Delhi Court February 2001 Judgments

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Richa and Co.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]252ITR40(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'). 2. The assessed had filed its return for the assessment year 1989-90. An intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act had been issued to it. Subsequently action under Section 154 of the Act was initiated on the ground that in view of the retrospective amendment of Section 28(iii)(b) by the Finance Act, 1990, operative with retrospective effect, the assessed's claim for deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act was to be altered for the purpose of an allowance. Overruling the assessed's objection that such action was not permissible under Section 154 of the Act, the Assessing Officer passed an order by which he reduced the allowance of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. An appeal was preferred by the assessed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (in short, 'the CIT(A)'). The said authority upheld the Assessing Officer's order. The matter was carried in furthe...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Goodyear India Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)168CTR(Del)407; [2001]249ITR527(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New 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 is right in holding that the assessed is entitled to interest under Section 244 on the amount of interest amounting to Rs. 1,90,499 payable under Section 214 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1967-68.3. The factual position which is almost undisputed is essentially as follows:The assessed had paid advance tax of Rs. 8,08,667 for the concerned assessment year. However, on assessment the total demand raised by the order of assessment dated March 6, 1972, was Rs. 9,65,331. While raising the demand, the Income-tax Officer had not given credit for the tax paid and had also not allowed certain other reliefs. ...

D.P. Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(134)ELT46(Del)

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short CEGAT), dated 11-5-2000 dealing with the application for waiver of pre-deposit for entertaining the appeal filed by the petitioner under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short, the Act) total demand raised was Rs. 20,18,685/- excluding penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs. The original order was passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi. By order dated 8-2-2000 the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs on or before 10-5-2000 and to report compliance by 17-5-2000. An application for medication was filed on 2-3-2000. The same was disposed of by order dated 11-5-2000. Though the medication application was rejected, yet in the interest of natural justice, time for deposit was extended till 26-5-2000 and the compliance was to be reported on 5-6-2000. Matter was again taken up by CEGAT on 5-6-2000 and on that date,...

Cit Vs. Richa and Co.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2002)172CTR(Del)497

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.This is an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The assessed had filed its return for the assessment year 1989-90. An intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Act had been issued to it. Subsequently action under section 154 of the Act was initiated on the ground that in view of the retrospective amendment of section 28(iiib) by the Finance Act, 1990, operative with retrospective effect, the assesses claim for deduction under section 80HHC of the Act was to be altered for the purpose of an allowance. Overruling the assesses objection that such action was not permissible under section 154 of the Act, the assessing officer passed an order by which he reduced the allowance of deduction under section 80HHC of the Act. An appeal was preferred by the assessed before the Commissioner (Appeals). The said authority upheld the assessing officers order. The matter was carried in further appeal before the Income Tax App...

M/S. Optel Telecommunications Vs. C.C.E, Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This ROM Application is filed in respect of Final Order No.A/1973/00-NB(SM) dt. 16.10.2000. Shri P.C. Kashiv, Consultant appearing for the Petitioners submits that the following observation in the impugned order of the CEGAT is factually not correct and this would call for rectification: "The original as well as the Appellate Authority in their respective orders have held that neither the Tariff heading nor the description of the items on which the modvat credit is taken - are tallying with those given in their declaration".2. The ld. Consultant for the Petitioners submits that in fact in the declaration filed by the Petitioners, the Tariff Heading of the items was not correctly mentioned and for the description of the goods only the entry 'party' was mentioned. On this ground, the ld. Consultant for the Petitioners would argue that there is a mistake in the order of the Tribunal apparent on record which would call for rectification. Shri A.K. Jain, JDR for the respondents submits ...

