Delhi Court March 2001 Judgments

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Reinz Talbros Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]252ITR637(Delhi); [2001]119TAXMAN739(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. All these petitions involve an identical issue and are, thereforee, disposed of by this common order. 2. I. T. R. Nos. 187 to 191 of 1980 relate to the assessment years 1971-72 to 1975-76, I. T. R. No. 266 of 1981 relates to the assessment years 1976-77 and I. T. R. No. 110 of 1981 relates to the assessment year 1977-78. The question referred, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench (in short, 'the Tribunal'), for the opinion of this court, in each of the reference petitions is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 10,00,000 paid to the foreign collaborator Reinz in the form of equity shares be treated as revenue expenditure spread over a period of ten years or as capital expenditure over which the permissible depreciation allowance may be allowed ?' 3. The factual background needs to be noted in brief and is essentially as foll...

Freeze King Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VIIAD(Delhi)183; [2001]252ITR583(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. At the instance of the assesses, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B' (in short 'the Tribunal') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 5,115 paid as interest along with Installment in respect of plot No. 182/14, Industrial Area, Chandigarh, was of a capital nature and was not allowable as revenue expenditure ?'2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1976-77. The background facts essentially are as follows. The assessed is a private limited company which was incorporated on June 24, 1966, and carried on the business of manufacture and sale of air-conditioning and refrigeration machinery. The previous year for the assessment year in question ended on June 30, 1975. On an application made by the assessed, the Estate Offi...

Shri Bhag NaraIn Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT1352TriDel

1. For hearing the present appeal, the appellants Shri Bhag Narain is required to pre-deposit a sum of Rs.5 lakhs imposed on him by way of penalty under Section 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. Shri Sandeep Kumar, Advocate and Shri Swaran Kumar, Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that their client is a person of small means and has been wrongly implicated in these proceedings. He has been already absolutely confiscated. He is from a village, so could not file the appeal in time. He prays that the delay in filing of appeal be condoned and appeal be heard on merits without asking for any pre-deposit.2. Shri M.M. Dubey, DR submits that it was a case of smuggling of third country goods from Nepal and a seizure of goods worth about Rs. One Crore were made by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence on specific information. He refers to Order-in-original and the role of the present appellant Shri Bhag Narain. According to the adjudicating authority, Shri Bhag Narain was to accomp...

M/S. N.T.V. Multiwal Paper Bag Co. Vs. Cce, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When this appeal was called for hearing on 9.2.2001 none appeared on behalf of the appellant. So, fresh notice was directed to be issued for hearing on today, 20.03.2001. Registered notice, acknowledgement due, was accordingly sent to the party on 01.03.2001. That notice has been returned by the Postal authorities with an endorsement "addressee left".2. Heard the Learned DR and perused the records. We are disposing of the appeal.3. The issue raised in the appeal relates to the classification of Bitumenised Kraft paper, whether to be classified under TI 17(2) of the schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. The said issue has been decided by the Apex Court in favour of the Revenue in the case of Union of India Vs. Babubhai Neelchand Mehta reported in 1991 (51) ELT 182 (SC). Apex Court in that decision reversed the decision of the Bombay High Court reported in 1988 (33) ELT 292 (Bom). In view of the decision of the Apex Court, we find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly...

Cce, New Delhi Vs. M/S. Prabhat Zarda Factory

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC302

The respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of chewing tobacco of different brands classifiable under Central Excise Triff sub-heading 2404.40. The Department was of the view that the assessee had misdeclared their duty paid godown as the "place of removal" in the price declaration in respect ofsuch transaction whereas the transaction of sale is completed only at the destination of the buyer where delivery in effected finally; therefore, in such transacions the buyer's place is the correct 'place of removal' as per Section 4 of the Central Excise Act w.e.f. 28.9.96. The Department also of the view that the respondents had not included the element of freight and insurance in the assessable value of the goods in respect of such transactions and had not paid Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs.59,29,536/- on the same during the period 1.10.96 to 11.3.99. Accordingly, a SCN was issued proposing recovery of duty of the amount above mentioned alongwith imposition of penalty. The a...

