Delhi Court January 2001 Judgments

Cit Vs. Trading Engineers

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]116TAXMAN285(Delhi)

Pasayat, C.J.Following question has been referred for opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench C, New Delhi :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 71,390 is allowable as sales tax liability in computing the assesses income for the assessment year 1977-78 ?'The dispute relates to the assessment year 1977-78.2. Factual position as indicated in the statement of case is as follows :The assessed, a registered partnership firm, derived income from several agencies and also earned income by providing technical know-how for installation of pumping plants. It followed mercantile system of accounting and its accounting year ended on 30-9-1976. For the relevant assessment year, assessed declared income of Rs. 5,75,596. Subsequently, a letter was filed claiming deduction of Rs. 71,390 on account of provision made for ...

Cce, New Delhi Vs. M/S. Blopak

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is a reference application filed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, New Delhi for referring the following questions of law to the Hon'ble High Court purporting to be arising out of Tribunal's Final Order No. 786/98-C dated 24.8.98:- (i) Whether the option either to pay duty and avail Modvat credit or avail exemption as an SSI unit is vested in the unit? (ii) Whether provisions of Rule 57-C are attracted in cases where final products are cleared without availing of exemption on whole of the duty of excise? (iii) Whether the Final Order No. 796/98-C dated 16.9.98 is legally correct and proper or not in the light of the above question of law? 2. Shri S.P. Rao, learned D.R. submitted that the Respondents M/s.Blopak instead of availing exemption from payment of duty upto the aggregate value of first clearance not exceeding Rs. 30 lakhs under Notification No. 1/93-CE paid central excise duty and availed of Modvat credit; that the Tribunal upheld the contention of the Respondents u...

Cce, Indore Vs. M/S. New Vikarm Cement and Others

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Arguing the ROM Shri Pushkarna, Ld. DR submits that by the impugned order, the Tribunal disposed of two orders and while regarding the facts of the case, the Tribunal had observed He submits that it was not only material handling equipment covered by two appeals but it was also Electric Control Panel which was the subject matter in one of the appeals. He submits that thus there has been a mistake in the order of the Tribunal and prays that the mistake may be rectified.2. I have perused the impugned order. On perusal of this order, I find that the Tribunal has mentioned that the issue relates to Modvat credit on material handling equipments. I also note that this impugned order covered two appeals, one was of Vikram Cement and second was new Vikram Cement. I also find that in one of the appeals the item involved was also Electric Control Penal which does not find mentioned in the paragraph containing the facts of the case. I therefore, find that there is a mistake apparent on the fa...

Cce, Bhopal Vs. M/S Tesla Transformer Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT137TriDel

1. This is an appeal by the Revenue, aggrieved by the order of ld.Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the assessee's appeal against Order-in-Original dated 7.10.99 passed by the Assistant Commissioner disallowing modvat credit of Rs.1,58,071/- and imposing penalty of Rs.10,000/-.2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent had taken modvat credit of Rs.1,40,010/- in their RG 23A Part II on the strength of invoices issued by Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL) as unregistered dealer; that the credit so taken was disallowed by the Deputy Commissioner as per order dated 14.9.95 on the ground that it had been taken on invalid documents; that, pursuant to the Dy. Commissioner's order, the credit was reversed by the party on 22.10.96; that, on 27.12.95, they had applied to the Assistant Commissioner under Rule 57H [as amended by Notification No. 64/94-CE(NT) dated 7.11.94] for permission to avail the credit on the aforesaid invoices issued prior to 31.12.94; that their application wa...

Cce, Allahabad Vs. M/S. Yamuna Fan Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Shri S.C.Pushkarna, Ld. DR arguing the ROM submits that the Tribunal in its Final Order No.A/90/97-NB dt.10.2.97 held "Since the issue has already been considered by the Tribunal in their own case, following the ratio of the Larger Bench decision, I accept the contention of the appellant and accordingly, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief".He submits that in the Final Order No.A/654/96-NB dt.29.2.96, this Tribunal in the case of the appellant himself had held "Having regard to the above discussions and findings, I hold that no deemed Modvat credit is admissible to the inputs in the instant case. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The impugned order is upheld".2. Ld. DR submits that these two orders are holding two different news which are (SIC) and therefore, a mistake has crept in the later order as it should have followed the earlier order.3. I have perused the orders in dispute. I fund that it was for the Revenue at the time of hearing the appeal to argue this poi...

