Delhi Court December 2000 Judgments

Hanuman Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]250ITR365(Delhi); [2001]117TAXMAN729(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. Pursuant to the directions given by this court in I. T. C. No. 68 of 1978, by order dated March 31, 1980, the following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C' (for short the 'Tribunal'), for the opinion of this court: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the initiation of the proceedings for reassessment under Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with regard to the cash credit in the name of Afghan Fruit Company for the assessment year 1962-63 is valid in law ?' 2. The background facts as indicated in the statement of case are as follows : For the assessment years 1962-63 to 1966-67 assessments were completed originally under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act'), on several dates. At that point of time, the assessed had filed a trial balance-sheet. The said trial balance-sheet showed a cash credit in the names of Lekh Raj Manak Chand and Afghan Fruit Company. The...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Agricultural Marketing Produce Comcommi ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Del)298; [2001]250ITR369(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. All these references under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), involve identical questions, refer red at the instance of the Revenue, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench (in short 'the Tribunal'). As self-evident from the questions, the main issue is whether the assessed is a 'local authority' within the meaning of Section 10(20) of the Act and thereby making its income non-taxable under the Act. The questions arc as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that Agricultural Produce Marketing Comcommittee, Azadpur, Delhi, is a 'local authority' within the meaning of Section 10(20) of the Income-tax Act read with Section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 ?2, Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding the income of Agricultural Produce Marketing Comcommittee, Azadpur, Delhi, is not taxab...

Charanjit Singh Vs. P.C. Nanda and Sons

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(57)DRJ690

R.C. Chopra, J. 1. The petitioner, an accused in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi in a complaint filed by the respondent under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has come to this Court under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. with the prayer to quash the proceedings arising out of Criminal Complaint Case No. 33/1 of 1997 titled 'P.C. Nanda & Sons (H.U.F.) v. Ganga Automobiles and Ors.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. The petitioner questions the maintainability of the present complaint filed on the basis of the notice dated 3.1.1997. It is urged that the respondent/complainant had earlier issued a notice dated 18.11.1996 also by registered A.D. post, but did not file any complaint under Section 138 of the Act within a period of one month of the cause of action, as required under Section 138(c) of the Act.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to para 9 of the complaint in w...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Eicher Tractors

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT846TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the classification of Plough Lamp - should it be considered as a part of the tractor or should it be considered as an accessory to the tractor.If considered as a part of the tractor, it enjoyed exemption under Notification No. 239/86-C.E., dated 3-4-1986. If it was considered as an accessory to the tractor, no such exemption was available. The respondents are M/s. Eicher Tractors Ltd. The respondents were bringing Plough Lamp from outside under Chapter 10 Procedure of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, without payment of central excise duty under Notification No. 239/86-C.E., dated 3-4-1986. Under Notification No.239/86-C.E., dated 3-4-1986, parts of motor vehicles and tractors falling under Chapter 45,48, 68, 73, 85 or 87 of the Central Excise Tariff enjoyed exemption from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon subject to the following conditions :- (i) it is proved to the satisfaction of an officer not below the ra...

M/S. Phoenix Lamps (India) Ltd. Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants in the Rectification of Mistake (ROM) application have submitted that in the impugned order before the Tribunal, a redemption fine of Rs.5,000/- was levied in lieu of the confiscation of the vehicle. It was so noted by the Tribunal in para-1 of the order. In the operative part, the redemption fine was shown to have been reduced to Rs.25,000/-, which is obviously a mistake apparent on record.2.I have carefully considered the matter. It is obviously a typing mistake. Para 9 (2) is amended as under:- 9 (2) The redemption fine of Rs.5,000/- in respect of vehicle levied on M/s. Phoenix Lamps (I) Ltd. is reduced to Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only)." 3. It will have no effect on other part of the order. To that extent, the application for rectification of mistake is allowed. Ordered accordingly....

