Delhi Court April 2000 Judgments

Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Mittal Corporation

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)77ITD270(Delhi)

1. This is an appeal by department against the orders of the CIT (Appeals) dated 25-11-1993 relating to assessment year 1992-93. The following ground of appeal has been taken by the department:-- "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT (Appeals) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of deduction under section 80-O of the Income-tax Act, 1961." 2. The brief facts of this case are that assesscc had received commission income of Rs. 92,59,066 as buying agent of foreign enterprises, namely, M/s. G.J. Coles (P.) Ltd., Australia and M/s. K.Mart of USA. The assessee has claimed deduction under section 80-O on this commission income. During the assessment proceeding, the assessee was required to explain the reasons that why the deduction under section 80-O be not denied as all the conditions laid down are not fulfilled. It was explained that (1) it is a registered partnership firm and resident in India; (2) commission has been received in converti...

Jhalani and Co. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)77ITD44(Delhi)

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 31-3-1993 relevant to assessment year 1990-91. The grievance of assessee is as under : (1) That the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in sustaining the non- allowance of a sum of Rs. 68,118 written off under the head "Establishment expenditure" in respect of Shri L.N. Datta. The amount is clearly allowable as a business expenditure/business loss in accordance with provisions of Income-tax Act. (2) That the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in fact and law in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 3,000 out of Telephone expenses and of Rs. 2,500 out of travelling and conveyance expenses. The disallowance has been made and sustained on ad hoc arbitrary basis and is liable to be deleted. (3) That consequential relief is allowable in respect of interest charged under sections 234B and 234C of the Income-tax Act. (4) That the order of the learned CIT(Appeals) and the assessment as made are against law and facts of the c...

B.L. Wadehra (Dr.) Vs. State (Nct of Delhi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2000Delhi266; 85(2000)DLT114; 2000(53)DRJ450

ORDERCyriac Joseph, J.1. The petitioner Dr. B.L. Wadehra is a practicing advocate. He has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in public interest. The provocation for filing this petition is the situation arising out of the lawyer's strike which has been going on for more than one month demanding an enquiry by a Sitting Judge of the Supreme Court into the circumstances leading to the use of force and the 'lathi-charge' by the police on the lawyers during their 'Parliament March' on 24th February, 2000 and also the immediate suspension of the police officials responsible for the lathi charge. The petitioner states that though he is a part of the lawyers' fraternity and is a participant in the strike, he has approached this Court with a disturbed feeling that the continued stalemate can lead to further unhealthy developments. According to him, in order to avoid further complications and to ensure resolution of the disputes in an orderly, civilised and consti...

Anil Kaul Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ117

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.CW 2105/98 and CM 3443/981. Rule. With the consent of the parties the matter is taken for final disposal at this stage. 2. The petitioner was commissioned in the Indian Army on 24th December, 1972. In January, 1987 he was appointed as Squadron Commander in 65 Armoured Regiment in his parent Unit. On 4th October, 1987 he was ordered to command a Squadron of the same regiment which was earlier being commanded by Major A.S. Bhinder. While commanding this regiment petitioner on 12th October, 1987 took part in the operation between Indian Peace keeping Force and LTTE in Jafanaa, Srilanka in which he was severely wounded and sustained serious injuries in his left hand and Right eye because of which he has suffered disablement to the extent of 80% for all his life. For the bravery shown in the aforesaid battle, he was even awarded Veer Chakra by the President of India in terms of Notification No. 35/88. In terms of communication No. 17/89 dated 3rd October, 1987 issued by t...

Elymer Havells (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC333

1. In these three appeals, arising out of following order, the issue involved is whether M/s Elymer Havells Pvt. Ltd. were affixing the excisable goods with the brand name of another person so as to make Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986 not available to them. (i) Order-in-Original No. 38/91 dated 28-10-1991 passed by Collector, Central Excise, New Delhi. (ii) Order-in-Appeal No. 1271/CE/DLH/91 dated 3-12-1991, by Collector (Appeals), New Delhi. (iii) Order-in-Appeal No. 401/CE/DLH/92 dated 30-7-1992 passed by Collector (Appeals), New Delhi.2. Shri M. Chandrashekaran, learned Senior Counsel, along with Shri K.Kumar, Advocate, mentioned that the M/s. Elymer Havells Pvt. Ltd. (EHPL) manufacture electrical goods and avail the exemption under Notification No. 175/86. The Collector, Central Excise, under order-in-original No. 38/91 dated 28-10-1991, denied the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 and confirmed the demand amounting to Rs. 17,92,451.50 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Govind Rubber Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT142TriDel

