Delhi Court April 2002 Judgments

Scj Plastic Limited Vs. Sales Tax Officer and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(63)DRJ604; [2004]138STC264(Delhi)

S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. Legality and validity of a circular issued by the Commissioner of Sales Tax dated 8th March 2000 is in question in this writ petition. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The petitioner has been carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of master batches. It is contended that the said item is a raw material used in the plastic industry for manufacture of plastic goods. Whenever plastic goods are manufactured which are required to be coloured, master batches which is a viable and convenient raw material is used as coloring agent.2. On or about 1st April 1998, a notification was issued by the Lt. Governor in terms whereof 3% tax was levied on taxable turnover on plastic material. The table prescribing First Point Taxable Goods was also amended by a notification of the same date in terms whereof plastic raw material became liable to tax at first point. The petitioner filed a return and the Sales Tax Officer accepted the contention of the petitioner th...

Kundan Lal and Bros. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 99(2002)DLT500

Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. This judgment and order shall dispose of Suit Nos.275OA/1996 and 42A/1997.2. The petitioner was awarded a work contract by the respondent No.1 for providing and fixing EI and fans, power wiring, supplying and fixing wire ways channel. In respect of the same, an agreement was also executed between the parties. The aforesaid contract admittedly contained an arbitration clause being Clause 25 of the Agreement. While executing the aforesaid work, certain disputes arose between the parties consequent to which the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause.3. The Chief Engineer, C.P.W.D., New Delhi, who was the appointing authority under Clause 25 of the Agreement appointed the respondent No.2 as the sole Arbitrator by his order dated 29th February, 1996 and the disputes were referred to the said sole Arbitrator for his adjudication and decision. The Arbitrator entered into the reference on 15th March, 1996. He received the evidence adduced by the parties and also hear...

Escorts Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2002]257ITR468(Delhi)

S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. The short question which arises for consideration in this reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E', under Sub-section (1) of Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had erred in not allowing interest under Section 244 on the entire amount of refund irrespective of the fact that the information required by the Income-tax Officer for giving effect to the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was furnished after the expiry of the period mentioned in the said section ?'2. The basic facts of the matter are not in dispute. The assessment year in question is 1968-69. The assessed is a company. The assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer on or about March 25, 1972, in terms whereof it was held that a sum of Rs. 3,01,634 was still payable as income-tax. The said demand, however, later on was reduced to Rs. 2,93,931 by rea...

Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs. State (Through Commissioner of Police) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 100(2002)DLT9

S. Mukerjee, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the allottee of a site in DDA's Swaran Jayanti Park, Sector 10, Rohini who had been granted permission to install 'jhoolas'/joy rides such as Carter-Piller, Joint-Wheel, Merry-Go Round, Jumping and Toy Train for a period of two months from 6.7.2001 to 4.9.2001. It is the case of the petitioner that after he deposited the money and completed the formalities, there was considerable delay in DDA giving possession allegedly at the instance of local MLA. Subsequently according to the petitioner, he got the possession and immediately thereupon made an application dated 14.8.2001 seeking grant of permission at the allotted site from the DCP (Licensing).2. According to the petitioner, when he ultimately started running his joy rides, the area SHO, at the instance of area MLA, not only booked the petitioner under Sections 28/112 of the Delhi Police Act, but also stopped his business by total transgression of' the police powers, both by arr...

Escorts Ltd. Vs. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Del)112

S.B. Sinha, C.J.The short question which arises for consideration in this reference made by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E' under sub-section (1) of section 256 of the Income Tax Act, is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had erred in not allowing interest under section 244 on the entire amount of refund irrespective of the fact that the informations required by the Income Tax Officer for giving effect to the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was furnished after the expiry of the period mentioned in the said section.'2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The assessment year in question is 1968-69. The assessed is a company. The assessment was completed by the assessing officer on or about 25-3-1972, in terms whereof it was held that a sum of Rs. 3,01,634 was still payable as income-tax. The said demand, however, later on was reduced to Rs. 2,93,931 by reasons of two certificatory orders, dated 11-5-1972, and 16-1...

