Delhi Court November 2002 Judgments

Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC355

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned Order-in-Original dated 22.11.2001 of the Commissioner of Customs vide which penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs has been imposed on him under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act.2. On the interception of the truck on 16.2.1999 by the DRI Officers, 101 pcs. of ball bearings were recovered and out of those, 31 pcs. bore Japanees mark while the others carried some other number without any indication of the country of origin. On completion of investigation, show cause notice was issued to the driver of the truck, namely, Shri Harnam Singh; owner of the truck, Shri Satish Kumar; and also to Shri Vinod Kumar of M/s. Yadav Trading Co., who issued cash/credit memo to the appellants for rice bran. Show cause notice was also issued to Shri Ramesh Prasad of M/s. New Janta Road Lines, the transport company who issued the bitty to the appellants for the transportation of rice bran.The Commissioner of Customs, on adjudication, imposed penalty of...

Kec International Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT459TriDel

1. The order impugned in this appeal confirmed a duty demand of over Rs. 54 lakhs in respect of "Cantilever Assembly" purportedly manufactured by the appellants, M/s. KEC International Ltd. It also has imposed an equal amount of penalty on the appellants. In addition is the demand for interest in respect of the duty amount.2. Allegedly cantilever assembly comes to be manufactured by the appellants during the execution of contract for Railway Electrification of Ambala Cantonment - Ludhiana Section of rail track. The contention of the appellants is that the Electrification project was a work contract and the alleged fabrication of 'Cantilever assembly' was part of the project. With regard to the cantilever assembly, it is pointed out that the cantilever assemblies are assembled and fixed on electric poles which are cemented to the ground. It has been explained that a cantilever assembly consisted mainly of three tubes fixed on to a post.The tubes are connected at the required angles on ...

Narula Mechanical Works Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC440

1. The appeal, involving an amount of duty of Rs. 38,410 and an amount of penalty of Rs. 3,000, arises for admission. There is also an application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of these amounts. On a careful examination of the records, I find that the appeal itself can be finally disposed of at this stage.Accordingly, I admit the appeal, allow the application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery thereof, and proceed to deal with the appeal.2. The appellants had taken deemed Modvat credit during December 1997 and November 1998 on inputs supplied by M/s. Dhiman Industries Ltd., manufacturers of iron and steel products working under the Compounded Levy Scheme under Rule 96-ZP of the Rules, read with Section 3-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Both the lower authorities denied the credit on the ground that certificate from the Central Excise Range Officer having jurisdiction over the input manufacturer had not been produced in proof of discharge of d...

Shri Azam Shah Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC352

1. In this appeal, the challenge is against the imposition, by the Commissioner of Customs, of a penalty of Rs. 75,000 on the appellant under Section H2(b) of the Customs Act.2. The appellant was one of the three occupants of the truck which was intercepted by Customs officers in the night of 4/5 March, 2001 on the Gorakhpur-Sonauli road. The other two occupants of the truck were the driver Shiv Achal Patel and the owner Virendra Pratap. The truck was coming from Sonauli, a place within the territory of India, near the Indo-Nepal border. On a thorough check of the vehicle, the officers discovered foreign origin computer parts bearing the marking 'Made in Phillipines' in secret cavities behind the driver's seat. On interrogation, the driver stated that the cavities had been constructed for smuggling of goods from Nepal; and that the computer parts found in the cavities were brought from Nepal. The officers, believing that the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111 (d) of t...

Telephone Cables Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)LC308Tri(Delhi)

1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting its claim for refund of an amount of Rs. 2,08,695/-, the assessee has come up in appeal.2. It is not disputed before us that the appellant has paid excise duty on a higher amount than what was really received by them as price of the cable from DOT. But the learned Departmental Representative submitted that when the price is reduced after the clearance of the goods the assessee is not entitled to pay duty on the reduced price.Therefore, its claim for refund was correctly denied.3. A copy of the agreement between the appellant and the DOT is made available to us. Clause 5.6 of the agreement relating to price variation reads as follows : (i) Price variation on account of copper shall be as per standard price variation table in terms of initial tender. (ii) Copper price circular which is issued monthly by DOT shall be used for price variation calculations. (iii) In case of extension of delivery date on suppliers' req...

