Delhi Court November 2000 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-2000
Reported in: 2001IAD(Delhi)599; [2001]249ITR90(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Delhi Bench 'D' (for short 'the 'Tribunal''), has referred, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), the following questions, arising out of its consolidated order in I. T. A. Nos. 5422 and 5289 of 1972-73, for our opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,75,709 (Rs. 1,47,109 + Rs. 5,600 + Rs. 25,000) maintained by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for the assessment year 1967-68 ?'2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in entertaining the additional ground of the assessed before them in respect of Rs. 1,868 and Rs. 19,157 representing profit under Section 41(2) and capital gains respectively ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sums of Rs. 1,868 and Rs. 19,1...
M.V.T. International Vs. Commissioner of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT635TriDel
1. This is an application filed by the Commissioner of Customs New Delhi stating that some errors have crept in the Tribunal's final order No. A/828/99, dated 11-8-1999.2. Arguing the case for Revenue Sh. Rajeev Tandon, ld. SDR, submits that this Tribunal by its Order No. A/828/99-NB, dated 11-8-1999 [2000 (117) E.L.T. 258 (Tribunal)] allowed the appeal of M/s. M.V.T.International; that in the said order the Tribunal relied upon the order passed by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court; that the said order of the Hon'ble High Court has been set aside by the Supreme Court by its Order dated 24-1-1994 reported in 1994 (71) E.L.T. 348. Ld. SDR further submitted that in subsequent case on the same issue this Tribunal by its Final Order No. 1213/99-A, dated 26-8-1999 [2000 (118) E.L.T. 360 (Tribunal)] held that over valuation of export is an offence under Section 18(1). He submits that thus mistakes have crept in which may be rectified.3. Shri J.M. Sharma, ld. Consultant opposes the request and ...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Jyoti Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT411TriDel
1. This is an application filed by the Revenue for rectification of mistake against Final Order No. A/1001/99-NB dated 29-10-99 on the ground that mistake has crept in.2. Arguing for the Revenue, in support of the application Shri Sumit K.Das, submitted that mistake has crept in the order since appeal filed by the Department has been dismissed on the ground that it is covered under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme. He said that there were two Bills of Entry at the time of importation. One Bill of Entry was passed accepting the value declared by the assessee and against the other duty was demanded.3. The Commissioner has decided the issue in favour of the assessee in respect of one Bill of Entry against which the Department has filed an appeal. According to the Departmental Representative tine declaration /certificate issued by the Commissioner covers the disputed amount pending on the date of filing declaration by the Party and the question of acceptance of amount relating to the other show ...
Collr. of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Citric India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2000
Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC254
1. This appeal, filed by the Revenue, is against the order of the Collector of Central Excise dropping demand of Central Excise duty on Innoculum Media and Calcium Citrate as raised by the Department in show-cause notice [SCN] dated 17-6-1993. The ld. Collector, in the impugned order, had held that both the aforesaid products were not marketable and therefore the products were not excisable. Ld. Collector had also held the demand of duty to be time-barred. The Revenue, in the present appeal, challenges the decision of ld. Collector on the grounds that, in view of Chapter Note l(a) of Chapter 29 of the Central Excise Tariff, Calcium Citrate was an excisable commodity and that innoculum media when prepared from micro-organisms preserved at sub-zero temperatures [either in freezers or in liquid nitrogen] had an extended shelf life and hence could be marketed. The appellants have also submitted that the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) was rightly invoked ...
M/S. Modi Xerox Limited Vs. C.C.E. Meerut
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2000
Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT140TriDel
1. The appellants - M/s. Modi Xerox Ltd. are the manufacturers of Photo Copy Machines of different models and parts thereof. They purchased the components of photo copy machines from different suppliers. Thereafter, they availed the modvat credit of the duty paid on these parts and components in terms of provisions of Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Certain parts and components were supplied to them by M/s.Supreme Industries Ltd. during the period from 6.6.93 to 30.12.94. The appellants took the credit on the basis of the invoices issued under Rule 57G in respect of these. They subsequently received, 10 Nos.supplementary invoices due to the enhancement in value of the item earlier supplied by M/s. Supreme Industries Ltd. on the strength of which they took the modvat credit of Rs.2, 65,079.89 on 12.7.95 in their RG.23A Part II in terms of Rule 57E. Since, however, all the 10 Nos. supplementary invoices issued by M/s. Supreme Industries Ltd. were bearing the date of their issue ...