V. Access India (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC755

1. In the impugned order the learned Commissioner (Appeals) confiscated the goods, imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,18,800/- which is equivalent to the duty payable on the goods. Being aggrieved by this order the appellant filed the captioned appeal.2. Arguing the case for the appellant Shri P.S. Bedi, learned Consultant submits that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Car Mats. At that time car mats were classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 5702.90 of the C.E.T.A., 1985. He submits that in the meantime this Tribunal in the case of Jyoti Carpet Industries v.C.C.E., Jaipur I reported in 2001 (132) E.L.T. 458 held that car mattings were classifiable under Heading 87.08. He submits that since car mats are now classifiable under Chapter Heading 87.08 therefore, the recalculation of the duty on the confiscated goods is necessary.Learned Consultant also submits that in case the goods are classifiable under Heading 87.08 they become eligible to concession of a small scale industrial...

J.P.N. Impex Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC291

1. The present appeal arises from an order rejecting the appellant's claim for refund of duty on the ground of unjust enrichment. While rejecting the refund claim on the ground of unjust enrichment, the lower authorities also denied him the relief that was due on account of reduction of fine and penalty by the Tribunal.2. Briefly stated, material facts of the case are that the appellant had imported a consignment of Poppy Seeds which was assessed to duty at Rs. 20/- kg., despite the invoice of transaction showing the value of Rs. 8/- kg. only. The consignment was also confiscated with option to redeem on payment of Rs. 4 lakhs as fine and Rs. 2 lakhs as penalty.The appellant took up the matter before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide its order dated 16-2-99 accepted the transaction value for the purpose of assessment of duty. It also reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 4 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs and penalty from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakh.The appellants moved the lower authorities clai...

India thermit Corp. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)LC530Tri(Delhi)

1. The common issue involved in all these five appeals, arising out of two impugned orders, passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, is about the valuation of the products manufactured by the Appellant Companies under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, and classification of certain products under the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.2.1 Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, learned Advocate, submitted that M/s. India Thermit Corporation Ltd. (In short I.T.C.L.) manufacture Thermit portions and Thermit welding of equipments; that their main product, Thermit portion is used in jointing of Rails by Indian Railways; that Thermit portion is cleared by them by two methods :(i) Outright sale to Railway - Around 20% of the(ii) Used in the rail jointing work by - 80% of the production 2.2 He, further, mentioned that the demand of Central Excise duty has been confirmed for the period from January, 1994 to 12-9-1996 and penalties have been imposed by the Adjudicating Authority on the ground that...

Rotoflex Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT1175TriDel

1. These two appeals arise out of the same impugned order, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order, 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellants are manufacturer of co-extruded multilayer films and flexible packing materials. The appellant-company was using plastic granule as input for the manufacture of their final product. Appellant was procuring duty paid plastic granule and was taking Modvat credit of duty paid on the input. The appellant removed 1,78,500 kgs. of plastic granules. They however did not reverse Modvat credit of Rs. 18,57,262/- taken as Modvat credit on the granules. The appellant reversed the entire amount on 19-2-1996 in the register RG-23A part II. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants proposing to confirm the amount of credit reversed and also proposing to impose penalty. The Additional Commissioner of C. Ex. ordered reversal of Modvat credit of Rs. 18,57,262/- and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5.0 lacs. When the appe...

Deputy Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. I.C. Khurana

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. In this appeal the Revenue has contested the deletion by the learned CWT(A) of the penalty imposed by the AO under Section 18(1)(c) of the WT Act, 1957, for the asst. yr. 1988-89.2. In the relevant assessment, the AO made addition of Rs. 26,09,086 for the value of farm house which was claimed by the assessee as exempt under Section 2(e)(iii) of the WT Act. Penalty proceeding under Section 18(1)(c) of the Act was initiated on the basis of this addition. No appeal was filed against the said addition of Rs. 26,09,086. However, the assessee intended to file revision petition before the learned CWT(A) seeking deletion of the said addition.3. In response to the show cause under Section 18(1)(c), the AO (sic-assessee) submitted that penalty under Section 18(1)(c) was not exigible in the case on the following grounds : "(a) That the exemption under Section 2(e) has been allowed in the earlier years also. (b) The assessee has not surrendered the sum of Rs. 26,09,086 as has been claimed by t...