Delhi Court June 2001 Judgments

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Eskay Electronics (India) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Del)741; [2001]248ITR536(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.At the instance of revenue , the following question has been referred by Tribunal, Delhi Bench-B, under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for opinion of this court :'Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that interest is payable under section 214 on the payment of Rs. 1.36 lakhs made on 14-1-1975 ?'2. Factual position is almost undisputable and is as follows:assessed, a private limited company, filed its return for assessment year 1975-76 for which the previous year ended on 30-4-1974. assessed claimed interest under section 214 of the Act on the ground that advance tax paid by it was in excess of tax payable. Same was disallowed by the Income Tax Officer on the ground that last Installment of advance tax of Rs. 1,36,000 was paid late by the assessed. This was due on 15-12-1973, but, in reality, was paid on 14-1-1975. assessed preferred appeal before the Appel...

M/S. Faridabad Forgings (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce Delhi-ii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 1,20,491/-.2. Learned counsel submits that duty is being demanded on the ground that credit has been taken after six months from the duty paying documents. His submission is that the credit was taken within six months of the issue of invoice. However, due to clerical error less credit was taken. When the mistake came to the notice, the correct amount of credit was taken which is as per the invoice.3. He submits that in the case of CCE M/s Parasrampurai Synthetics Ltd. the Tribunal vide Final Order No. A/826/98-NB dated 31.7.98 allowed the credit in such a situation.4. In respect of financial hardship he submits that the unit of the applicant is declared as sick in terms and provisions of Section 31 of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.5. Ld. SDR appearing on behalf of Revenue submitted that Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rathi Steels held that manufacturer cannot take credi...

M/S. Smithklime Beecham Consumer Vs. Cce, Bangalore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this application the applicants have submitted that the Tribunal has relied on Rule 57E(2) which was not enforced during the year 1995-96 and therefore, a mistake has crept in the Tribunal's order. It was submitted that during the year 1995-96 Rule 57E provided. "If duty paid on any inputs in respect of which credit has been allowed under Rule 57A, is varied subsequent due to any reason resulting in payment of refund to, or recovery of more duty from the manufacturer of importer, as the case may be of such inputs, the credit allowed shall be varied accordingly by adjustment in the credit account maintained under sub rule (3) of rule 57G or in the accounts maintained under rule 9 or sub-rule(1) of rule 183G, or if such adjustment is not possible for any reason, by cash recovery from or, as the case the manufacturer availing of the credit under rule 57A".2. Shri M.P.Devnath, Ld. Counsel appears for the appellant whereas Shri M.M.Dubey, Ld. DR represents the respondent Commissioner...

M/S. Ishta Impex Vs. C.C. (icd) Tughlakabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The prayer in this application is for condoning the delay of about 45 days in filing the present appeal. The impugned Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi was received by the appellant on 2.11.2000 whereas the appeal against the same has been filed on 27.3.2001.2. Shri R.S. Verma, ld. Advocate appearing for the applicants submits that preamble to the said order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, directed them to file the appeal, if aggrieved by the order, before CEGAT, New Delhi. As no address of CEGAT was given in the said preamble and as they were not aware of the exact address of the Tribunal, they filed the appeal in the New Customs House and simultaneously also wrote to the Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Tughlakabad to furnish the exact address of the Tribunal. In this connection, he draws out attention to a letter dated 18.2.2001 written by the Addl. Commissioner (Imports), ICD, Tughlakabad to furnish the address of the Tribu...

M/S. Birla Jute and Industries Vs. C.C.E. Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri Sajan Narain, ld. Advocate for the appellants and Shri Rajeev Tandon, ld. SDR for the Revenue, we find that the issued involved in the present two appeals is as regards the availability of modvat credit in respect of various items claimed by the appellants as 'Capital goods'. Both sides agree that the issue now requires to be looked into in the light of Larger Bench decision in the case of C.C.E. Indore vs. Surya Roshni Ltd. reported in 2001 (42) RLT 817 (CEGAT-L.B). It has also been contended by the ld. SDR that few of items are in respect of 'explosives' used in the mines etc., in which case the ratio of the decision in the case of M/s. Jaypee Rewa Cement vs. CCE, Raipur reported in 2000 (38) RLT IIII (CEGAT-L.B) has to be applied. We also take note of the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s. SIV Industries vs. CCE Coimbatore reported in 2001 (43) RLT 523 (Mad.). Inasmuch as the number of items are inv...