Milton Laminates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT876TriDel
1. The appellants vide their letter dated 10-3-95 requested the Asstt.Commissioner, Central Excise, Division-II, Mehsana for availing the transitional credit of Rs. 2,24,002.32 on the input 'Furnace Oil' received during the period from 29-4-94 to 24-1-95. The declaration in respect of this input was filed on 12-3-94 but no Modvat credit was taken. The Asstt. Commissioner vide his order dated 19-5-97 disallowed the Modvat credit on the ground that there was no provision under Rule 57H to allow the credit on the inputs which had already been utilised/consumed for the manufacture of final products which were already cleared. He has further observed that the party had credited the amount on 28-12-95 and even under Rule 57G the credit could be taken within six months. The Asstt. Commissioner also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- on the appellants under Rule 173Q.2. The Commissioner (Appeals), Ahmedabad rejected the appeal of the party upholding the findings of the lower authority with the ...
intercare Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2000
Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT203TriDel
1. The authorities below have denied the benefit of exemption from duty in terms of SI. No. 9 of the Table annexed to Notification No.13/95-Cus. "Agglutinating Sera" imported by the appellants herein on the ground that the goods are not identifiable as sera because sera is a fluid fraction separated from blood after clotting, while imported goods were in freeze dried form.2. We have heard Ms. Reena Khair, Learned Counsel and Dr. D.K. Verma, SDR. The Bill of Entry describes the goods as "Agglutinating Sera for detection of Human Chorionic Gonadotrophin in Urine" classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 3002.10. We find that in the importers' own case reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 545, the Tribunal has accepted the contention of the importers that agglutinating sera can either be in liquid form or freeze dried form, and that the freeze dried form is also eligible to exemption from duty in terms of Notification No.208/81 at SI. No. 216 of the Schedule appended thereto. The relevant extra...
Sti Sanoh India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT572TriDel
1. The facts in brief in this case are that the appellants manufacture Copper Brazed Steel Tubes both ends of which are filled with duty paid rubber seals. The appellants took Modvat credit on these rubber plugs.The Asstt. Commissioner, Ujjain disallowed the credit on these plugs by three different orders all dated 23-8-1989. The appellants filed an appeal against these orders before the Commissioner (Appeals). They also reversed the Modvat credit of duty availed on these plugs and wrote a letter to the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ujjain stating that this amount was debited under protest and that they were approaching Collector (Appeals), New Delhi against the above orders.The appellants finally succeeded when the CEGAT vide its Final Order No. A/670-671/95-NRB, dated 16-8-1995 1996 (81) E.L.T. 346 (Tribunal) held that the Modvat credit was admissible to them on rubber plugs.Consequently, appellant filed a refund claim for Rs. 4,66,065.49 on 24-1-1996 with the Asstt. Commis...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Hindustan Radiators
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT284TriDel
1. This is an application by the Revenue for reference of the following question of law stated to have arisen from Tribunal's Order No.758/98-B1, dated 12-5-1998 to the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur :- "Can the Tribunal exercise the powers to relax the specific and mandatory provisions of the conditions laid down in a notification prescribed for claiming exemption from duty which the Central excise law does not confer on it, especially when the Supreme Court, in a similar case of Murari Engg. Works Ltd. v. Collector has held that the belated claim of benefit under the very same notification cannot be allowed for non-observance of Chapter X Procedure ?" 2. On hearing the learned DR and noting that the issue in the appeal relates to eligibility to the benefit of exemption from duty in terms of Notification No. 167/79, we hold that the issue relates to rate of duty for the purpose of assessment of goods and hence Reference application is not maintainable, in view of the clear la...
Sigma Castings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT570TriDel
1. A duty demand of Rs. 19,81,104/- under the Compounded Levy Scheme has been confirmed against the applicants herein. The period in dispute is 1st September, 1997 to 31-3-2000. The learned Counsel Shri R.Santhanam submits that in January 1998 itself, the applicants had opted out of the Compounded Levy Scheme and therefore, would not be required to pay duty under that Scheme from the date of opting out. In the alternative, he submits that even if the assessee could opt out only in the end of the financial year, during which he had exercised the option under the Compounded Levy Scheme, then at least, from 1st April, 1998, it was open to the applicants to go out of the Compounded Levy Scheme.He submits that the duty payable on the Compounded levy basis up to March 1998, has already been paid by the applicants, and if at all refund would be due to the applicants, and no duty would be payable by the assessee to the Department. He therefore, prays that the requirement of pre-deposit may be...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »