Delhi Court February 2001 Judgments

M/S. Volzhsky Pipe Plant Vs. the Designated Authority

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Association of Seamless Tubes manufactures filed a petition before the Designated Authority, Ministry of Commerce, Govt. of India alleging dumping into India of seamless tubes originating in or exported from Austria, Czeck Republic, Russia, Romania and Ukraine. Upon satisfaction that there was sufficient evidence regarding dumping, the Designated Authority initiated Anti Dumping investigation against the imports from these countries in respect of seamless tubes by issue of Public Notice dated 21st May, 1999. The authority published its preliminary findings vide notification dated 10th November, 1999. The preliminary findings recommended imposition of Provisional Anti Dumping duties.Subsequently, at the conclusion of investigations, which included hearing of the interested parties who took part in the investigations, the Authority notified its Final Findings on 19th May, 2000. The Final Findings recommended levy of Definitive Anti Dumping duties. The Anti Dumping duty was recommende...

M/S. Devidayal Non-ferrous Vs. Cce, Bombay-i

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Both the sides submit that the issue under consideration in this appeal is already covered by the Tribunal's earlier decision in the appellants' own case in appeal no. E/1087/92-B. The Tribunal under their final order no. 1878/2000-B dated 6.11.2000 had held that the appellants were eligible to the exemption oas provided under (SIC) 1(ii) of notification no. 69/86-CE in respect of the paper insulated copper winding wire manufactured by the appellants....

Cce Chandigarh Vs. Steel Strips Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The respondents manufacture the goods falling under Chapter 72.During the month of August, 95 they availed modvat credit amounting to Rs.22,521.26 on the capital goods viz, plain plates, cut off, wheel, GC sheets, Centrifugal Air Blower, Ceramic fibre blanket, welding electrods etc. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh vide his Order dated 19.3.97, denied the modvat credit of the aforesaid amount under Rule 57U of the Central Excise Rules, 1994.2. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh vide his order dated 15.12.98 allowed the appeal of the respondents on plain plates and rounds for the amounting of Rs.4460.92. He, however, rejected the appeal for the credit on GC sheets.3. The Revenue are in appeal against the above order of Commissioner (Appeals). I have heard Shri A.K.Jain, JDR for the appellants. The respondents are not represented. Shri K.K.Anand, Adv. on their behalf has send a letter dated 15.2.2001 in which it is stated that he is suffering fro...

Addi Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an application filed by M/s Addi Alloys Pvt. Ltd., for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 25,000/- confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeal) under the impugned Order.2. Shri Hari Om Arora, Ld. Advocate, submitted that the consignment of Heavy Melting Scrap at ICD landed in India in four containers in their name; that they had not placed any order for the said consignment; that they have not done anything in relation to the goods as no order was placed by them with the Foreign Supplier, M/s AAI Salam AI Fadhi Metal Trading Ltd. Sharjah; that therefore, the question of imposing of any penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act on the applicants does not arise as they were not at all directly or indirectly concerned with the Import of the impugned consignment. He, further, submitted that out of four containers, only one container was found to contain five old used diesel engines that too without gear box, that no offence was made in respect of other three containers; that ...

M/S Jagdish Rolling Works Vs. Cce, Kanpur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal was dismissed vide Final Order No.A/1104/00/NB(SM) dated 22.6.2000 on the ground on non-prosecution as on that date on one appeared on behalf of appellants before the bench.2. The appellants have filed a restoration of appeal petition. The petitioners are not present and they have sent a communication dated 14.2.2001 in which it is stated that Shri Amit Avasthi, Adv. has fallen ill and he is not in a position to come from Kanpur to argue their petition for restoration. They have therefore, requested for an adjournment. Since the petition listed for today is for restoration of appeal, the same can be taken up on the basis of the written memoranda filed by the appellants. I therefore, take up the same for disposal.3. The petitioner in their written memorandum of restoration of appeal have stated that the notice for hearing for 22.6.2000 was not received by them and the same was not even mentioned in the stay order dated 30.3.2000. Therefore, they could not be present on 2...

