Delhi Court January 2001 Judgments

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Webbing and Belting Factory (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2000]248ITR539(Delhi)

1Arijit Pasayat C.J.At the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-E (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 1,26,000 should be taken into account while calculating the question of interest under section 217(1A) as advance tax payment ?'2. The factual position is almost undisputed and is as follows :For the assessment year 1972-73, the assessed was required to pay advance tax in terms of section 210 of the Act, the total amount payable being Rs. 50,594. The dates for payment of advance tax are indicated in the statute. The assessed paid the first two Installments totalling to Rs. 39,062 up to 14-12-1971. Regular assessment for the year was completed. on a total income ...

C. Base Computronics Vs. Cce, Bhopal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Upon careful examination of the records and upon hearing both sides I am inclined to dispose of the appeal itself in finally after allowing the stay application unconditionally.2. The appellants claimed to be engaged in the trade of purchase amd sale of computer. The departmental officers, who raided their premises resumed certain invoices from the premises and on the basis of documents so resumed,framed a case of manufacture and clandestine removal of computers against the appellants and, accordingly, show-caused them. The party contested it. The dispute was adjudicated by the jurisdictional Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise who passed order dated 26.3.1999 confirming a demand of duty of Rs. 3,08,956/- against the appellants and imposing on them mandatory penalty under Section IIAC of the Central Excise Act and a further penalty of Rs.75,000/- under Rule 1730 of the Central Excise Rules. Aggrieved by this order of the Deputy Commissioner, M/s C. Base Computronics (appellants here...

M/S. M.P. State Cooperative Oil Vs. Cce, Bhopal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT128TriDel

1. Shri O.J. Chacko, Advocate submits that the main ground taken by the appellants in their grounds of appeal before the ld. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) was of limitation. The appellate authority had not discussed the same. Without going into the merits of the case, the appeal has been disposed of by the following order: "6. It is clear from the facts narrated above that the appellants have absolutely no defence for their stand and that the action of the adjudicating officer in confirming the demand is legally correct and sustainable." The ld. Advocate also submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has noted in his order that the date of hearing was fixed on 6.7.2000 while in fact the hearing was fixed on 10.07.2000 and that the appellants have prayed for adjournment on 10.07.2000 on the ground that their Central Excise Consultant was not available and this communication was received in the office of the Commissioner on 10.07.2000. He submits that no opportunity was given t...

M/S. Brahma Marbles and Granite Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Shri K.K. Anand, Advocate submits that the appellants' representatives had explained on the spot as why the goods could not be accounted for in the records. He submits that the goods were within the factory premises and that there was no allegation that the goods have been removed from the factory without payment of duty. The full duty as applicable has already been paid. The matter relates to the imposition of redemption fine of Rs.27,000/- and a penalty of Rs.35,000/- and the value of the goods alleged to be short accounted was only Rs.27,446/-.He refers to the Tribunal's decision that when the goods were within the factory premises, and there was no allegation of surreptitious removal, then no duty could be demanded.3. Shri M.D. Singh, SDR submits that non-accountal has been admitted by the representative of the appellants. The goods were dutiable and had not been accounted for. The appellants were working under Self Removal Procedure (SRP).4. After hearing both the sides and ta...

M/S Shree Cement Limited, Beawar Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC702

1. The appellants are manufacturers of cement. Their factory is located at Bangur Nagar, Beawar in the District of Ajmer (Rajasthan). Before the initiation of the proceedings leading to this appeal, there were two cement manufacturing units situate adjacently, one belonging to the present appellants namely M/s Shree Cement Limited and the other belonging to their sister concern namely M/s Raj Cement, and both were separately registered with the Central Excise Department. On 11.11.1998, M/s Shree Cement Limited took over Raj Cement and obtained a single registration for the merged units, with the department, effective from 11.11.1998. As on the date of merger of the two units, Modvat credits on inputs as well as capital goods were lying unutilised with M/s Raj Cement. Therefore, after the merger, the present appellants applied to the Departmental authorities for permission to transfer the balances of Modvat credits lying in the RG-23C accounts of M/s Raj Cement to the corresponding acc...

