Delhi Court April 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Cit Vs. Pragati Construction Company
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Del)118
Judgment S. B. Sinha, C. J.The question referred to for opinion of this court by the Tribunal in terms of section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act is as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and upholding that the provisions of Rs. 97,040 for registration charges of plots by the assessed in its accounts were chargeable as accrued liability against the profit of the year under consideration ?'2. The fact of the matter is as follows :The assessed is a registered firm. It carries on business of construction and sale of plots in multi-storeyed commercial buildings. Allegedly, during the accounting period or relevant assessment year, it had completed certain works. In its return, it claimed a deduction of Rs. 97,040 on account of provision of registration fee. The said scheme was disallowed by the assessing officer stating :'No registration has yet been done and only provision o...
Cce Vs. Venus Alloys (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC647
1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of notice.4. Brief facts of the case are that respondents filed Classification list No. 16/94-95 and the proper officer, while approving the Classification list, included the item sludge/slag in the Classification list and approved Classification list. The respondent filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was granted before including sludge/slag in the Classification list. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that insertion of the item sludge/slag in the Classification list in the manner in which it has been done is neither sustainable nor legal.5. The contention of the Revenue is that the sludge/slag is excisable goods which is classifiable under heading 2619.00 under Central Excise Tariff.6. As the adjudicating authority includes the sludg...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Unique Malt (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)(83)ECC561
1. The brief facts of this case are as under :- The respondents, manufacturers of Barley Malt etc. had not filed the pre-budget declaration required under Rule 223B(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, on 28-2-2000. However, theirjstock of final products on that day tallied with the recorded balance in RG-1. The department, by show-cause notice, proposed to confiscate the stock and impose penalty on the manufacturer under Rule 223B(2). No reply was given to the notice, nor did the manufacturer appear before the adjudicating authority in spite of notice of hearing. The adjudicating authority, therefore, confiscated the goods, totally valued at Rs. 1,73,440/-, with an option for redemption thereof on payment of a fine of Rs. 30,000/-. That authority also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000/-on the manufacturer under Rule 223B. In the appeal preferred by the manufacturer against the order of the Asstt. Commissioner, the party did not contest the penalty but challenged the confiscation and re...
Zinc-o-India Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)(143)ELT377TriDel
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that w.e.f. 25-3-96, the Export-Import Policy was amended and after this date, zinc dross came under restricted category. On the representation made by the importer, The DGFT issued a clarification to the effect that where the importer entered with the overseas suppliers, the firm agreement prior to 25-3-96 and the goods were shipped within 45 days from 25-3-96, the new Export-Import Policy will not be applicable in respect of import of non-ferrous scrap. The appellants made an import of zinc dross and filed a bill of entry on 11-6-96. The business premises of the appellants were searched and certain documents were taken into possession, which showed that the agreement was entered into for purchase of the zinc dross on 26-3-96 and, thereafter, it was shown to be entered on 25-3-96. It was also found that the appellants made certain over-writing in ...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Kothari Products
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC560Tri(Delhi)
1. Revenue has filed this appeal assailing the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Learned Commissioner (Appeals) had held, "6(d) In terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and subsequent judgments of the Hon'ble Tribunal, the refund claim is just and lawful.Therefore, the refund claim has been wrongly rejected on the ground that the burden thereof was passed on to the customer. In view of this order-in-original is set aside and refund of Rs. 19,88,887/- is allowed." 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of Pan Masala. The respondents herein filed a refund claim of Rs. 19,88,887/- on the ground that turnover tax in the State of Tamil Nadu was of the order of 2.5% whose turnover exceeded Rs. 10 lacs but did not exceed one hundred crores; that the deduction on account of turnover tax was not made from sale price and excise duty at a rate of 40% was paid; with the abolition of turnover tax and change in the ra...