Cce, Raipur Vs. M/S. Jay Pee Rewa Cement

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur had prayed that the following questions of law arising out of the Tribunal's Final Order No.A/481/99/NB (SM) dated 25.05.99 be referred to the Madhya Pradesh High Court:- " Whether or not modvat credit is available on explosives used in mining of lime stone, which are not covered under the definition of factory in terms of Section 2 (f) of the Central Excises Act, 1944 read with Rules 57 A of the Central Excises Rules, 1944." 2. In this case, the matter related to the modvat credit in respect of the explosives used in mining area of the respondents' Cement Plant.Following the Tribunal's decision in the respondents' own case in Appeal No.E/765 to 768/97 NB under Order No.A/163-166/99-NB (DB) dated 16.3.99, the Tribunal took a view that there was no infirmity in the view taken by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bhopal, whose order was challenged before the Tribunal.3. After hearing Shri Bhima Shankar, SDR and Shri Sekhar Vyas, ...

Cce, Delhi Vs. M/S. Supreme Plastic India

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-II, in the present reference application has prayed that the following questions of law arising out of the Tribunal's Final Order No. A/59/99-NB (SM) dated 29.1.99 be referred to the Punjab & Haryana High Court:- "1) Whether the word "Marked" used in Rule 52 A or 57 GG of Central Excise Rules would mean "pre-printed" as prescribed by the CBEC or a liberal dictionary meaning could be accepted for this terms." ii) Whether under the scheme of MODVAT rules the procedural requirements made by the CBEC could be overlooked by the Commissioner (Appeals) or CEGAT on the plea that substantive benefit can not be denied for a procedural lapse." 2. I have heard Shri Bhima Shankar, SDR and Shri C.D. Banga, Consultant.3. I find that the matter relates to the validity of the invoices marked by rubber stamp as "duplicate" for availing modvat credit.Following the Tribunal's earlier decisions as referred to in para-5 of the order, the Tribunal had agreed ...

Super Cassettes Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(125)ELT1246TriDel

1. In this ROM application moved by the appellants, they have sought the recall of the Final Order dated 26.5.2000 on the ground that it has been wrongly observed by the Tribunal that the complete claim papers were filed by thy them only on 21.12.88 while they filed the complete papers for claiming the refund of duty in the year 1993.2. The facts giving rise to this application may briefly be stated as under: In the year 1987 the appellants imported consignment of Polyesterene resin in the form of moulding power and cleared the same through Calcutta port vide Bill of entry dated 20.9.1987. They sough benefit of Notification No. 133/86. They sought benefit of Notification No. 133/86 dated 1.3.86 as amended by Notification No.89/87-CE dated 1.3.87 but the same was not allowed to them and they got goods released by making payment under protest of countervailing duty. Thereafter they filed the application for refund of the excess duty amount of Rs.390564.85 charged them wrongly by denying...

Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Vallabh Steels Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh had prayed that the following questions of law arising out of the following questions of law arising out of the Tribunal's Final Order No.A/447/97 NB (SM) dated 26.5.97 be referred to the Punjab & Haryana High Court:- Whether filing of D-3 prescribed under a Central Excise Trade Notice for allowing admissibility of credit on allegedly defective ingots etc for use in manufacture of ingots is not a mandatory requirement because the accompanying documents do not specify the dimensions/nature of defect which could specify that they could not be used for any other purposes in the case of melting scrap but for charging into furnace only, for melting and also by taking into account that Rule 57 A prescribes the admissibility of credit on inputs 'used' in or in relation to the final product?" 3. It is seen that in the order dated 26.5.97 the matter related to the fulfilling the procedural requirements as prescribed under Trade Notice No.20...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. United Vanaspati Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Revenue seeks reference of the following questions of law stated to be arising out of Tribunal's Final Order dated 31.7.98: 1. Whether time limit prescribed under Section 11A of the Central Excise Salt Act, 1944 can be imported into money credit scheme under Chapter V AAA, Rule 57P of Central Excise Rules, 1944 which prescribed no limitation at all for recovery of credit wrongly taken. ii) Whether credit allowed conditionally on the production of valid certificates can be permitted to a party when the certificates have been declared invalid subsequently and whether in such a situation benefit of credit does not automatically get disallowed under Rule 57P? iii) Whether fresh additional group can be admitted by Tribunal i.e. second appeal stage and can be decided in favour of party on the basis of such additional grounds alone without going into the merits of a case and that too when the party throughout the proceedings before lower authorities as well as in the appeal have plead...