Delhi Court March 2001 Judgments

B.N. Chakravarty Vs. Controller of Estate Duty

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Del)463; [2001]250ITR691(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. At the instance of the legal heirs of Shri B. N. Chakravarty who are (hereinafter referred to as 'the accountable person'), and deceased, respectively, the following question has been referred under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (in short, 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', New Delhi (in short, 'the Tribunal'), for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding the disallowance of deduction of Rs. 1 lakh claimed by the accountable person from the value of the estate of the deceased under Section 33(1)(n) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, in respect of the portion of the house property 19-G, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi ?'2. The dispute relates to non-allowance of the deduction of Rs. 1 lakh under Section 33(1)(n) of the Act. The first accountable person, Smt. Indira Chakravarty, died on March 15, 1978, after the death of the deceased Shri B....

Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Cegat, New Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(143)ELT497(Del)

ORDER1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal' in short) disposing of the application filed for waiver of pre-deposit of penalties and stay of recovery thereof during the pendency of Appeal No. C/374/2000/NB and other connected appeals. It directed deposit of Rs. 30 lakhs against the disputed demands of Rs. 90.75 lakhs. The demands have arisen on account of the orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs (in short 'the Commissioner') under the Customs Act, 1962 (in short 'the Act'), the demands raised are as follows: Show Cause Notice No.Penalty202/9/89-Pt. II, dt. 21-9-1990 (M/s. Manoj Metals)Rs. 1,50,000/- on M/s. Manoj Metals and Rs. 15,00,000/- on Shri Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal202/9/89-Pt. VIII, dt. 21-9-1990 (M/s. Jasoria Industries)Rs. 1,50,000/- on M/s. Jasoria Industries and Rs. 15,00,000/- on Shri Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal.202/9/89-Pt. III, dt. 21-9-1990 (M/s. Aarkay Industries)Rs. 45,000/- on M/s. A...

M/S. S.P.L. Industries Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Faridabad

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. 47,00,437/- and penalty of Rs. 2 lakh.2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicants, submits that out of duty demand, a sum of Rs. 45,17,034.00 has already been deposited by the applicants on 19.5.99. He, therefore, prays that the pre-deposit of the remaining amount of duty and penalty be waived for hearing of the appeal.4. As the applicants have already deposited an amount of Rs. 45,17,934.00 out of the total demand of duty of Rs. 47,00,437.00, the deposit of remaining amount of duty and penalty is waived for hearing of the appeal. Registry is directed to list the appal for arguments on 23.05.2001. (Pronounced in Court)....

Shri Vikash Josh, M/S. Navyug Weld Vs. Cce, Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Since these 3 appeals arise out of the same order, therefore they were heard together and are being disposed of for the purpose of pre-deposit by this common order.2. Arguing the case for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty, Shri A.Upadhayay, ld. Advocate submits that the applicants are the manufacturers of wires drawn from wire rods and thicker wires. He submits that in the mean time the applicants were also undertaking trading activities for these items. He submits that since the trading activity was not a part of manufacturing process, therefore they were not maintaining any statutory records in regard to the items for trading activity. He submits that the applicants have incurred huge losses which are evident from the balance sheet. He submits that the applicants are not in a position to pay even the loans taken from the financial institution and that this factory has been taken over by the Madhya Pradesh Financial Corporation . He submits that any order directing pre-dep...

M/S. SkytraIn Services Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicants filed this application for waiver of penalty of Rs. 1 lakh under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that applicants are Custom House Agent. The applicants filed Shipping Bills on behalf of M/s. Bless Overseas for export of Accupressure Shoe Liners. The applicants filed the Shipping Bills and declared the goods in the Shipping Bill as per information supplied by the expoerter. Learned Counsel submits that there is no evidence on record to show that applicants ever connived with the exporter to declare higher value of the goods with intent to avail excess DEPB benefits. he submits that the Collector of Customs in the impugned order, without any evidence, held that appellants the customers in an attempt to export over-invoiced goods availing excess DEPB credit. He, therefore, prays that the application be allowed. Learned Departmental Representative appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that M/s. ...

