Delhi Court August 2000 Judgments

Dy. Cit Vs. U.P. Straw and Agro Products Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]79ITD372(Delhi)

ORDERChaturvedi, J.M.This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Bareilly, and relates to the assessment year 1990-91.2. The assessed is a company. It computed book profit under section 115-J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) at NIL in Annexure 'D' of the income-tax return. The assessing officer found that the profit and loss account of the assessed for the relevant previous year was not in accordance with the provisions of Parts II & III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956, in as much as the assessed debited arrears of depreciation to the extent of Rs. 1,65,18,620.3. It was explained before the assessing officer that in the preceding years, depreciation was not claimed because of non-availability of profit to the extent of Rs. 2,50,25,974. Out of that in the year under consideration depreciation amounting to Rs. 1,65,18,620 was debited to the books of account. The assessing officer did not allow the claim...

Gagan Kumar Singh and anr. Vs. N.C.T. of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(55)DRJ126

A.K. Sikri, J.1. On 11th June, 1998, Delhi, Subordinate Service Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as 'DSSSB') issued an advertisement calling applications from Indian Nationals for appointment to the post of Primary Teachers/Nursery Teachers/Assistant Teachers in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi New Delhi Municipal Council and Directorate of Education, Govt. of India respectively. Petitioners in both the writ petitions applied for being appointed to various posts of Teacher as advertised above. On 2l/22nd September, 1998, DSSSB published in the newspapers the method by which the score of every candidate was to be computed giving certain weightage to various degrees possessed by a candidate and also indicated the cut off score below which candidates were to be considered for appointment. Interviews of the candidates having scored above the cut off point was held from 6th October, 1998 onwards. Thereafter vide notices dated 15th/16th October, 1998 & 26/27th October, 1998 of thos...

A.K. Verma Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]248ITR364(Delhi)

R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned counsel for the respondent. By this criminal revision, the petitioner seeks to challenge the judgment and order of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated April 4, 1997, whereby the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate declined to discharge the petitioner for the alleged offence under Section 276B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It is the case of the petitioner that this section implies that the payment has actually been made, whereas in his case, the petitioner's books of account shows that the amount is payable. He submits that a sum of Rs. 86,340 credited to the account of the Central Government on November 9, 1982, was a mistake and was not in fact credited on account of any payment having been made and, thereforee, no offence under Section 276B is prima facie made out. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there are various methods of accounting, merc...

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs. Ghanshyam Bansal

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) challenging the order of the District Forum-I dated 27.7.1999 in Complaint Case No. 1809/98 - entitled Shri Ghanshyam Bansal v. M.T.N.L. 2. The relevant facts, in brief are, that the respondent/complainant was the subscriber of telephone 7516791, installed at his residence. The above telephone of the respondent remained out of order from 1.10.1995 to 15.12.1995 and again from 25.5.1998 till 27.8.1998 and had been lying dead since 3.9.1998 till the filing of the complaint in the District Forum by the respondent. Despite repeated complaints and requests of the respondent in that regard, the appellant/MTNL failed to set right the telephone of the respondent. The respondent, therefore, filed a complaint before the District Forum praying for directions to the appellant/MTNL to set aside the demand of Rs. 5,795.37 and Rs. 588.84 rais...

Netlon India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT675TriDel

1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Netlon India, the issue involved is whether the product manufactured by them is 'Extruded Plastic Meshes/Nets' classifiable under sub-heading 3926.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, as declared by them or the product is 'Plastic Insect Screen'/Interior Screen and Fencing/Barriers classifiable under sub-headings 3925.30 and 3925.99 of the Tariff respectively.2. Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, ld. Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture plastic extruded nets/meshes which are commercially known as extruded plastics; that the net is obtained by the process of extrusion, having the perforation referred to as mesh sizes; that the size of the mesh can be increased to any size; that the diameter of the net can also be changed by changing the mandrel; that the extruded nets are mostly in roll form consisting of a length of 25 metres and can be put to various applications, such as a sieve or a screen, for decorative purposes, for covering a...