M/S. Alchem International Pvt Vs. Commissioner of Customs,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC346

1. The appellants herein imported a consignment of 500 bags of Artemesia (crude drugs) vide Bill of entry dated 7.5.93. Artemesia falling under Chapter XV, Part II-D, "Plants, Fruits and Seeds' of the Export and Import Policy was allowed to be imported against a licence vide Notification No. 53(N-11) 92/97 dated 22.9.92 under which import of Seeds, Fruits and Plants for consumption or other purposes was permitted against a licence or in accordance with the Public Notice issued in that behalf. The bill of entry, was provisinally assessed and the goods were cleared after execution 'of bond and bank guarantee.Subsequently, the Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce vide letter dated 28.1.94 addressed to the Assistant Collector clarified that 'crude drugs as listed in Annexure to Public Notice No 117(PN)92-97 dated 31.3.93 are permitted to be imported by a manufacturer of the concerned Ayurvedic and Unani medicines holding valid manufacturing licence without a lice...

M/S Punjab Tractors Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT88TriDel

1. The appellants had taken Modvat credit on inputs (lubricating oils & greases and rubber tubes) totalling to Rs.3,09,120.70 in November 1994.Out of such credit, an amount of Rs.2,86,720.70 was the extent of credit taken on lubricating oils and greases and the balance credit was taken on rubber tubes. The lubricating oils and greases had been supplied to the appellants by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOC) and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPC) from their respective depots.The rubber tubes had been supplied by M/s Goodyear Indian Ltd. The Additional Commissioner disallowed the entire credit after holding that the lubricating oils and greases were not eligible inputs for the purpose of availment of Modvat credit under Rule 57A, and that the invoices on the strength of which the credits were taken did not disclose the necessary particulars as required under Notification No.33/94-CE(NT) dated 04.07.1994 and therefore invoices were not valid documents for availment of Modvat cred...

Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Arora Alloys (Pvt.) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1.The matter was called. None appeared for the respondents, M/s. Arora Alloys (Pvt.) Ltd. In their communication dated 15.11.2000, a request has been made for decision on merits.2. Shri M.D. Singh, SDR fairly agreed that the Commissioner (Appeals) has followed the Tribunal's decision in the case of Moosa Haji Patrawala Vs. CCE, Mumbai - 1996 (83) ELT 620 (Tribunal).3. I find that there is no stay of the Tribunal aforesaid order and the Tribunal is taking a consistent view that the modvat credit taken on the strength of the GPIs, which were issued prior to 31.3.94 but were endorsed therefore, in the absence of any other allegations was admissible.4. After going through the facts on record and the case law referred to by the appellate authority, I do not find any merit in this appeal filed by the Revenue and the same is dismissed. Ordered accordingly....

Cce, Raipur Vs. M/S. Prism Cement Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT872TriDel

1. The matter was called. None appeared for the respondents, M/s. Prism Cement Ltd. Shri S.L. Pawar, Clerk of Shri Sanjay Grover, Advocate submits that the counsel is busy in High Court. a notice for today's hearing was sent on 15.11.2000.2. Shri M.D. Singh, SDR submits that the matter is covered by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jaypee Reva Cement Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur = 2000 (119) ELT 552 (Tribunal - Larger Bench). The matter related to the modvat credit in respect of the explosives used in mines. The amount of duty involved in Rs. 44,712.00. No penalty was imposed. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) has relied upon the decisions, which has been over-ruled by the above Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal.3. As the matter has been already settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, I do not agree with the view taken by the 1d. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and the same is set aside.4. As a result, the order-in-ori...

M/S. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. Vs. Cce, Ghaziabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. It has been held by the appellate authority that the appellants had reversed the modvat credit even before the show cause notice was issued.3 Shri S.N. Srivastav, Advocate submits that there was no intention on the part of the appellants to evade payment of duty and they were under the bonafide belief that a modvat credit could be taken in the facts and circumstances of the case.4. After hearing both the sides, for hearing the appeal, I direct the appellants to deposit Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) within a period of 4 weeks from today , On depositing the above sum of Rs.10,000/- with the period as stipulated above i.e. four weeks from today, the pre-deposit of the balance penalty amount will be waived and recovery stayed till the disposal of the appal.To come-up for reporting the compliance and further orders on 12.2.2001....