Vishal Printing Press Vs. Cc, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an application by M/s Vishal Printing Press for restoration of their appeal which was dismissed by the Tribunal Vide Final Order No. A/2191/2000 NB dt. 21-11-2000 for want of prosecution.2. Ms. Sonam Nagrath, ld. Advocate, submitted that she had appeared before the Tribunal on 12-9-2000 she had appeared before the Tribunal on 12-9-2000 when the Appeal came up for hearing; that day the matter was adjourned to 21-11-2000; that however, by mistake she noted the date of next hearing to be 22-11-2000. In support of her contention, she has produced a photo copy of her diary also. She finally submitted that non appearance on 21-11-2000 had occurred due to noting date of hearing wrongly; that the non appearance was neither intentional nor deliberate.3. Shri M.D. Singh, ld. S.D.R., mentioned that the date of hearing noted by the Departmental Representative was 21-11-2000 as fixed by the Bench.4. I find that the Advocate did not appear on the date of hearing because of noting the dat...

Lml Ltd. Vs. Cce, Kanpur-i

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The brief facts in the case are that the appellants manufacture scooter and parts thereof, They filed a refund claim of Rs.3,65,447.00 on 9.1.99 with the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Division-II, Kanpur on the ground that they had cleared capital goods namely, "Moulds and Dies" to their job worker M/s Belmaks Automotives Ltd. on payment of duty under Rule 57S(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.These moulds and dies were cleared during the period 14.7.98 to 28.8.98 by debiting the duty in their RG 23C part-II account by issuing the invoices. It is stated that they wanted to clear the said capital goods to the job worker under Rule 57S (8) without payment of duty. It is submitted that the said job worker was working under Rule 57F (4) and did not have the facility for availing modvat credit. On realising their mistake they applied to the Assistant Commissioner for granting the permission under Rule 57S (8) which was given to them on 19.3.99.They submitted that the mistake...

M/S. Kansal Industries Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These two appeal because they pertained to the same assessee though the issues are slightly different, were taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Arguing the case for the appellant Shri J.P.Kaushik, Ld. Counsel submits that in Appeal No.E/2853/2000-NB the allegation of the Department was that particulars regarding quantity received and the duty paid in invoices 1727 and 1730 both dt.12.10.94 did not tally with the particulars shown in the manufacturer's invoices in-as-much as the quantity of the goods and the amount of duty passed on to the appellant is shown higher than that shown in the particulars of manufacturer's invoices. Ld. Counsel submits that a look at the invoice No.1727 dt.12.10.94 will show that the quantity is 6.460 m.t. and the duty paid on this is shown as Rs.13,666/-. He submits further that certificate furnished from M/s. Rakesh Steels against that if we look at/Col.Nos.3&4, the quantity has been shown as 6.460 m.t. and the quanti...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Punjab National Bank

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)110

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, Act) filed by Revenue questioning correctness of the conclusion recorded by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, Tribunal) to the effect that action taken under Section 154 of the Act was not legal after issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act.2. Factual position in a nutshell is as follows:For the assessment year 1989-90, due date of filing return was 31.12.1989. assessed filed return on 28.12.1989. An intimation in terms of Section 143(1)(a) of the Act was given to the assessed on 31.3.1990 on the basis of return filed. Notice under Section 143(2) was issued in the month of December, 1990. Subsequently, a notice for taking action under Section 154 of the Act was issued on 28.2.1991. assessed submitted its reply on 21.3.1991 taking the stand that there was no scope for taking any action under Section 154. On 27.3.1991, revised return was filed by the assessed. Rej...

The Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-iv, New Delhi Vs. M/S. Rajasthan ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)40

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. At the instance of revenue, following question has been referred for opinion of this Court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961(in short the 'Act') by the income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D' (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal): 'Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the sum of Rs.26,803 brought to tax by the ITO u/s 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?' 2. Dispute lies within a very narrow compass. During the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1976-77. Assessing Officer noted that the assessed had deleted unclaimed credit balance amounting to Rs. 35,185/- from the total income. Some was held to be taxable in terms of Section 41(1) of the Act. assessed preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)(in short the CIT(A)'). Said authority noticed that the amounts were credited to the profit and loss account. It was assessed's stand that these were cla...