Delhi Court January 2001 Judgments

New Light Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)170CTR(Del)138; [2002]256ITR391(Delhi); [2001]117TAXMAN741(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. At the instance of the assessed, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', Delhi (in short, the 'Tribunal'), Under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the reopening of the assessments Under section 147(b) based on the audit report was valid in law ?'2. The factual position as indicated in the statement of the case, is as follows :The dispute relates to the assessment years 1971-72 to 1973-74 and the question, as referred above, is common to all the three references. Assessment proceedings which were completed were reopened by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that information came into his possession that interest allowed to Gulzari Mal was not admissible under law and has been wrongly allowed. This information came into the possession of the Income...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Consulting Engineering Services (India) ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]250ITR849(Delhi); [2001]117TAXMAN54(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Pursuant to the direction given by this court, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E', New Delhi (in short, 'the Tribunal') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the terms of the contract between the assessed-company and the Sultan of Oman, Muscat, cannot be interpreted to mean that Rs. 2,75,700 accrued as the assessed's income in the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1971-72 ?'2. The factual position, in a nutshell, is as follows :The dispute relates to the assessment year 1971-72. During the assessment year in question the assessed, who runs a consultancy service, entered into an agreement with the Sultan of Oman, Muscat, as consultant for the construction of a building at Muscat including certain other work. The agreemen...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Prudential Builders

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Del)698

Arijit Pasayat, C. J.Pursuant to directions given by this court under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), the following questions have been referred by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B' (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') :'For assessment year 1974-751. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 13,605 made by the Income Tax Officer on account of penalty paid to the Delhi Development Authority for the misuse of the premises occupied by the assessed for the purpose of business ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the commercial use of the premises meant for residential use by the assessed does not amount to infraction of law and the penalty paid in pursuance thereof is incidental to the business of the assessed and such expenditure is wholly and exclusively laid out f...

Shri Mohan Lal Gupta Vs. Cc New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT1044TriDel

1. This appeal has been filed by Shri Mohan Lal Gupta against the Order-in-Original No. 35/99 dt. 6.12.99 under which the Commissioner of Customs has absolutely confiscated 1.48.,750 pieces of LCD watch modules, 13,367 calculators, 3000 pieces of metallic base plates of watches and 3000 pieces of watch hair spring, seized from his residential premises and his business premises on 9-8-1997 as he had failed to produce any records of documents regarding import of these goods at the time of seizure.2. Shri L.P. Asthana, Id. Advocate, submitted that as the impugned goods were not seized under the reasonable belief that they were smuggled goods, the provisions of Section 123 of the Customs Act are not attracted; that in his statements recorded before the seizure of the goods, the Appellant has deposed that he had purchased LCD Modlues and Calculators from M/s Mahalaxmi International, 22 Godam, Jaipur and Sardar Mannohar Singh r/o Patel Nagar, Delhi; that the bills/voucher were with the acco...

M/S. B.D. Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the applicants.The Tribunal vide Stav Order No.S/765/00/NB(S/M_ dated 1.11.2000 directed the applicants to deposit a sum of Rs.80,000/- for hearing of the appeal. As the applicants have not produced any evidence of show that applicants had complied with the Stay order, hence the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act....

M/S. Modi Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant vide letter dated 22.12.2000 made a request to decide the appeal on merit.2. Appellant filed this appeal against the order in appeal whereby the benefit of MODVAT credit in respect of explosive was denied to the appellant.4. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cement and they were using the explosive in their mines and (SIC) availing the benefit of MODVAT credit on these explosives as input. This issue is now settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Japee Rewa Cement, Rewa Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur, reported 2000 (38) RLT 1111 (CEGAT) L.B.. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal held that explosive used for quarrying limestone in mines are not entitled for the benefit of MODVAT credit as input. In view of the above decision of the Tribunal, I find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed....

M/S. Grasim Industries Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs.53,381.02 and penalty of Rs.5,000/-.3. The contention of the applicants is that they had filed an appeal against the adjudication order before the Commissioner (Appeal) without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to them, the Commissioner (Appeal) decided their application for waiver of pre-deposit and directed them to deposit the duty amount. Thereafter, appellant filed an application for modification of the Stay order and without deciding the modification application the appeal filed by them is dismissed for non-compliance under the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act hence the impugned order is passed in violation to the principles of natural justice. Applicants also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bell Ceramics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Cus. Vadodara, reported in 2000 (122) E.L.T. 396 (Tribunal) where in the similar situation t...

M/S. B.N. Sons Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The contention of the applicants is that MODVAT credit was denied to the applicants on the ground that the invoices were issued by M/s.Guljag Industries Ltd., Jaipur whereas the manufactures' invoices were issued by M/s. Tata Chemicals Ltd., in the name of M/s. Guljag Industries Ltd., Jodhpur. The applicants relied upon the Board's Circular No. 441/7/99-CE dated 23.2.99 whereby the Board has clarified that in view of the Notification No. 7/99-CE(NT) dated 9.2.99, the MODVAT credit shall not be denied on minor procedural lapse.2. In view of this Board's Circular, prima facie, the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicants, hence the pre-deposit of Rs. 66,476/- is waived for hearing of the appeal. To come up for arguments on 19.2.2001. (Dictated in Court)....

M/S. Manoj Trading Co. Vs. C.C., Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicants filed this application for rectification of mistake in the Final Order No. A/333/2000-NB(S) dated the 24th Feb., 2000.2. The contention of the applicants is that in a similar situation, the Tribunal in the case of Diamond Traders vs Commissioner of Customs reported in 1999 (111) ELT 921 released the imported poppy seeds on payment of redemption fine.3. In the present case, the poppy seeds were of Afganistan origin whereas in the case of Diamond Traders (supra), now relied upon by the applicants, poppy seeds were imported from Pakistan and there were three certificates from three different authorities, namely, Chamber of Commerce, Ministry of Food, Govt. of Pakistan and Export Promotion Bureau of Govt.s of Pakistan declared that the poppy seeds are of Pakistan origin and all are from licit and legal cultivation. In the present case, the Export Policy, in respect of poppy seeds, specifically provides that import of poppy seeds is not permitted except against a license ...

M/S. Nagpal Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The contention of the applicants is that MODVAT credit was denied to the applicants on the ground that the invoices were issued by M/s.Guljag Industries Ltd., Jaipur whereas the manufacturers' invoices were issued by M/s. Tata Chemicals Ltd., in the name of M/s. Guljag Industries Ltd., Jodhpur. The applicants relied upon the Board's Circular No.441/7/99-CE dated 23.2.99 whereby the Board has clarified that in view of the Notification No.7/99-CE(NT) dated 9.2.99, the MODVAT credit shall not be denied on minor procedural lapse.2. in view of this Board's Circular, prima facie, the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicants, hence the pre-deposit of Rs.5.15.353/- is waived for hearing of the appeal. To come up for arguments on 19.2.2001. (Dictated in Court)....