Kishan Metal Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT329TriDel

1. The assessee challenges the order passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-II confirming the duty demand of Rs. 30,26,286/- and imposing penalty of a similar amount.2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of various articles of steel and aluminium such as, upper hinge, lower reinforcement, clamp accumulator, pin valve guide, aluminium washer, evaporator back plate, reinforcement for water collecting pan etc. These goods were supplied to M/s. Kelvinator India Ltd. (at present Whirlpool India Ltd.) who thereafter used the same in the manufacture of refrigerators in the factory. In the classification list submitted by the appellant articles of iron and steel were classified under sub-heading 7326.19 and articles of aluminium under sub-heading 7616.10. While filing the classification declaration the appellant had declared the description of the above items. They also filed RT 12 Returns with the Department and in all these Returns, the description of the products was give...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Jay Cee Coach Builders Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC312

1. In these four Appeals, preferred by Revenue against two Orders-in-Appeal, the issue involved is whether Central Excise Duty is payable by the Respondents on the seats manufactured and used captively in fabricating bodies on the chassis received from M/s Swaraj Mazda Ltd. under Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2.1. Shri Jagdish Singh, learned DR, submitted that the Respondents M/s Jay Cee Coach Builders Ltd. are engaged in building of body on chassis received under the provisions of Rule 57F(3)/57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules from M/s Swaraj Mazda Ltd.; that the Respondents also manufacture seats classifiable under Heading 94.01 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that these seats are captively consumed in the body building by the Respondents availing the exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 67/95-CE, dated 16.3.95; that the Adjudicating Authority under the Adjudication Orders, demanded central excise duty on the seats and imposed penalty,...

Shri Dev Kumar JaIn Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 1/3/2002 of CIT(A)-XXII, New Delhi pertaining to 1998-99 assessment year. "1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred both on facts and in law in confirming the income of the appellant at Rs. 21.20.632- assessed by the Learned Assessing Officer, without appreciating the detailed submissions in writing filed by the appellant. during appellate proceedings. 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred both on facts and in law, in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer of referring the Plot at Tarun Enclave, Pitam Pura, New Delhi for Valuation. without giving adequate opportunity to the appellant. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer who adopted the Sale Value of the Plot at Tarun Encalve, Pitam Pura, New Delhi at Rs. 22, 33, 662/- against Rs. 4, 02, 000/- received by the appellant a...

Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)81TTJ(Delhi)478

Deduction allowed by the assessing order under section 80-I without reducing the amount of deduction under section 80HH is not erroneous, therefore, Commissioner was not justified in invoking section 263.Deduction allowed by the assessing order under section 80-I without reducing the amount of deduction under section 80HH is not erroneous, therefore, Commissioner was not justified in invoking section 263.Samir Diamond Manufacturing (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 60 TTJ (Ahd-Trib) 34 and Ramnath Exports (P) Ltd. v. IAC (1991) 42 TTJ (Del-Trib) 411 followed.Revision under s. 263--VALIDITYAllowability of deduction for bad debts--Amendment of section 36(vii) retrospectively during pendency of proceedings The assessee written off bad debts by debiting profit and loss account without giving corresponding credit to debtor's account. By the Finance Act, 2001 the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) amended, retrospectively with effect from 1-4-1989, during pendency of proceedings. The Commissioner invoke...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Tek Ram and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 104(2003)DLT587

ORDERRFA 452/1988 & CM. (Cross Objections) 1317/1989 :1. The appeal filed by Union of India seeking reduction in the amount of compensation is liable to be dismissed in view of the decision of this Court in RFA 203/1983, Jagdev Singh v. Union of India decided on 7.8.1989. Claimant's cross objections seeking enhancement are liable to be allowed in view of the decision in Jagdev Singh's case (supra).2. Claimant's land situated in Madanpur Khadar was acquired by notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 15.6.1979. The Reference Court by the impugned award assessed fair market value at Rs. 26,250/- per bigha. This Court in Jagdev Singh's case (supra) for similar lands acquired under the same notification determined fair market value at Rs. 27,000/- per bigha. There is no reason for us to deviate from the said determination in this appeal in the absence of any other material brought to our notice. Consequently appeal of Union of India is dismissed. Cross objections ...