Delhi Court August 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 14 of about 265 results (0.020 seconds)Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M/S. M.M.T.C. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2000)163CTR(Del)612; [2000]246ITR725(Delhi)
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Incometax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax in respect of an order of the Incometax Appellate Tribunal Delhi BenchE (in short, the Tribunal). 2. The dispute relates to assessment year 1992-93. Two appeals were filed by the assessed against the order of the Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) [in short, CIT(A)]. An order under Section 154 of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer holding that interest allowed to the assessed under Section 244A(1) was not allowable and had been allowed by mistake. Stand of the assessed that the action was not permissible under Section 154 was not accepted. assessed filed appeal. before CIT(A) which yielded no relief for it. On further appeal, Tribunal held that Section 154 did not apply to a case of this nature. 3. Factual position which is undisputed is as follows:- For the assessment year in question, the return was processed under Section 1...
Tag this Judgment!Ajay Industrial Corporation Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2002(143)ELT280(Del)
ORDER1. The controversy lies in a very narrow compass. Though petitioner had submitted license for the purpose of clearance during November, 1997, no final decision was taken thereon and ultimately on 28th December, 1999 respondent No. 2 indicated to the petitioner that since 30 months period had lapsed the license cannot be revalidated. From the counter-affidavit we find that the matter was considered by the Policy Review Committee on 9th February, 2000 and it was decided that 'for the present' it may not be possible to consider such request for revalidation. It is an undisputed position that the license was lying with the Customs authorities and DGFT and, thereforee, no lapse can be attributed to the petitioner. In the circumstances following the directions given in similar matters earlier we direct that the license shall be revalidated for a period of seven months from the date of endorsement which we direct to be done within two weeks from today.2. The petition stands disposed of....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M. M. T. C. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2001]112TAXMAN647(Delhi)
Pasayat, C.J. This is an appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') filed by the Commissioner in respect of an order of the Tribunal, Delhi Bench-E.2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1992-93. Two appeals were filed by the assessed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). An order under section 154 of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer holding that interest allowed to the assessed under section 244A(1) was not allowable and had been allowed by mistake. Stand of the assessed that the action was not permissible under section 154 was not accepted. The assessed filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which yielded no relief for it. On further appeal, the Tribunal held that section 154 did not apply to a case of this nature.3. Factual position which is undisputed is as follows:For the assessment year in question, the return was processed under section 143(1)(a) of the Act on 19-3-1993 on a total returned income of Rs. 1,69,71,48,952 a...
Tag this Judgment!R.D. Extrusions (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT807TriDel
1. Short facts necessary for the disposal of the application for stay/waiver of pre-deposit contemplated by Section 129E of the Act, are as follows.2. Appellants imported one set of second hand 'Water Hydraulic Extrusion Press Plant'. As per the invoice, its value was stated to be DM 2,10,000. According to the department, the actual value of the machinery is to be found out by including dismantling charges as well.Dismantling charges have been fixed at DM 1,40,000. So, this amount of DM 1,40,000 was loaded to the price shown in the invoice and duty liability was imposed by the impugned order. The differential duty liability as per the order is Rs. 20,17,473/-. Over and above the amount covered by the bond which was encashed covering Rs. 3.5 lakhs, penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs was also imposed invoking the provisions contained in Section 12(v) of the Customs Act, 1962.3. Main argument advanced by the appellant-importer is that the department fell in error in loading the value shown in the in...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Copper Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT745TriDel
1. Heard both the sides. The issue involved in the main appeal already stands covered by the two decisions of the Tribunal in the appellants own case. Therefore, the prayer of the appellants for waiving the pre-deposit of the duty demand of Rs 95,977.07 is accepted. With the consent of both the parties, we proceed to decide the matter on merits.2. In this appeal filed by M/s Hindustan Copper Ltd., the issue involved is as to whether the benefit of Notification No. 281/86 is available to the appellants in respect of the copper cathodes cleared from the place of manufacture to the foundry shop for manufacture of copper cooling element, copper launders and L shaped copper electric conductors meant for the repair and maintenance of the machinery within the factory. The Collector has confirmed the demand of Rs 95,977.07 for the period April 1990 to May 1990 on the strength of show cause notice dated 29th October, 1990 on the appellants through the impugned order by denying the benefit of t...