Siel Foods and Fertilizer Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT56TriDel

1. The issue in dispute in this appeal is the correct classification of Loose (Unbranded) Vanaspati (2) Panghat Bakery Vanaspati and (3) Roshni Vanaspati manufactured by the appellants herein - Whether under GET sub-heading 1504.00 as claimed by the assesses or under GET sub-heading 1508.90 as upheld by the Revenue.2. The second issue relates to availability of exemption in terms of Notification No. 29/88 to spent/waste nickel catalyst arising as a residue or waste in the course of manufacture of Vanaspati.3. We have heard both the sides. The process or manufacture of the disputed items is as under : "1. Loose Vanaspati - The vanaspati is also sold in loose. However, these are transported in insulated tankers only. These are mainly sold to industrial and bulk consumers like Cadburys, Parley, Britannia, etc. Loose vanaspati is transported in insulated tankers. At the time of filling, the temperature of the vanaspati is 50-55 degree C and transported in liquid form only. The vanaspati l...

Basant Ispat Udyog Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT724TriDel

1. This stay application is filed by the applicant for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 12,54,247/- and stay of the recovery proceedings.2. Arguing for the appellant, Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, ld. Advocate submits that whether party can avail Modvat credit on copy of the original invoice if the duplicate copy is lost is an issue to be considered in this case. The Assistant Commissioner has decided the issue in favour of the party. On an appeal filed by the Revenue the Commissioner was of the view that transit of the duplicate copy covers upto the factory. He said that this position is not correct in view of the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of CCE, New Delhi v. Avis Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. reported in 2000 (37) RLT 501 (CEGAT-Larger Bench) wherein it was held that transit also covers upto the Range Office. In this context, he drew our attention to the para 6 of the said order which reads as under :- "6. Learned DR representing the Revenue submitted that a m...

Vishrut Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT225TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Vishrut Industries, is whether shoe shampoo, manufactured by them is classifiable under Sub-heading 3405.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by them or under Subheading 3402.90 as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned order.2. Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, learned Advocate mentioned that Heading 34.02 deals with organic surface active agents, other than soap; surface active preparations, washing preparations including auxiliaray washing preparations and cleaning preparations; that Heading 34,05 deals with polishes and creams for footwear, furniture, floors or metal coverings and powders and similar preparations excluding wax of Heading No.34.04; that Heading 34.05 specifically deals with polishes and creams for footwears and goods in question are specific preparations for footwear which is used not only for scouring, for polishing or shampooing of shoes; that the Notes to Chapter 34 do not def...

Commr. of Cus. Vs. Polyglass Acrylic Mfg. Co. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT442TriDel

1. Revenue assails the correctness and propriety of order-in-original No. 8/98 dated 30.03.1998 passed by Commissioner, Amritsar. By that order, he dropped the proceedings initiated against the respondents as per show cause notice dated 03.07.1997.2. Respondents, M/s. Polyglass Acrylic Mfg. Co. Ltd., imported Methyl Methacrylate Monomer' (hereinafter referred to as MMM). A quantity imported was covered by bill of entry No. 335 dated 01.07.1996. Invoice covering the consignment was issued by one M/s. Fast Rise Trading Co.in Hongkong. The Hongkong company was not the manufacturer. Goods were manufactured by a firm in Japan. Bill of lading relating to the consignment was bearing number KOBO 124692. As per that bill of lading, MMM being 1,16,480 Kgs. were shipped to Ludhiana. In the bill of entry and invoice, goods were described as 'Methyl Methacrylate Monomer Regenerated 2nd Grade'. Its value was stated in the invoice at US$ 300 per MT. From the Internal Container Depot at Ludhiana, the...

Mtnl Vs. the Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2000]246ITR173(Delhi)

ORDERArijit Pasayat, CJ.1. Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) is challenged by the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (in short, MTNL) on the purported ground that there was no under-assessment of income or escapement of income requiring re-assessment and the impugned notice which was issued on the basis of mere change of opinion about allowability or otherwise of an expenditure is invalid, inoperative and unsustainable. 2. Factual position in a nutshell, as stated by the petitioner, is as follows:- (a) Petitioner was incorporated as a limited company on 28.2.1986 for the purpose of establishment, maintenance and working of telephone services for Metros of Delhi and Mumbai and license for effecting the same was granted by the Government of India, Department of Telecommunications under sub-Section (2) of Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (in short, Telegraph Act) initially for a period of five years and it was subsequently extended f...