M/S. Raja Mechanical Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. Delhi-iii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This ROM Petition is filed in respect of Final Order No.A/2180/00/NB(SM) dt. 17.10.2000. The impugned order of the Tribunal is passed in the appeal filed against Order-in-Appeal dt. 1.3.2000 of the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi. In that Order, the lower appellate authority had dismissed the appeal of the party on the ground that the appeal was filed on 5.11.98 against Order-in-Original dt. 17.10.97 i.e., after more than 12 months. The lower appellate authority in the order has observed that in terms of proviso to Section 35(1), Commissioner (Appeals) is empowered to condone delay of three months in filing the appeal if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the stipulated period of three months. Accordingly, it is observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power under the Central Excise law to condone delay of more than three months whereas in the case under consideration, the delay was of more than 9 months. ...

M/S. Intercontinental Vs. Cce New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the impugned order in appeal dated 31.7.2000 vide which the Commissioner of Customs(Appeals) had upheld the order in original of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs dated 2.2.200 who rejected their refund claim of Rs.7,20,346/- under Section 27 of the Customs Act.3. The appellants imported three electronic total stations-Topcon and Leica Make against two Bills of Entry dated 3.4.99 and 7.4.99 and paid duty thereon in all of Rs.7,20,346/- vide TR-6 challans dated 8.5.99 and 25.5.99. However,later on they filed an application for refund of the duty amount on the ground that they were not liable to pay the same in view of the exemption Notifications Nos.73/97 dated 3.10.97 and 20/99 as the equipments (electronic total stations) were imported by them to carry out the surveys as contemplated under the contract agreement for a project under taken by the National Highways Authority of India and that understanding was also given to th...

M/S. Cimmco Birla Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. For reasons recorded below we waived the pre-deposit of duty of Rs.14,94,824/- and penalty of Rs.75,000/-, stayed recovery thereof, and proceeded to dispose of the appeal itself with the consent of both sides.2. The appellants herein are manufacturers of railway wagons classifiable under Chapter 86 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 85. They received orders for supply of railway wagons from M/s. NTPC Ltd., New Delhi under a project financed by Asian Development Bank (ADB)/International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IRDA). They imported duty free inputs for the manufacture of wagons under a Special Imprest Licence (SIL) dt.21.7.93 issued under paragraph 65 of the Export-Import Policy 1992-97. A SCN dt.29.1.99 was issued to the appellants proposing to recover duty and to impose penalty on the ground that while the appellants were availing the benefit of Advance Licence under Notification No.203/92-Cus dt.19.5.92 wherein one of the conditions was that no inpu...

M/S. Chandigarh Steels Vs. Cce Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT131TriDel

1. In this application, the appellants have prayed for complete waiver of pre-deposit of the duty amount of Rs.1,29,032/- and for stay of recovery there of, pending the appeal.2. Examined the records and heard both sides. The applicants, engaged int he manufacture of non-alloy steel Ingots/Billets under compounded levy scheme under section 3A of the Central Excise Act, closed down their factory on account of adverse market conditions during the period 18.8.98 t 31.8.98. The necessary intimations of closure and closure and subsequent restart were given to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner in terms of the provisions of Rule 96ZO (2). The applicants, soon after restart of their factory , applied of abatement of duty for the above period of closure. Thereafter, by show-cause notice, the Commissioner asked the party to show cause why the abatement claim should not be rejected on the ground that the intimation of closure given to the Assistant Commissioner in teams of Rule 96ZO (2) ...

M/S. Bajaj Industries and Others Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC108

1. These appeals have come up in a second round of litigation. Earlier the appellants had challenged orders of the Commissioner on the ground of violation of natural justice and the Tribunal set aside those orders and directed the Commissioner to pass fresh orders and directed the Commissioner to pass fresh orders in accordance with the principles of natural justice. In the remand order so passed by the Bench in the case of each of these appellants, the Commissioner was specifically directed to inspect the furnace installed in the rolling mill of the manufacturer and decide as to whether the furnace was of the batch type or the pusher type. Such inspection was to be undertaken by the Commissioner along with technical experts. It was further provided in the remand order that the appellants be given an opportunity of being heard before passing orders. Pursuant to the remand order, 1d.Commissioner inspected the furnaces installed in the rolling mills of these appellants. That was done al...