Delhi Court May 2000 Judgments

Prakash Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT30TriDel

1. The Eastern Bench, Calcutta have referred this matter to the Larger Bench. The brief facts are that the appellants manufactured HDPE Sacks solely for the supply to M/s. Orissa Cement Limited, Bhubaneswar. They were availing the benefit of exemption under Notification No.175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 as a SSI Unit. It was found that they were printing the brand name of the buyer on the bags. The issue referred to Larger Bench for consideration is, whether the benefit of small scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 was available in terms of para 7 of this notification when the sacks were affixed with the brand name of the buyers who packed and sold cement in them. A reference is made to the CEGAT decision in C.C.E. v. Wood's Glamour -1991 (54) E.L.T. 153 (Tribunal). In this case the assessee manufactured T.V. Cabinets and affixed on them the brand name "Konark" of the buyers of cabinets. The Tribunal held in the stated decision that the manufacturers of TV C...

ishar Dass Sahni and Sons Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) XX, New Delhi, dt. 12th July, 1996, for the asst. yr. 1993-94.2. Out of grounds at Sr. Nos. 1 to 4, reproduced below, relating to one single issue, namely, marking the assessment in the status of 'AOP' instead of 'firm', the ground at Sr. No. 1 is the main ground. Other three are in the nature of arguments to support the first ground. "(1) That the learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the 'status' adopted by the learned AO while framing the assessment of the assessee as that of AOP. On the facts of instant case, the learned CIT(A) ought to have held that the assessee is liable to be assessed as firm. (2) That the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the assessee is a firm carrying on business since last several years and it is evidenced by deed of partnership, which deed of partnership was filed along with the return of income and a certified copy thereof was also filed during the co...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mrs. V. Chandra

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2000]245ITR610(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Pursuant to the directions given by this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), the following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-C (in short 'the Tribunal'), for opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the inclusion of Rs. 32,500 from the assessor's income ?'2. The fact situation as set out in the statement of the case is as follows :The assessee, Smt. V, Chandra, was assessed as an individual for the assessment year 1970-71. Her husband, Shri C. N. Chandra, had purchased ten national savings certificates of Rs. 5,000 each in the names of the asses-see and her son, Shri Ramesh Chandra. In April, 1960, the assessor's husband gifted the certificates to the assessee. He died on July 13, 1968. These certificates were encased in 1970. It was contended before the Income-tax Officer on behalf of the assessed that the maximum pe...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mrs. V. Chandra

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]112TAXMAN287(Delhi)

Pasayat, C.J.Pursuant to the directions given by this court under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), following question has been referred by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench-C, for opinion:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right to deleting the inclusion of Rs. 32,500 from the assessor's income ?'2. Fact situation as set out in the statement of the case is as follows :The assessed Smt. V. Chandra was assessed as an individual for the assessment year 1970-71. Her husband Shri C.N. Chandra had purchased 10 National Savings Certificates of Rs. 5,000 each in the names of the assessed and her son Shri Ramesh Chandra. In April 1960, the assessor's husband gifted the certificates to the assessee. He died on 13-7-1968. These certificates were encased in 1970. It was contended before the Income Tax Officer on behalf of the assessed that the maximum permissible limit holding such certificates was Rs. 70,000 by t...

ishar Dass Sahni and Sons Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2000)68TTJ(Del)125

ORDERKrishan Swarup, A.M.This is an appeal by the assessed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) XX, New Delhi, dated 12-7-1996, for the assessment year 1993-94.1.2 Out of grounds at Sr. Nos. 1 to 4, reproduced below, relating to one single issue, namely, marking the assessment in the status of 'AOP' instead of 'firm', the ground at Sr. No. 1 is the main ground. Other three are in the nature of arguments to support the first ground.'(1) That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the `status' adopted by the learned assessing officer while framing the assessment of the assessed as that of AOP. On the facts of instant case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have held that the assessed is liable to be assessed as firm.(2) That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the assessed is a firm carrying on business since last several years and it is evidenced by deed of partnership, which deed of partnershi...