F.C.i. Vs. Cce, Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant in these appeals is a public sector undertaking. The matter has stood adjourned from time to time (SIC) of clearance from the Committee on Disputes as required in terms of the directions of the apex Court in the judgement in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission. Today, there is neither any evidence of COD clearance on record nor any representation for the appellants. The apex Court had issued the directions in 1992 [vide 1992 (61) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)]. The Court clarified them in 1994 [vide 1994 (70) E.L.T. 45 (S.C.)].Accordingly, a PSU should apply for COD clearance within one month from the date of filing appeal with CEGAT. There is nothing on record to show whether the appellant applied for COD clearance within the said period. The appellant or Counsel is not present also. I note that the period so stipulated has already run out....

M/S. Anilma Associates Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The present application is for staying the penalty of Rs.25,000/-. I have heard the learned Counsel representing the appellants and the learned DR. The dispute in the present case is that the appellant did not enter the manufacture of Railway cabins in the RG-I Register immediately after manufacture. The cabins were manufactured for Indian Railways and they had been entered in the Register of the appellant, once they were inspected by the Railways. In these circumstances, primafacie, nonentry immediately after manufacture, could not be on account of any intention to evade payment of Central Excise Duty. In any event, goods were still with the appellants and occasion for payment of duty erose only upon removal of the goods. In these circumstances, this is a fit case for grant of Stay of recovery of penalty. The Stay application is accordingly allowed. The Revenue shall not take any action to recover the penalty during the pendency of the appeal....

M/S. G.T.C. Industries Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this application, the appellants have prayed for modification of the stay order passed by ld. Single Member on 8.6.2000. I have examined the application and have heard ld. Advocate, Sh. L.P. Asthana for the applicants. I have also heard ld. JDR, Sh. Swatantra Kumar for the Revenue.2. As per the above stay order, this Tribunal had directed the applicants to deposit the entire duty amount of Rs.3,22,674.66 for purposes of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. In respect of the penalty amounts, however, waiver was granted. I have perused the stay order. I find that, for purposes of stay, the Bench did not find any prima facie case. However, on the plea of financial hearships, the Bench noted that the appellants were a sick unit so declared by the BIFR. The Bench also took into account the interests of the Revenue.Apparently, by way of balancing the two factors, the Bench had directed deposit as above.3. Today, ld. Advocate Sh. L.P. Asthana submits that the applicants were under ph...

M/S. Jabalpur Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Bhopal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of hot re-rolled products and they are working under the Compound Levy Scheme. This appeal is directed against demand of short levy of duty of about Rs.1.6 Lakhs and an equal amount of penalty.2. During the arguments of the case, (SIC) Consultant appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant was using 158 MM gear box during the period in question. The provisional determination of Compound Levy on 9.1.98 and final Determination on 2.11.98 were both done by the Commissioner treating 1 58 MM 'd'gear box. He, therefore, submitted that there was no basis for the Assistant Commissioner to reach a finding that the appellant had actually manufactured goods making use of 195 MM 'd' gear box. He also submitted that it was the submission of the appellant, all along that, the 195 MM 'd' gear box had not been used for production. It was to be taken back by the supplier. He also submitted that even the adjudication order does not contain (sic) any findi...

Commisioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. M/S.R.K. International and Others

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT0TriDel

1. Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai passed Order-in-Original No. CAO/536/99/CAC//CC/KDM dated 29.10.99. Aggrieved by that order, Revenue filed appeal Nos.C/566 to 587/2000 before the West Zonal Bench of CEGAT. while so, one of the parties to the Order-in-Original questioned the correctness of that order by filing an appeal before the Delhi Bench of CEGAT. Number of that appeal is C/48/2000-NB. Subsequently, the Revenue moved application before the President for transferring appeals C/566 to 587/2000 to Delhi Bench for final hearing along with the above mentioned appeal filed by Shri Solly Perumal. On that application, appeals pending before the West Zonal Bench were transferred to the Bench at Delhi. These appeals have been numbered as C/471-492/2000-NB.2. Some of the respondents in the appeals filed by the Revenue moved Bombay High Court by filing Writ Petitions Nos.102/2001, 121/200 and 137/2001. Those writ petitions were disposed of by the High Court on 24.1.2001. As ...