Delhi Court March 2001 Judgments

JaIn Brothers Vs. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)168CTR(Del)297

Arijit Pasayat, C.J. :Pursuant to the direction given by this court in an application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as 'the Act'), Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench-D (herein after to as Tribunal ) has referred the following question for opinion of this court .'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal acted on material in coming to the conclusion that penalty was imposable on the assessed for the assessment year 1971-72 ?'As the question itself indicates, dispute relates to assessment year 1971-72.2. Factual position, as noted in the statement of case, is as follows :assessed, a partnership firm, consisted of four partners with 25 per cent shares each. Its business was of selling steel pipes and tubes, etc. with its head office at Delhi and branch at Calcutta. For the assessment year in question previous year ended on Diwali, 1970. assessed had filed its return on 20-7-1971, declaring an income of Rs. 4,64,890. A...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gowar Sons Publication (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]116TAXMAN393(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J. At the instance of the revenue, 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-D, Delhi.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in holding that an amount of Rs. 48,161 in respect of interest payable/paid was an allowable deduction?'The dispute relates to the assessment year 1975-76.2. Background facts, so far as relevant, in a nutshell, are as follows :The assessed-company carried on business as printers and publishers. Until 30-9-1972, business was being carried on by partnership firm styled Goverdhan Kapoor & Sons. As per agreement dated 1-10-1972, the business was taken over as a running concern by the assessed-company for a consideration of Rs. 8,31,133. As per paragraph (2) of the agreement, the assessed agreed to take over all the assets of the transferor-firm, as per the balance...

Ms. Jayantri Plastics Vs. Cce, Meerut-i

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The present appeal has been filed against a communication dated 18.10.2000 issued by the Dy. Commissioner (Tech.) Central Excise, Meerut, which is extracted below:- Sub:- Request for remission of duty on account of theft the factory premises reg. Please refer to your letter dated 20.12.99 on the above subject. In this regard I am to inform you that your request for remission of duty has been rejected by the Commissioner on the following ground: 1. Procedure laid down in trade notice NO.206/84 dated 01.12.84 of this Commissionerate has not been followed as the intimation to the department was not given with in the prescribed time limit of 24 Hrs. 2. Adequate precautions were not taken to safeguard goods and the theft occurred due to your negligence.2. After hearing both the sides, I find that it is not a speaking appealable order.3. Shri B.P. Garg, Advocate referred to the correspondence with the Department with regard to the theft in their factory premises in the intervening nigh o...

Cce, Chandigarh-ii Vs. M/S. Continental Transformers

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the availment of modvat credit in respect of the Cold Rolled (CR) Coil Ends used in the manufacture of distribution transformers. CR Coil Ends were classifiable under sub-heading No. 7211.51 of the Tariff while in their declaration, the respondents, M/s. Continental Transformers, Jammu had indicated the sub-heading as 7211.00 of the Tariff. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) had allowed the modvat credit on the ground that the variation in the declared sub-heading was only minor. The goods have been actually received and used and there was no other discrepancy noted.2. When the matter was called, none appeared for the respondents. A notice for today's hearing was issued as early s on 16.1.2001. There is no response. There is no request for adjournment.3. I have heard Shri S.C. Pushkarna, JDR and have gone through the facts on record.4. I find that the Commissioner of Cental Excise (Appeals) has taken a reasonable ...

Cce, Raipur Vs. M/S. H.E.G. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The matter was called.None appeared for the respondents, M/S.h.e.g.Ltd. A notice for today's hearing was sent on 23.1.20001.2. The respondents have filed cross objections and have relied upon the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut Vs. Modi Rubber Ltd.- 2000 (119) ELT 197 (Tribunal-Larger Bench).3. I have heard Shri S.C. Pushkarana, JDR and have gone through the records.4. I find that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) had relied upon this Tribunal's Larger lubricating oil/grease used for lubricating machine was an admissible input under Rule 57 A of the Central Excise Rules.6. As the matter is already covered by the aforementioned decision of the Tribunal and the ld. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) had also followed the same decision of the Tribunal, I do not find any merit in this appeal by the Revenue and the same is rejected. Ordered accordingly....