Commissioner of Central Escise, Vs. M/S. Engineering Innovation Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Revenue filed this application to rectifying the mistake in the Final Order No.A/1247/2000-NB(SM) dated 3.7.2000.3. The contention of the Revenue is that in the impugned order the Tribunal allowed the benefit of MODVAT credit in respect of endorsed gate passes, whereas the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur, reported in 2000 (116) E.L.T. 364 (Tribunal) held that endorsed invoices are not valid duty paying documents.4. The issue in the final order No.A/1247/2000-NB(SM) dated 3.7.2000 was whether the Gate passes endorsed after 1.4.96 were valid duty paying documents or not and the Tribunal held that these are valid duty paying documents. Whereas, the issue before the Larger Bench in the case of Balmer FLawrie & Co. Ltd. (supra) was in respect of endorsed invoices. Therefore, this application filed by the Revenue is misconceived, hence rejected....

M/S. Prasant Electrodes. Vs. Cce, Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Arguing the case for the appellant Shri K.K. Anand, Ld. Counsel submits that the dispute in the instant case is confined to disallowance of Modvat credit on the strength of invoices on which the S.No. was not printed but was only typed. Ld. Counsel submits that there are a number of judgments of this Tribunal in which it has been held that typing of S.No. instead of printing it in the invoices is a rectifiable mistake and Modvat credit need not be disallowed. He particularly refers to the latest judgment of the West Regional Bench in the case of CCE, Rajkot vs Kishan Plastics Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2000 (38) RLT.617. In this case the Tribunal held that invoices bearing typed S.No. are the valid documents and credit need not be disallowed as type written numbers are to be treated as printed. Ld. Counsel, therefore, prays that not only the stay petitions should be allowed but the appeals should be disposed of. Ld. Counsel submits that since there are two orders passed, therefore, two ...

Cce, Jaipur Vs. M/S Prem Cables (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) with reference to the Tribunal's Final Order no. A/941/98-NB dated 16.7.1998 prayed that the following question of law be referred to the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court - "Can the Tribunal exercise the powers to relax the specific and mandatory provisions of the law which the central excise law does not confer on it." 3. I find that no question of law is involved when powers are exercised by the Tribunal as conferred on the same by the Statute. The matter relates to the modvat credit.The matter camp up before the Single Member Bench and was disposed of on appreciation of the facts. In fact, in this case the adjudicating authority had dropped the proceedings.4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not consider it to be a fit case for making a reference to the High Court. The reference application filed by the Revenue is dismissed....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Jaitu Steel Tubes and M/S.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Revenue filed this Reference application for referring the following question of law: "Whether the CEGAT is justified in allowing credit on inputs declared as flats to the party when they have declared the same as bars in their modvat declaration as per Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules, 1944, giving full description of the inputs and final products in the declaration filed is a mandatory provision and nor they have filed any revised/supplementary declaration giving full description of the inputs".2. When the case was called none appearing on behalf of the respondents inspite of notice.3. Heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the appeal papers.4. The contention of the Revenue is that appellants in their declaration declared the inputs as bars, whereas they had received flats which were not declared in their declaration.5. The Tribunal in the final order in Para-5 gave a finding of fact that respondents in their declaration declared the inputs as bars of uneven thickn...

Cce, Meerut Vs. M/S. Marushi Electronics Pvt.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Revenue has filed the reference application stating that a point of law arises out of the Tribunal's findings that Modvat credit would be admissible on the strength of gate passes though issue before 1.4.94 and endorsed on or after 1.4.94 but before 30.6.94.2. Arguing the case for Revenue Shri S.C.Pushkarna, Ld. DR. submits that similar view was taken by the Tribunal while deciding the admissibility of Modvat credit in the case of Hazi Mossa Patrawala. He submits that against that decision of the Tribunal Reference application was preferred which after consideration was allowed by the West Regional Bench after consideration was allowed by the West Regional Bench in the case of Hazi Moosa Patrawala reported in 1997(92)ELT.588. Ld. DR, therefore, submits that reference to the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court may be made on similar ground in the present case also.3. Shri Vivek K.Mehta, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that there is a minor clerical error in the order in-as-mu...