Delhi Court June 2001 Judgments

M/S. Somani Iron and Steels Ltd. Vs. Cce, Kanpur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The stay application filed by M/s. Somani Iron and Steel Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s. Somani), has been posted for re-hearing in pursuance of the directions dated 11.10.2000 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The Hon'ble High Court has observed as under:- "Without, therefore, expressing any opinion about the acceptability of stand taken by the petitioner company about the consequence flowing from the registration of the case under Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA) and the directions relating to restrain on disposal of properties, we direct the Tribunal to consider the application of the petitioner afresh." Earlier under Stay Order dated 3.6.98, M/s. Somani were directed to pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- towards duty and Rs. 50,00,000/- towards penalty for hearing their appeal. These amounts were required to be deposited before 5.8.98. The terms of the stay order dated 3.6.98 were not complied with even during the extended period of time...

Dy. Cit Vs. Allen Bradley India Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)80ITD43(Delhi)

1. These are two appeals by assesses and Department against the order of CIT(A) dt. 10th Nov., 1995 relating to asst. yr. 1989-90.2. We will first take up the appeal of the Department in ITA No.445/Del/1996. The following grounds of appeal have been taken by the Department: "On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A)-I, New Delhi erred in : (i) allowing a relief of Us. 1,64,70,000 made on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the IT Act, 1961, despite the fact that after availing sufficient opportunity the assessee-company did not place necessary material evidence in support of its claim. (ii) In allowing a relief of Rs. 45 lakhs made on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the IT Act, 1961 despite the fact that after availing sufficient opportunity the assessee-company did not place necessary material evidence in support of its claim. (iii) allowing an amount of Rs. 29,00,148 disallowed by the AO on account of interest-tax on int...

Allen Bradley India Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]80ITD43(Delhi)

ORDERThese are two appeals by assessed and department against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 10-11-1995 relating to assessment year 1989-90.2. We will first take up the appeal of the department in ITA No. 445(Delhi)/96. The following grounds of appeal have been taken by the department:-'On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-I, New Delhi erred in :(i) allowing a relief of Rs. 1,64,70,000 made on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 despite the fact that after availing sufficient opportunity the assessed-company did not place necessary material evidence in support of its claim.(ii) in allowing a relief of Rs. 45 lakhs made on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 despite the fact that after availing sufficient opportunity the assessed-company did not place necessary material evidence in support of its claimed.(iii) allowing an amount of Rs. 29,00,148 disallowed by the asse...

P.S. Maniar, Mehta (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Director, Enforcement Direc ...

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. The appellants have sent a letter dated 31-5-2001 intimating that with their personal efforts, they have now received the payment against the outstanding amount of $ 6244 for the non-realisation of which penalty was imposed which is under challenge in these appeals. A copy of the relevant bank advice for the remittances from Uganda to the appellants account with Bank of Baroda Backbay Reclamation, Mumbai, is attached to the said letter. 2. In the appeal petition the appellants have stated that during the financial year ended 31-3-1998, they have exported goods aggregating to $ 1,97,521 to Uganda. On the basis of the XOS statement received through Bank of Baroda, New Delhi Stock Exchange, Mumbai, the appellant was found to have total export outstanding of Rs. 12,16,394. In reply to the show-cause notice, the appellants stated that they have been able to realise $ 7,950 against one of the outstanding GRs. The appellants have further stated that they are making efforts to realise the o...

M/S Primo Pick-n-pack Limited Vs. Cce, Bhopal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC781

1. For reasons recorded below, we allow stay application and proceed to take up the appeal itself for hearing as the issue in dispute. Stands settled by the decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Gomti Carbon-Di-Oxide and others Vs.CCE, Jaipur [2000 (38) RLT 1039].2. The issue in this appeal related to whether or not the element of interest purported to have been included in the assessable value should be deducted from the assessable value. The authorities below have held that since the interest whose deduction has been claimed, is not on account of payment received beyond stipulated period, but during the normal period of credit, it required to be included. However, the Larger Bench in the case cited (supra) has held that the interest for specified period is to be allowed deduction in case of credit sale price in order to arrive at the price at the time of removal even where interest for delayed payment is not charged separately and is unbuilt in the credit sale...

M/S. D.C.M. Engg. Products Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, Advocate submits that the full amount of Rs. 24,08,400/- had already been adjusted by the Department against the appellants' refund claim. He produces a copy of the communication dated 11.06.2001 from the Dy. Commissioner, Central Excise, Division Jalandhar....

M/S. Supreme Exports Vs. Cc, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Ms. Reena khair, learned Advocate appearing for the applicant/appellant submits that out of the total demand of duty of Rs. 13,93,667/- confirmed by the Commissioner of Customs ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi, an amount of Rs. 3,45,000/- has already been deposited by encashing the Bank Guarantee by the Revenue . Apart from that penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been imposed upon them.2. Arguing on the merits she submits that they were issued a show cause notice dated 22.10.99 alleging that as against the imports made under advance license, they have not fulfilled their export obligations. The said show cause notice was replied to bey the appellant vide their letter dated 8.12.99 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs as also by their subsequent letter dated 30.8.2000. She submits that the notice called upon the appellant to show cause to the Dy.Commissioner/Addl. Commission/Commissioner of Customs. The same was ultimately adjudicated by the Commissioner of Customs vide his impugne...

M/S. General Engineering Works Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. There is no proof of pre-deposit of Rs.1 Lakh towards duty as directed under Stay Order No.46/2001-A dated 28.3.2001. Hence the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with the statutory requirement of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944....

M/S. Brill International Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants fairly submits that he is not pressing for classification of the goods nor the demand of duty on the basis of classification as held by the lower authorities. He submits that he is only pressing for the waiver of the penalty for hearing of the appeal.2. Learned Counsel submits that in this case duty on roasted nuts were introduced w.e.f., 1.4.97. Before this date there was no duty on Dry roasted nuts. Now these dry roasted nuts are exempted under Notification No. 16/97 - CE dated 3.11.97. He submits that the applicants had already deposited the duty amounting to Rs. 4,66,000/-.He relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jawahar Metal Industries & Anr. Vs. C.C.E., Meerut & Anr., reported in 2000 (39) RLT 387 (CEGAT) and submits that in the classification, dispute involving interpretation of tariff no penalty under Rule 570 of Central Excise is leviable.3. Learned JDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits...

M/S. Petro Carbon India and Others Vs. Cce, Allahabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The paryer in the Stay Petition is for dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty demand of Rs.21,28,868 and penalty amount of Rs.20 Lakhs on the main appellant M/s. Petro Carbon India & Others.Apart from that, penalty of Rs.5 lakhs each has been imposed on the other appellant Shri Amitav Chaudhary, Director under the Provisions of Rs.209 A of the Central Excise Rules. Shri B.L. Narasimahan, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the above demand of duty has been confirmed against the appellant on the findings of clandestine removal of their final product, which in turn are based on comparision of figures of issuance of bags from their Bag Accounts Register with the figures of manufacture of final product as reflected in their RG I Register. He submitted that they filed a detailed reply to the Commissioner, explaining the higher figure of issuance of bags.It was clarified that bags were being used by them not only for packing of their final products...