M/S. Sylvania and Laxman Limited Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In these group of appeals filed by M/s. Sylvania & Laxman Pvt. Ltd. the matter relates to the duty liability on the product referred to as stems used in the manufacture of electric bulbs. The Collector of Central Excise, Delhi has taken a view that these stems were marketable and were traded as such in the market and the manufacturers of bulb who had no facility to manufacture the stems were procuring them from the open market. He has confirmed the duty of Rs.67,01,248/-. The assessee has taken up the matter with the Delhi High Court and the High Court had disposed of the matter with the observation that there was no ground of alleging suppression inasmuch as the stems which were used by the petitioner in manufacturing the electric bulb not exceeding 60 watts were not subject to levy of excise duty in terms of Notification No.67/83-CE dated 1.3.83. Thus the High Court had taken the stems as excisable but exempt in view of the Exemption Notification.2. When the matter came up be...

M/S. Adarsh Industries Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an application, filed by M/s. Adarsh Industries, for waiver of predeposit of central excise duty amounting to Rs.2,00,321.12 confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals)under the impugned Order.2. Shri Rajiv Gupta, Company's Representative, submitted that the duty has been confirmed against the company on the ground that benefit of Notification No.202/88-CE dated 20.5.88 was not admissible as the steel pipes and tubes were manufactured by them out of bars. that the pipes and tubes were manufactured by them out of flats not exceeding 5 m.m.in thickness;that the inputs received by them were flats only which were descried by the Supplier wrongly as bars. He, further, submitted that unit is lying closed since 4 years after the demise of the Managing Partner and the other partner is seriously sick; that they have no money to even engage the counsel to represent their matter.3. Shri Prabhat Kumar, learned SDR, opposed the prayer by submitting that as the invoices clearly show the desc...

Cce, New Delhi Vs. M/S. S.R. Foils Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC183

1. Revenue has filed this appeal against the order of the Ld.Commissioner, who held as under: "I order confiscation of seized 74 cartons intercepted in transit containing Aluminium Home Foils valued at Rs.87,433.44 under Rule 9(2), 173Q and 226 of the Central excise Rules, 1944. The party is however given an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs.22,000/-. As the goods are dutiable these are ordered to be removed on payment of appropriate duty of excise. The option of redemption should be exercised within 90 days of receipt of this order. ii) I order confiscation of goods seized from office premises valued at Rs.90,267.24 under Rule 9(2), 173Q and 226 of the Central Excise Rules,44. However, I give an option to the party to redeem the same on payment of redumption fine of Rs.23,000/-. As the goods are dutiable these are ordered to be removed on payment of appropriate duty of excise. The option of redemption should be exercised within 90 days of receipt of this o...

M/S. Laxmi Steel Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Vide Stay Order No.S/419/99/NB(DB) dt. 23.9.99, the applicant/appellant was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs under the provisions of Section 35F on or before 23.12.1999.Thereafter, the appellant moved the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the matter was kept on record in terms of the interim orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.2. Shri K.K. Anand, ld. Advocate for the appellants submits that the Writ Petition filed before the Hon'ble High Court was finally disposed of on 9th November, 2000. The period for deposit was extended by the High Court upto end of January, 2001. However, he submits that the said amount has not been deposited by the appellant.3. In view of the fore-going, inasmuch as the appellants have not complied with the High Court's Order, their appeal is dismissed for non-compliance....

M/S. Dhanraj Enterprises Vs. Cce, Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. For hearing their appeal M/s. Dhanraj Enterprises were required to pre-aeposit a duty amount of Rs.54,301/- and penalty amount of Rs.5000/-. We find that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal filed by M/s. Dhanraj Enterprises for non-compliance with the requirement of pre-deposit of duty and penalty amounts. He has earlier passed interim stay order in which the deposit of penalty was waived and full duty was asked to be deposited.2. Shri A. Upadhyay, Advocate submits that the interim stay order was passed without hearing the appelalnts and the appellante authority has not complied with the principles of natural justice. He submits that the matter be remanded to the jurisdictional appellate authority for decision on merits.3. Shri M.P. Singh, SDR submits that the appellants have not complied with the provisions of Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and there was no option before the appellate authority but to dismiss their appeal for non-com...