Ruby Woollen (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC796
1. This is an appeal against the order passed on Review by the Commissioner of Central Excise holding, "In view of the above subject order-in-original is revised under Section 84 of Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994 and the party is directed to calculate and supply the gross freight figures for the period 16-11-1997 to 2-6-1998 based on a Chartered Accountant's Certificate and deposit the service tax @ 5% on gross freight paid. Party is further directed to pay interest @ 24% per annum on delayed payment of the amount of service tax till the final deposit." 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that M/s. Ruby Woollen (P) Ltd., Amritsar availed services of Goods Transport Operators and were accordingly required to pay service tax on goods transport services during the period 16-11-1997 to 2-6-1998 and also to comply with other requirement of the statute. Accordingly a show cause notice was issued to the appellant proposing recovery of service tax not paid. Deputy Commissioner of Cent...
Tex Prints Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC299
1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 17.9.2001 vide which the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the Order-in-Original of the A.C. in respect of duty demand but modified regarding penalty by reducing from Rs. 1,50,000 to Rs. 40,000.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of textile fabrics coated/laminated with preparation of low density polyethylene falling under sub-heading 5903.90 of the CETA and are not availing the facility of modvat scheme. They had cleared fabrics at Nil rate of basic duty and additional excise duty w.e.f. 1.4.95 upto exemption limit of Rs. 30 lakhs in terms of Notification No. 1/93 as amended by 75/95 dated 24.3.95. They were served with two show cause notices indicating that SSI exemption is applicable to BED only and not to AED and directed them to pay AED for clearing fabrics during the period Nov. 96 to March, 97 and April, 97 to June, 97. The penalty was also proposed to be imposed. The appellants ...
Nipun Impex Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)(103)LC863Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the impugned order dated 20.3.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Customs vide which the licence of the appellants has been revoked and forfeiture of the security deposited had been also ordered.2. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal may briefly be stated as under- Shri Ashwani Sareen is now the proprietor of the appellants' firm, M/s Nipun Impex (in short 'NIP'). He was earlier one of the three partners of firm, M/s All Rich International Cargo Services (in short, ARC). The two other partners in that firm were S/Sh Kartik Naidu and Shri Santosh Reddy. They had entered into partnership by executing partnership deed dated 15.7.1995. The Customs Authorities granted temporary licence to their firm, M/s ARI, with the condition that Shri Ashwani Sareen, Proprietor of the appellants' Firm, shall alone transact the Customs House work on behalf of the firm. Later on, Shri Ashwani Sareen qualified the examination unde...
Ashwani Kr. Jain, Sh. Pawan Kr. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC289
1. The adjudicating authority confirmed the following demands and imposed following penalties: 1. M/s. Meerut Exim, Meerut.--Demand of Rs. 1,18,17.739.00 and penalty of the same amount under Section 114 of Customs Act & Penalty of Rs. 1.75 (sic) [Rs. 1.75 crore] under Section 112(a) & (b) of Customs Act.2. Applicants filed these application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties.3. In this case, duty was confirmed and penalties were imposed in respect of ball bearings on the ground that the same had been cleared by mis-declaring the quantity, value and country of origin.4. Ld. Sr. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicants, M/s. Meerut Exim, Meerut and Sh. A.K. Jain submitted that the adjudicating authority imposed penalties on M/s. Meerut Exim and Sh. A.K. Jain, who is sole proprietor of M/s. Meerut Exim. His contention is that penalty can either be imposed on the proprietor firm or the proprietor. His contention is also that the adjudicating authority imposed pe...
R.R. Holdings (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)82ITD735(Delhi)
1. Both these appeals are directed against the separate orders passed by the CIT(A) with reference to the two orders passed by the AO under Section 154 for the asst. yr. 1986-87. Taking up ITA No. 1705/Del/l999, the following grounds, which highlight the exact grievances aired by the assessee, are as follows :. 02. The learned CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the order of the higher authorities i.e. Tribunal and the High Court of Delhi, who have held that the order passed by the AO on 2nd Sept., 1987 is an assessment order under Section 143(3) of the IT Act. 03. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not accepting the claim that the assessee is entitled to interest under Section 244(1A) of IT Act from the date of the assessment i.e. 2nd Sept., 1987 r/w the provision of the Section 140A(2) of the IT Act till the date of actual payment of refund. 04. The learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the AO's assessment order dt. 18th March, 1991 is an order under Section 143(3) of the IT Act r/w the Se...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »