Delhi Court May 2001 Judgments

Dinesh Kumar Vs. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]119TAXMAN738(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J. Pursuant to direction given by this court under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the following question has been referred by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench A, for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in tile circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that levy of penalty for concealment was correct ?'2. In short the factual position as emerges from the statement of case is as follows :The assessed had returned his total income of Rs. 9,000 for the assessment year in question, i.e., 1973-74 and the assessment was completed at Rs. 20,100. A sum of Rs. 10,000 which was shown as cash credit from his wife Smt. Prabha Kumari, was not accepted as a genuine loan and was treated as the assessed's income from undisclosed sources. The addition was challenged before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and before the Tribunal, but without any success. Penalty proceedings under section 271(...

Anodiyil Mammu Vs. Government of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(151)ELT37(Del)

S.K. Mahajan, J.1. Petitioner was apprehended at the InternationalAirport Trivandrum with foreign currency on 24-12-2000. Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 124 of the Customs Act calling upon him to show cause as to why the foreign currency equivalent to Rs. 73,85,423.20 under seizure should not be confiscated to the Government under Sections 113(d), 113(e) and 113(h) of the Customs Act, 1962 and why some of his properties mentioned in Para 24 should not be confiscated to the Government under Section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962 and why a penalty should not be imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. Petitioner filed an application before the Special Director in the Directorate of Enforcement for compounding the contravention of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act. This application of the petitioner was rejected by the Special Director in the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. It was held by him that relevant provisions of Secti...

C.C.E., Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Vardhman Spg. and General Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Revenue has filed two appeals out of single order in appeal No.1709 dated 30.9.99. The period in dispute is October 94, December 94 and amount in dispute is Rs. 98,238/-. Since there is only one order in appeal and only one order in review relating to the above period, Ld.Counsel for the respondent is correct in his submission that one appeal alone is necessary. Therefore, appeal No. E/133 of 2000 is not required and dismissed as duplication. I shall proceed to dispose of appeal No.E 86/2000-NB.2. Commissioner has extended modvat credit on items such as electric panel, weighing scales etc. on the ground that they are capital goods, eligible for modvat credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules.Function and use of items as set out by the lower appellate authority and not contested by the Revenue in its appeal (SIC)memorandum is shown below:-1. Electric Panel It is used in the production department in order to provide2. Weighing Scales It help processing department and par...

Shri Satpal Manchanda and Others Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Reference applications arising out of Tribunal's Final Order No.A/352-360/99-NB dated 16.4.99 were listed for hearing before NB on 26.11.99. The applications were dismissed vide order No. N/267/99-NB and Reference Order No. R/44-49-NB dated 26.11.99 by which the reference applications were dismissed.2. Ld. Counsel Shri Harbans Singh, submits that although, the same Members who heard the applicants and passed Final Orders, were sitting together on 26.11.99, they were sitting in 'C' Bench while the reference applications were listed for hearing before North Regional Bench, and Order No. 143/99 dated 25.11.99 intimated that on 26.11.99, at 2.30 PM Member(Judicial) Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram will hear reference and ROM matters along with Shri V.K.Agarwal, Member (Technical) and Shri G.R. Sharma Member (Technical) and Shri A.C.C. Unit, Member (Judicial) will hear reference and ROM matters. Ld. Counsel submits that the applicants were mislead by the order above mentioned and did not appear f...

M/S. Sania Prints Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT82TriDel

1. This appeal arises out of the impugned order of the Commissioner dated 6.9.2000. The appeal has been filed for challenging the validity of that order on the ground that the length of galleries could not be taken into account while determining the production capacity of the Hot Air Stenter.2. The issue as to whether the galleries can be taken into account while determining the production capacity of stenter or not has been settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Sangam Processors Bhilwara Ltd. Vs. CCE Jaipur, 2001 (42) RLT 429 (CEGAT-LB). In that case it has been ruled that galleries cannot be taken into account while computing production capacity of stenter as it is not an equipment aiding the process of heat setting or (SIC)urging of fabrics as (SIC)templated by Explanation 1 to rule 3 of the Rules.3. The order of the Commissioner apparently runs contrary to the abovesaid of the Larger Bench as he has taken into account 4 galleries i.e. two in the middle and two either side...

M/S. Vijay Laxmi Transport Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT1293TriDel

1. M/s.Vijay Laxmi Transport Company are required to pre-deposit the penalty amount of Rs.2 lakhs (Rupees two lakhs only) for hearing the appeal. Ms. Sonam Nagrath, Advocate submits that the appellants are a Transport Company where the goods are deposited and taken delivery of by the representatives of concerned persons, they are not concerned with the ownership of the goods which had been absolutely confiscated and are in financial difficulties. She, however, offers to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand) for hearing the appeal.3. After hearing both the sides and in the facts and circumstances of the case we direct the appellants to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand) within a period of eight weeks from today. On depositing the above sum within the period stipulated,the pre-deposit of the balance amount will be waived and recovery stayed till the disposal of the appeal.4. To come up for noting the compliance and further orders on 18.7.2001....

M/S. Bhel Vs. Cce, Bhopal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The above appeals have been pending since May 2000 for went of C.O.D. clearance. Hence they are dismissed with the liberty to the appellants to apply for restoration if C.O.D. clearance is granted to them....

M/S. Singla Steels Ltd., Vs. C.C.E., Chandigarh-1

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the matter is called the appellants are not represented. The notice for hearing for this date was sent to them by the Registry of the CEGAT on 7.3.2001. There is no communication from the appellants either requesting for an adjournment or giving the reasons for their absence. It, therefore, appears that the appellants are not interested in pursuing their appeal....

M/S. Dura Cell India (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce Delhi Iii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT444TriDel

1. This is an application filed by M/s Dura Cell (India) Pvt. Ltd. for rectification of mistake said to have crept in the Tribunal Final Order No. A/48/2001 NB(DB) dt. 15-12-2000.2. Shri Ashok Dhingra, ld. Consultant, submitted that they had filed an appeal against Order-in-Appeal dt. 14-3-2000 in which Commissioner (Appeals) has disallowed Modvat Credit of Rs. 15,81,977/- and confirmed the penalty of Rs. 1.5 lakhs imposed on the applicants; that the Tribunal under the final Order No.A/48/2001 dt. 15-12-2000 allowed them to avail modvat credit of Rs. 6,80,018/- and dis allowed the remaining modvat credit; that however, the Tribunal in the Final Order has not recorded any findings on their specific submissions pertaining to imposition of penalty of Rs. 1.5 lakhs though the detailed submissions were made in this regard in the Memorandum of Appeal filed by them; that accordingly there exists a mistake apparent from the record which needs to be rectified.3. Opposing the prayer, Shri M.M. ...

M/S. Vikash Forging Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Delhi-ii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the matter is called the appellants are not represented. The notice for hearing for this date was sent to them by the Registry of the CEGAT on 7.3.2001. There is no communication from the appellants either requesting for an adjournment or giving the reasons for their absence. It, therefore, appears that the appellants are not interested in pursuing their appeal....