M/S. Ram Kirana Store Vs. Cc, Lucknow

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicant has filed this application stating that mistakes have crept in the final order of the Tribunal. The mistakes are reported to be as under: 5". Para 6 of Final Order No.A/709/99-NB(DB) which is material, reads thus: "We have heard the rival submissions. We find that 3 points raised by the appellant were adequately replied to by the Ld. JDR. We find that there is a force in the submission of the Ld. JDR. Having regard to the evidence on records, we hold that confiscation of dry ginger is sustainable in law. However, looking to the facts and submissions of both sides, we convert the order of absolute confiscation into confiscation with the option to ream dry ginger on payment of fine of Rs.1 lakh. However, redemption fine shall be governed by the provisions of s 125 of the Customs Act. Penalty is reduced to Rs.1 lac. 6. It is thus apparent from your Lordships order that all the arguments in written submissions in support of the appeal have not been noted much less dealt w...

M/S. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT780TriDel

1. When the stay appliction came up for orders, we heard the ld.Counsel representing the appellants and the ld. DR in detail. After perusing the records, we are disposing of the appeal itself without passing any separate order on stay petitions.2. The appellants manufactures ayurvedic medicines. In respect of three products namely 'Panchphool Tel, 'Ghrit Kumari Tel' and 'Himani Kalyan Tel' stated to be patent ayurvedic medicines, classification declaration was filed on 1.3.97 for inclusion under tariff sub-heading 3003.39. Without affording any opportunity of being heard on the said declaration, by a communication dated 1.7.97, the products were classified under tariff sub heading 3305.10. Against the said order approving the classification, appellants filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and said appeal is still pending. While no demand notice dated 12.8.97 was issued directing them to pay the excise duty amounting to Rs.60,077.73. The demand notice issued by the Superinten...

M/S. U.P. Small Industries Corpn. Vs. C.C.E. Ghaziabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellats are the licenced dealers of the excisable goods and they issued invoices under Rule 57GG of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.They received an invoice No. 1410 dt. 15.1.98 from the Steel Authority of India and availed the modvat credit of Rs. 1,23,828/- on the strength of the same which they further passed on to M/s. A.T.U.Project, Mathura along with the excisable goods covered under the said invoice. The Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Division-III, Ghaziabad vide his Order dt. 29.10.99 has denied the modvat credit of the above said amount to the appellants on the ground that they entered the credit in their RG 23D Registered on the strength of original copy of invoice without taking permission from the Asst. Commissioner in violation of Rule 57G and their request for permission for availing the modvat credit on the original copy has been made after six months of the event. The original authority also imposed a penalty of Rs. 15,000/- on them.2.The appeal of the p...

Cce, Delhi Vs. M/S Q.H. Talbros Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(137)ELT1187TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by Revenue, is whether Modvat Credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rule, is available in respect of tools during the period from 23-7-1996 to 31-8-96 to M/s Q.H. Talbros Ltd., Respondents.2. Shri M. D. Singh, 1d.S.D.R., submitted that as during the relevant period, tools were not covered within the definition of Capital Goods under Rule 57Q, the Assistant Commissioner, disallowed the Capital Goods credit to the Respondents under Adjudication Order No 49/CE/97 dt. 29-1-1998; that the Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned Order No. 1103/CE/DLH/99 dt. 2-11-1999 allowed inputs credit in respect of tools observing that as once tools were taken as not covered by the definition of Rule 57Q, they were automatically covered under Rule 57A.The 1d. SDR, further, submitted that the definition on inputs as given in Rule 57A excluded "tools' from the purview of definition of inputs and as such it cannot be said that once tools are taken as not...

Shri Suresh Kothari Vs. C.C.E. Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this matter, a penalty of Rs.25,000/- is imposed on the appellant by the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II vide his Order dt.1.12.98. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur vide his Stay Order dt. 28.9.99/7.10.99 directed the appellant to make the deposit of entire amount of the penalty imposed on him. In pursuance of the same, the appellants could deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 17.11.99. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal vide his Order dt.28.3.2000 under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for non-compliance of the pre-deposit as directed by him.2. The appellants filed a second stage appeal before the CEGAT and the Tribunal vide their Stay Order No.S/692/00/NB (SM) dt. 4.10.2000 taking note of the fact that the applicant had already deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- waived the balance amount of penalty imposed on him and listed the matter for hearing today.3. Today when the matter is called, Shri K.K. Anand, Advocate for the appel...