Tag this Judgment!Bharati Telecom. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT133TriDel
1. This appeal arises from the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva dated 7-5-99 confirming duty liability on the appellants to the tune of Rs. 52,41,600.00 and demanding interest at the rate of 24% per annum under Section [28AA] of the Customs Act, 1962 and penalty of equal amount of duty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The matter relates to import of various consignments by the appellants under the Advance Licence Scheme and duty free clearances of imimported goods under Notification No. 203/92-Cus.. dated 19-5-92.3. Brief facts are : Appellants imported polypropylene under the Advance Licence Scheme and availed of duty free clearance of the goods claiming exemption under Notification No. 203/92. They had also taken Modvat credit on the inputs under Rule 56/57A of the Central Excise Rules. The Department alleged that the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of duty free imports under the notification since condition (V)(a) of the notificatio...
Tag this Judgment!Videocon Appliances Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT666TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Videocon Appliances Ltd., the issue relates to the availability of benefit of partial exemption under Notification No. 54/93, dated 28-2-1993 in respect of washing machines of which they are the manufacturer. The Asstt. Collector through his order-in-original disallowed the benefit on the ground that this notification was not applicable to the washing machines. The Collector (Appeals) had confirmed this order-in-original of the Asstt. Collector through the impugned order.2. The learned Counsel for the appellants has not been able to assailed the validity of the impugned order before us. The bare perusal of the Notification No. 54/ 93, dated 28-2-1993 shows that it applies only to the parts of the household washing machines including machines which both wash and dry. The language of this notification is quite plain and clear, and there is no doubt that it only covers the parts of the washing machines including those which do both wash and dry. The plea o...
Tag this Judgment!Escorts Yamaha Motor Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of General Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC511
1. This appeal relates to valuation of motor cycles manufactured by the appellants. The issue has been dealt with both in terms of sale ex-factory and sale from depot. On account of that, in respect of sales from depots, deductions on account of depot handling charges have also been claimed. The assessments were provisional and at the time of finalisation of the assessment, the Assistant Commissioner held the following charges to be includible in the assessable value of the motor cycles :- That decision, upon confirmation by Commissioner (Appeals), is in challenge in the present appeal.2. At the outset, it may be stated that it is well settled that when the ex-factory sale price of goods is available, there is no occasion or requirement to go to the depot price for working out a separate assessable value for the goods sold from the depots. We, therefore, hold that all the motor cycles removed from the factory should be assessed based on the ex-factory price of those motor cycles for t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ceear Electronics
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT404TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by the Revenue is whether the Respondents can clear the goods affixed with the brand name of another person on payment of duty and the goods affixed with their own brand name without payment of duty simultaneously.2. Shri Ashok Kumar, ld. D.R. submitted, that as per the scheme of Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28.02.1993 the assessee is entitled either to avail of exemption of payment of duty on all the goods manufactured or to pay the duty at the concessional rate under the Notification and avail of MODVAT : that in this case the Respondents are clearing some goods without payment of duty and other goods on payment of duty which is not permissible under the Notification. He also mentioned that the duty has been demanded as they were availing of the Modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs which were used in the manufacture of all the goods whether cleared on payment of duty or without payment of duty.3. Shri R.P. Singh, Ld. Advocate, ...
Tag this Judgment!Ganpati Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT406TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s.Ganpati Industries, the issue involved is whether the liability to pay Central Excise duty can be redetermined under Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act and whether the Commissioner had rightly taken the capacity of induction furnace for the purpose of charging the Central Excise duty under Rule 96 ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules.2. Shri R. Santhanam, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture M.S. ingots in their induction furances installed in their factory; that induction furnace of 3 M.T. was supplied and installed by M/s. Inductotherm (India) Ltd. in 1995; that after introduction of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, the appellants on 22.08.1997 made the declaration of the capacity of furnace as 3 M.T. and also enclosed the manufacturer's invoice dated 31.03.95 with technical specifications; that the appellants were discharging their duty liability @ Rs. 5 Lakhs under Rule 96ZO(3); that subsequently the Commissioner under o...
Tag this Judgment!