Delhi Court August 2000 Judgments

Kamakhya Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC230

1. "Whether an assessee can avail modvat credit in respect of inputs (Sponge Iron) without filing a declaration" is the issue to be considered by the Larger Bench.2. The appellants are manufacturers of Iron & Steel Products, (M.S.Ingots). Sponge Iron is one of their inputs. They had filed a modvat declaration indicating various inputs and final outputs but had not included Sponge Iron in their initial declaration because at that time Sponge Iron was exempt from duty and therefore no modvat credit could be claimed. However, with effect from 1.3.92, it became dutiable and, therefore, in respect of the quantities received under valid duty paying documents, they took the modvat credit and availed it for the purpose of paying duty on the declared outputs. However, they inadvertently omitted to file a supplementary declaration amending the one initially filed, to include this item. As soon as this omission was pointed out by the Supdt., they filed a supplementary declaration including S...

D.D. Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the block assessment order passed on 29th April, 1998, covering the previous years 1986-87 to 1996-97.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that search under s. 132 took place on 29th August, 1996, at the business premises of the company and also at the residential premises of the directors. Notice under s. 158BC was served on 24th February, 1997, in response to which the assessee filed its return for the block period on 30th August, 1997, showing undisclosed income for the block period on 30th August, 1997, showing undisclosed income for the block period at Nil. Looking to the nature of business and complexity of the accounts, the assessee was ordered to get its accounts audited under s. 142(2A) on 31st October, 1997. The AO noted that under s. 158BE the time-limit available for completing the block assessment was upto 29th April, 1998, and the audit report was received in the late hours of 27th April, 1998. Considering the vol...

Dr. Raman Kapoor Vs. State and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(57)DRJ504

ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J.1. This petition has been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the impugned order dated 16.12.1998 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate disposing of the complaint of Respondent No.2, Nand Kishore Grover, bearing No. 119/1 of 1998. The facts which are necessary to dispose of this petition are recapitulated as under: 2. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner is a medical doctor and possesses the degree of M.B.B.S. obtained from the University of Medical Sciences at New Delhi in the year 1979. He has specialised in the field of Acupuncture and other alternate medical system. It is mentioned that the petitioner is engaged in philanthropic work for the benefit of humanity. 3. According to the petitioner, respondent No.2, Nand Kishore Grover attended his clinic from 11.1.1994 to 14.1.1994 for the treatment of chronic irritable bowel syndrome. It is mentioned that respondent No. 2 was explained the treatment tha...

M/S. Hanumant Cement Pvt Ltd. Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ290; 2002(143)ELT263(Del)

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. This is an application under Section 35-H of Central Excise Act, 1944. Reference is sought for in respect of an order dated 1.12.1999 (final order No. A/1099-1102/99-NBCDB) passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (in short, Tribunal) in Appeal No. E/A572-0575/99NB. Before the CEGAT, order of the Commissioner Central Excise Jaipur (in short, Commissioner) confirming a duty demand of Rs. 49,53,783/- and other demands of penalties were under challenge. In all four appeals had been filed. Allegations against the petitioner were that it had suppressed the production and clearance of 90,782.15 MTs of ordinary Portland cement during the period from 1-8-1993 to 19-8-1996 and evaded duty of the above amount. Penalty of amount equal to duty was levied under Section 11-AC of the Act. Penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs was also levied for contravention of the provisions of the Act and rules made thereunder. In addition, a penalty of Rs. 5 lakh each was ...

Cit, Delhi-ii, New Delhi Vs. M/S. Refrigeration and Allied Industries ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ250

ORDERArijit Pasayat, CJ., 1. At the instance of Revenue, following question has been referred to this Court for opinion under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act') by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B (in short the 'Tribunal'): 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in upholding the order of the A.A.C. that even though the business was closed there was a passive user of the machinery and as such the assessed was entitled to claim depreciation on the machinery during the assessment year 1971- 72?' 2. The factual position is almost undisputed. assessed owns a cold stor- age at Karnal. During the assessment proceedings for the A.Y. 1971-72. Income-tax Officer noticed that the machinery installed was not put to use during the whole of the previous year. The non-user was on account of the fact that there was very weak crop of potatoes available in the season and potatoes did not come from the hirers in ...