M/S. Arora Alloys Ltd. and M/S. Vs. Cce, Chandigarth-i

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In both these appeals filed by (1) M/s. Arora Alloys Ltd. and (2) M/s. Khurana Steel Pvt. Ltd., the matter relates to the special procedure under which Compounded Levy Scheme was applicable to the electric furnaces. The period in both these appeals is the same i.e.2.12.97 to 9.12.97. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh had rejected the abatement claims on the ground that the declarations as given by the assessees did not meet the requirement of Rule 96ZO(2) (e) of the Central Excise Rules.3. It is seen from the documents on record that the manufacturers had lodged some protest against the scheme of Punjab State Electricity Board and as a mark of protest close down their units from 2.12.97.Intimation was given to the Revenue authorities. Their intimation was acknowledged and the Central Excise Officers had also visited the premises for verification. Thereafter when the protest was over, again intimation was sent for re-starting the furnace. These intimations were also ack...

M/S. Anushikha Autolite Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants are the manufacturers of automobile Head Lamps and its accessories falling under sub-heading 8512.00.They are also availing modvat facility under Rules 57A and 57Q.They purchased one Glass Plunger (Die) and availed the modvat credit amounting to Rs.2,31,000/- on it in their RG 23C Part-II account on 10.10.97. This Die was sent to their Job Worker in terms of the provisions of Rule 57S(8). They were issued a show cause notice by the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur calling upon them why the above amount of modvat credit should not be denied to them under Rule 57(3) and why a penalty should not be imposed on them. On considering the case of the party, the Dy. Commissioner vide his Order dt. 4.12.98 confirmed the duty of the above amount on them apart from imposing a penalty of the equal amount under Rule 57U(6). He further imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000/- on them under Rule 173Q.2. The party filed an appeal and Commissioner (Appeals) vide his Order dt. 29.7.9...

M/S. Chanderpur Works Vs. Cce, Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Chanderpur Works, the matter relates to the modvat credit taken on the strength of challan-cum-invoice issued by M/s. SAIL, a Public Sector Undertaking.2. The modvat credit was availed of on the strength of invoices of M/s.SAIL, which had been endorsed twice. The credit was taken on 25.4.97, 1.6.94 and 9.5.94. On objection from the Department, the appellants debited the credit already taken under protest and subsequently, after the Tribunal passed orders in their own case vide Order No.S/491/96 NB A/2562/96 NB dated 22.10.96, they filed refund claims, which were rejected.3. I have herd Shri Alok Arora, Advocate and Shri M.D. Singh, SDR and have gone through the facts on record.4. Shri Alok Arora, Advocate submitted that besides the Tribunal's decision, which had been placed before the Asstt. Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) by the appellants, the matter is also covered by the High Court's decision in a reference case as reported in the case of Co...

M/S. Luminous Electronics Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Uninterrupted Power Supply System (hereinafter referred to as UPSS) falling under Chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They filed declaration with effect from 1.5.95 under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules claiming classification of UPSS under Chapter Heading 85.04 attracting central excise duty at the rate of 10% ad valorem. Three show cause notices were issued demanding differential duty of Rs. 3,78,598 stated to be short paid during the period from July 1995 to June 1996 by classifying the product under sub-heading 8543. The assessee contended that UPSS is an equipment used to convert electrical energy of uninterrupted electrical energy by maintaining frequency as well as voltages. The adjudicating authority frequency as well as voltages. The adjudicating authority observed that UPSS has individual function and is not specifically included elsewhere in Chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff, relying on the judgment ...

M/S. Chand Mal Gauri Shankar Vs. Commissioner of Gift-tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)41; 90(2001)DLT786

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C. J.1. At the instance of assessed, following question has been referred for opinion of this Court under Section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (in short Act) by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench-D, New Delhi (in short 'Tribunal'):-'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that there was a taxable gift involved u/s. 2(xii) and 2(xxiv)(a) of the gift Tax Act when the deceased Karta of the family created a trust dated 30.6.64 in favor of the four beneficiaries who were members of the HUF?'The dispute relates to the assessment year 1996-67.2. Factual background in a nutshell is as follow:M/s. Chandmal Gauri Shankar (hereinafter referred to as the assessed) was a Hindu Undivided Family (in short H.U.F.). Gift-tax Officer issued noticed by him that assessed had gifted three properties to a trust for the benefit of its members during the assessment year in question. Such transfers were made on 15th July ...