S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(54)DRJ445

ORDERJ.B.Goel, J.1. These are the objections filed on behalf of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (respondent No.1) for short (MCD) against award dated 5.8.1991 passed by Shri B.Dayal, retired Engineer in Chief of MCD as arbitrator. 2. Briefly the facts are that the Executive Engineer of MCD vide NIT No.EE-XVIII/82-83/1 dated 2.2.1983 invited tenders for 'the construction of Approaches to Flyover at the level of crossing to New Rohtak Road with clover leaf, slip roads and service roads etc.' M/s. S.A. Builders Ltd. (Petitioner) had submitted their tender on 25.3.1983. After correspondence between the parties their tender was accepted vide letter dated 10.11.1983 and an agreement No.4 dated 1.11.1983 was also executed by Executive Engineer (18) on behalf of the MCD and the petitioner with the approval of the Standing Committee of the Corporation (Resolution No.759 dated 3.11.1983 in item No. 552). The notice inviting tenders, correspondence entered into between the parties, letter of a...

Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. Modi Rubber Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC783

1. The issue which stands referred to this Bench on account of conflicting decisions of the Tribunal is whether Modvat credit was admissible on lubricating oils and greases under Rule 57 A of the Central Excise Rules during the period prior to 1-3-1997. In all the appeals before us the periods of dispute are between July 1995 and March 1997. However, in appeal No.E/1934/97-NB filed by the Revenue, the period of dispute has been shown to be 1-10-1996 to 31-3-1997, which period extends a little beyond 1-3-1997. In this connection, in answer to a query from the Bench,^ Ld. Consultant for the respondents has submitted that the period of dispute is, in fact, prior to 1-3-1997. This submission has not been contested by Ld. JDR appearing for the appellant - Revenue. Thus, for our purposes, in all the appeals, the dispute relates to a period prior to 1-3-1997.Pragati Paper Mills (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut 1996 (15) RLT 177, a Single-Member Bench of the Tribunal held lubri...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bharat Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT362TriDel

1. This is an appeal at the instance of the Revenue. They challenge the Order-in-Appeal No. 36-CE/KNP-I/99, dated 26-3-1999. By the said order the assessee's appeal claiming Modvat credit on Steel Shots used in the manufacture of finished product was allowed. According to the Department credit on Steel Shots used in the manufacture of C.I.Castings is only admissible under Rule 57A of the Rules and not under Rule 57Q as observed by the Commissioner. Since Modvat credit has now been allowed under Rule 57Q/ the Revenue wants the order of the appellate authority reversed.2. Demand-cum-show cause notice dated 22-3-1996 was issued to the manufacturer alleging :- "The assessee submitted a Modvat declaration dated 26-9-95 under Rule 57T(1) for availing Modvat credit on capital goods, under Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 on input (Steel Shots 7205.20) used in the manufacture of their final product (cast articles of iron). The assessee was asked by the Superintendent of Central Excise R...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Multimelt Steels (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT500TriDel

1. The respondents availed Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 77,686/- on grinding wheels during the period from February, 1997 to September, 1997. This credit was availed under Rule 57A. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Sangrur disallowed this credit vide his Order dated 22-4-1999 contending that during the relevant period, the grinding wheels were specified as capital goods under Notification No. 25/96-C.E., (N.T.), dated 31-8-1996. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh in his order dated 29-11-1999 observed that it was only a procedural mistake that the party filed a declaration under Rule 57G instead of Rule 57T and accordingly allowed the appeal setting aside the order of the original authority.2. The Revenue is in appeal against the aforesaid order of Commissioner (Appeals). I have heard Shri J. Singh, DR for the Revenue and Shri R.S.Saini, Consultant for the respondents. The ld. Consultant has brought to my notice the Order of the Tribunal in the case...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. International Computer Mfrs.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT179TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the classification of Printed Circuit Boards for Floppy Disc Drive FDC-01.The respondents M/s. International Computers Indian Manufacturers Ltd., sought its classification under sub-heading No. 9033.00 which was a residuary entry in Chapter 90 for parts and accessories not specified or included elsewhere in Chapter 90 of the Tariff. It was the contention of the Revenue that the Printed Circuit Boards were specifically covered under heading 85.34 of the Tariff and thus by virtue of note (2) under Section XVI of the Tariff, they were to be classified under that specific heading 85.34. The Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) on the ground that the Printed Circuits in question were to be used in the goods classifiable under subheading 9031.00, held the same to be classified under heading 90.33 of the Tariff.2. The respondents have sought for decision on merits. Shri Satnam Singh, SDR referred to the grounds of appeal and submit...