Ms. Klass Associates Vs. India Tourism and Development Corporation Ltd ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ687

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Counsel for both the parties have been heard at length at admission stage. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for disposal. 1. The petitioner, a licensee for running the popular Chinese Restaurant, 'Jewel of the East' at Ashoka Hotel, Chanakayapuri, New Delhi for the last 7 years, has filed this writ petition. Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the decision of respondent No.1 in awarding the license for running 'Jewel of the East' in favor of respondent No. 2. Petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus for a direction to respondent No. 1 to consider the bid of the petitioner firm and call the petitioner for negotiations. 2. Respondent No.1 had invited a tender for running of the restaurant 'Jewel of the East' on 15.5.2000. The bidders were required to give their technical bid as well as a financial bid in a sealed cover. The technical bid was to be opened first followed by opening of the financial bid of those, who were fou...

D.D. Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)69TTJ(Del)877

ORDERR.S. Syal, A.M.:This is an appeal filed by the assessed against the block assessment order passed on 29-4-1998, covering the previous years 1986-87 to 1996-97.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that search under section 132 took place on 29-8-1996, at the business premises of the company and also at the residential premises of the directors Notice under section 158BC was served on 24-2-1997, in response to which the assessed filed its return for the block period on 30-8-1997, showing undisclosed income for the block period on 30-8-1997, showing undisclosed income for the block period at Nil. Looking to the nature of business and complexity of the accounts, the assessed was ordered to get its accounts audited under section 142(2A) on 31-10-1997. The assessing officer noted that under section 158BE the time-limit available for completing the block assessment was up to 29-4-1998, and the audit report was received in the late hours of 27-4-1998. Considering the voluminous rep...

Cit Vs. Bercos Melody House

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2002]120TAXMAN669(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.These are two references under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) relating to the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74 and following questions have been referred by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench B, for opinion of this court:In R.A. No. 419'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the amounts inherited by the two partners, Shri Krishan Advani and Shri Baldev Advani from their father and mother after their death belonged to their HUFs constituted by them, their wives and their children ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in affirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, deleting the disallowance of Rs. 12,964 made under section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, on account of interest paid to the partners?'In R.A. No. 420'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trib...

Star Paper Mills Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC869

1. The dispute has arisen on account of refund claim filed by the appellants in respect of central excise duty paid during the period December 1990 to December 1992. The appellants had filed several price lists during the period. They had claimed deductions under several heads like discount, freight, special packing and handling charges etc.An order was passed making the assessments provisional and allowing only certain deductions while making the provisional assessments. The provisional assessments were finalised in April 1992 by the Assistant Collector, confirming the assessments as provisionally made. The appellants took up the matter in appeal to the Collector who set aside the order of finalisation of assessments and remanded their case for a fresh decision to the Assistant Collector. A fresh order was, accordingly, passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 17.04.1997. Under this order, he permitted all the deductions originally claimed by the appellants. However, consequential rel...

iffco Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT848TriDel

1. This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 28,71,954/- and equal amount of penalty under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act and Penalty of Rs. 1 lakh under Rule 173Q imposed by the Commissioner under the Impugned Order.2. Shri Laxhman Dev, ld. Consultant, submitted that M/s. Iffco Ltd. manufacutred Ammonia and Urea; that they had filed an application for L6 licence for getting Furnace Oil for generation of electricity and steam; that after processing their application, the Department issued them L6 licence and subsequently CT 2 certificates for getting the Furnace Oil free of duty under Notification No. 75/84-C.E., dated 01.03.1984; that subsequently both the applicants and the Department realised that the Furnace Oil intended for use otherwise than as feed stock in the manufacture of fertilizers does not attract Nil rate of duty but the concessional rate of duty; that immediately on demand they paid the duty for the past six months period in respect of quantity o...