed by Revenue.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellants have two induction furnaces. The ACP of these furnaces was determined provisionally first and subsequently finally. Final Order determining the capacity of induction furnace of these two units were passed on 20/21-3-1998. Against this order both appeals have been filed. The Tribunal by its Final Order No. A/190-91/99-NB, dated 18-3-1999 held that "We, therefore agree with the ld. DR that the explanation of the appellant does not inspire any confidence and, we therefore, are not satisfied that the delay is required to be condoned. Accordingly, we dismiss the COD applications and as a consequence, the stay applications and the appeals are also dismissed as time barred." In the mean time, the appellants submitted an application ...

Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC762

1. M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. filed application dated 12-10-1998 seeking the imposition of Anti Dumping Duty on Pure Terephthalic Acid (FTA) originating in, or exported from Japan, Malaysia, Spain and Taiwan. The Designated Authority in the Ministry of Commerce initiated investigations on the said application in April 1999. The investigations culminated in the imposition of anti-dumping duty on PTA originating or exported from Spain at the rate of Rs. 521/- per M.T.(Customs Notification No. 82/2000, dated 30th May, 2000 of the Department of Revenue). No duty was imposed on exports from the other Countries.2. The present appeals are directed against this Notification of the Department of Revenue. M/s. Reliance Industries have filed their appeal (numbered as C-267/2000-AD) seeking enhancement of duty in the case of exporter from Spain and imposition of duty on exports from the other countries mentioned in their petition. M/s. Interquisa, Spain has filed their appeal (numbered as C/31...

M/S. Jabalpur Steel (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Bhopal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants are manufacturing hot rolled products of Iron & Steel falling under Chapter Heading 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They are paying the Central Excise duty at the compounded rates under Sub rule (3) of Rule 96 ZP of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and their Annual Capacity of Production is determined by Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore-II under Rule 4 of the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 by applying the formula prescribed under this Rule. In this formula - the factor (sic) represents the normal distance of the pinions in the pinion stand in millimeters.. On 7.1.98, the Central Excise Officers of Jabalpur Division visited their factory and found a Gear Box of 195 mm "d" specification lying in their factory premises. Their Annual Capacity of Production however, had been first fixed on the provisional basis by the Commissioner vide his order dt. 9.1.98 by reckoning the 'd' parameter at 158 mm as declared by them. Th...

M/S. Bagru Ferro Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur Division vide his order dt. 27.1.2000 has confirmed a duty of Rs. 1,30,932/- on the appellants for the period from 1.1.99 to 31.3.99. The appellant is manufacturing Hot rolled articles of iron and steel which is notified under Section 3 A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for which the duty is required to be paid by them under the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. It is stated in the Order-in-Original that the Commissioner of Central Excise, jaipur-I fixed the Annual Capacity of the assessee vide his order dt. 26.3.98 and 30.3.98, but the appellants did not pay the duty as per the ACP fixed by the Commissioner. They are therefore liable to pay the differential duty of afore-mentioned amount. The original authority has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellants under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The appellants filed an...

Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Pratima Bhargava

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Del)173; [2001]249ITR123(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Heard.2. On being moved by the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B' (for short 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following question under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act'), for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the asses-see is entitled to the exemption under Section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?'3. The assessed is a partner in a partnership firm, Peekay Enterprises, which is running a printing press. A question that arose for consideration was whether the assessed was entitled to the claim of exemption under Section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Act. The Tribunal recorded the following finding: 'We are clearly of the opinion that the assessed is entitled to the exemption under Section 5(1)(xxxii). The partnership firm in which the assessed is a partner is engaged in the processing of goods. The word 'processing' has a wider connotation than the word 'manuf...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sharpedge Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IAD(Delhi)701; 89(2001)DLT125; [2001]249ITR319(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Pursuant to the direction given by this court, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, the 'Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', New Delhi (in short, the 'Tribunal') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interest of Rs. 73,449 paid by the assessed can be said to be the capital expenditure not deductible in the computation of the assessed's business ?' The factual position, as indicated in the statement of case, is as follows : The assessed is a public limited company, which was at the relevant point of time, that is, for the assessment year 1971-72 carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of razor blades. The Directorate of Industries had allotted a factory shed No. 34 in OKhla Industrial Estate to the assessed in March, 1957, on rental basis. In 1970, the assessed acquired another factory shed No. 36 in the same ...

Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. S.D. Suri

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]249ITR331(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Since the questions referred are identical in both the references, our judgment will govern both of them.2. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-A (in short 'the Tribunal'), under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (in short 'the Act'), for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in annulling the assessments as the same were not made in accordance with law as provided under Section 19A read with Section 3 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?'3. Heard learned counsel for the Revenue. There is no appearance on behalf of the assessee.4. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the factual position would go to show that some of the legal representatives of the deceased assessed were served with notice and merely because all of them have not been served, it was held by the Tribunal that the Wealth-tax...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Saraswati Chemicals and Allied Industri ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IAD(Delhi)796; 89(2001)DLT208; [2001]249ITR235(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. These two cases involve identical disputes and shall be governed by the common judgment.2. On being moved by the Revenue, the following questions have been referred for opinion of this court, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short, 'the Tribunal'), under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act') :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amounts of salaries due to the directors of the company, but not paid to them and utilised by the company for the purposes of its business, constituted capital borrowed for the purposes of its business within the meaning of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest paid by the assessed to the directors on such undisbursed salaries constituted interest on capital borrowed for the purposes of ...

Punjab Concast Steels Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT559TriDel

1. The brief facts of this case are that the appellants availed Modvat credit totally amounting to Rs. 3,08,300.30 during the period from 5-9-94 to 22-10-94 on the strength of the invoices issued by the dealer - M/s. R.N. Enterprises, Bombay. The Central Excise authorities at Ludhiana on verification from Central Excise authorities in Bombay found certain irregularities in passing on the Modvat credit by the dealer - M/s. R.N. Enterprises, Bombay to the appellants. The jurisdictional Range Superintendent asked the appellants to reverse the Modvat credit. The appellants reversed the Modvat credit of the aforestated amount in their RG 23A Part-II on 20-6-95. They however, filed a refund claim of this amount on 11-11-98 with the Asst.Commissioner of Central Excise, Division II, Ludhiana under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. This claim of the appellant has been rejected by the Asst. Commissioner vide his Order-in-Original dated 8-7-99. The appeal of the party against this ord...

Naveen Textile Agencies Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT1018TriDel

Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J) 1. The above appeals arise out of the order of Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur who has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 10,80,914.36 P.upon M/s. Naveen Textile Agencies (hereinafter referred to as appellant No. 1) and imposed a mandatory penalty equal to duty amount under the provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- upon Shri Naveen Malhotra (hereinafter referred to as appellant No. 2) under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules.2. The brief facts of the case are that the factory premises of appellant No. 1, who are manufacturers of tents and parts thereof, was visited by the Central Excise officers on 28-4-1998 and physical stock verification of finished goods and scrutiny of records, resulted in detection of shortage of two different varieties of tents. The statement of appellant No. 2, Proprietor of the factory was recorded on the spot and he admitted the shortage and suo motu debited the excise d...