1. These are two appeals filed by the Revenue against the impugned order dated 11-10-1999 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh. The department has come in appeal on two grounds (1) The appellant had not declared the input to avail credit and (2) Notional credit was availed at a later stage than the date of taking normal credit.2. Arguing for the Revenue, Shri A.K. Jain, ld. JDR filing of declaration is a must to avail Modvat credit as it was held in the case of P.R. Conductors v. CCE, Jaipur reported in 1996 (81) E.L.T. 336 as well as in the case of Asian Paints Ltd. v. CCE reported in 1997 (93) E.L.T. 198. Accordingly, Commissioner (Appeals) was not right in accepting the contention of the party in availing the credit without filing declaration. Similarly, he argued that notional credit was not permissible.3. Shri J.P. Kaushik, ld. Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that it is admitted fact that Central Excise duty was paid by the appellant on...

Malhotra Metal Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT754TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Malhotra Metal Industries is whether the exemption contained in Notification No.1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993, can be claimed by them when they had already opted for not claiming the exemption under the said notification.2. Shri J.S. Agrawal, Learned Advocate, mentioned that he is giving up his plea based on the decision in the case of CCE, Baroda v. Cotspun Ltd. 1999 (113) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.). The learned Advocate then submitted that the Appellants manufacture S.S. Circle out of stainless steel flats; that they clear said circles on payment of duty at concesssional rate under Notification No. 1/93 and avail of Modvat credit of the duty paid on inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules; that the waste is generated during the process of manufacture of circles which they clear on payment of full rate of duty @15% ad valorem; that as far as waste and scrap of steel is concerned, the Appellants had never opted for not availing the bene...

M/S. Peshawar Soap and Chemical Vs. Cce Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(137)ELT850TriDel

1. Being aggrieved with the order-in-original dated 30.11.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication), New Delhi, M/s Peshawar Soap and Chemical Works, Patiala (Punjab), (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s. Peshawar'), filed an appeal with the Tribunal, which was received in the Registry on 18.01.2001. Alongwith the appeal, M/s. Peshawar also filed stay supplication under Section 35 F of the Central Excises Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), which was also received in the Registry of the Tribunal on 18.01.2001. The matter relates to the classification of the product - 'Kesh Nikhar', which M/s. Peshawar described as soap classifiable under sub-heading No. 3401.12 of the Central Excise Tariff (CET), which covered "soap in or in relation to the manufacture of which no process has been carried-on with the aid of powder or of steam". In the show cause notice dated 16.12.99, it was mentioned that the "Kesh Nikhar" branded bar/cake manufactured by M/s. Peshaw...

C.C.E., Meerut Vs. M/S. Rama Vision Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The present Reference Application is filed by the Revenue in respect of the Final Order No. A/338/99/NB/SM dt, 4.5.99, in which the Bench following the three earlier decisions of the Tribunal allowed the modvat credit on 'HSD Oil' to the respondents.2. The Revenue have filed the present Reference Application requesting the following questions of law to be referred to the Hon'ble High Court: "(a) Whether HSD can be taken as input as mentioned in the Chapter-V-AA of Central Excise Rules, 1944 & as defined under Rule 57-A of C.E. Rules, 1944. (b) Whether the modvat credit can be allowed on the High Speed Diesel Oil falling under Heading No.27.10 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 which cannot be taken as input & which is specifically excluded from the purview of the modvat under Rule 57-A of Rules." 3. It is observed that subsequently in terms of Clause (1) of Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2000, the provisions of which came into force on 12.5.2000, the modvat credit on HSD O...

Sheth Computers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT738TriDel

1. The appellants made a request to decide the appeals on merits. These appeals are filed by M/s. Sheth Computers Pvt. Ltd., Shri Rajesh Rasiklal Sheth and Shri Lachhman Das & Company against the common Order-in-Original dated 26-9-1991 passed by the Collector of Central Excise. In the impugned order duty was confirmed on M/s. Sheth Computer Services P. Ltd. and penalty was imposed on Shri Rajesh R. Sheth on account of manufacture of computers which were cleared without payment of duty. The redemption fine in lieu of confiscation was imposed on Shri Lachhman Das and Co. on a Computer which was purchased from M/s.Sheth Computer Services P. Ltd. 3. Heard ld. JDR and perused the appeal papers. M/s. Sheth Computer Services Pvt. Ltd. are engaged in the assembling of Computers and they were clearing these computers without payment of duty. The contention of the appellants is that they were merely assembling the Computer System and mere assembly of Computer System does not amount to asse...