Delhi Court May 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Smt. Krishna Babbar Vs. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2002
Reported in: [2002]123TAXMAN992(Delhi)
ORDERThis appeal is directed against the order dated 10-9-2001 passed by the Tribunal.2. Brief facts necessary to dispose of the appeal are recapitulated as under :In this case admittedly the books of account of the impugned assessments were not complete till the date of search, i.e., 1-8-1988. The Assessment Officer has invoked section 145(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the assessed was upheld by the Tribunal.3. In the assessment year 1987-88 the assessed had declared gross profit rate at 0.9 per cent and in the assessment year 1986-87 the gross profit rate was around 0.78 per cent. In the absence of relevant material on record, the assessing officer applied gross profit rate at 1.5 per cent. This rate was found to be on higher side by the Tribunal. The Tribunal correctly held that, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the assessing officer should have applied gross profit rate at 0.9 per cent. The Tribunal while setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appe...
Cit Vs. Mittal Casting Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN11(Delhi)
This appeal has been directed at the instance of the revenue under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The question which has been raised by the appellant is as to whether a disputed electricity bill which is pending before this court in a writ petition would be statutory liability or a contractual liability. The assessing officer held that the claim of the assessed would amount to revenue expenditure. Notice of the assessment, however, had been issued by the successor assessing officer purported to be on the ground that a contractual liability cannot be said to be revenue expenditure. A finding of fact, however, has been arrived at by the learned Tribunal that the view taken by the assessing officer merely a change of opinion from that of the assessing officer making the original assessment. The question whether a mere change of opinion can be a ground for initiating proceedings under section 147 of the Act fell for consideration before the...
Dabur India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC219
1. The Challenge in this appeal of the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner, Central Excise, Meerut dated 17-1-2001. One of grounds in the Memo, of appeal is that the Order was passed ex-parte without observing the principles of natural justice. The appellant would submit that there was no fair hearing granted by the Commissioner. The appellant's Manager Shri R.K. Sharma had met with an accident on 31-12-2000 and therefore, he was not in a position to assist their Counsel for the hearing on 3-1-2001. This fact was brought to the notice of the Commissioner vide letter dated 2-1-2001 when an adjournment was sought. The Commissioner declined the request for the reason that during the investigation period the party had not properly co-operated with the Department. According to the Commissioner the request could not be accepted because there was no Medical Certificate with the application for adjournment.2. After hearing both sides we feel that a further opportunity should be ...
Shreyans Spinning Mills Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC28
1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of textile yarns.Officers of Central Excise visited their factory at 10.00 AM on 3-12-98 and, on scrutiny of records, found that the appellants had issued two invoices No. 835 and No. 836 on 2-12-98, in which Central excise duty was shown to have been debited in the PLA and RG 23A, Part-II. The invoices were found to have been issued to M/s. Ambika Traders, Ludhiana. The goods cleared under the invoices were seized from the premises of M/s. Ambika Traders. The stock of final products available in the appellants' factory was also verified, whereupon the officers found a shortage of 20351 Kgs. of cotton yarn and 6840 Kgs. of polyester yarn. A statement of Sh. S. Tiwari, authorised signatory of the appellants, was recorded, wherein he answered the queries made by the officers. On the basis of the results of the investigation, the department issued a show-cause notice to the appellants as well as to M/s. Ambika Traders. The notice was conte...
Commr. of C.Ex. Vs. Malerkotla Steels and Alloys (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2002
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT932TriDel
1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Non-alloy steel ingots and they were working under the Modvat Scheme. During the period July, 96 to November, 96, the appellant took Modvat Credit as Rs. 7,58,123/- on the strength of invoices issued by registered dealers namely M/s. Sanchit Steels, M/s.Arun Steel & Agro Industries and M/s. Bal Mukand Mohinder Kumar. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellants for denial of Modvat Credit on the ground that the registered dealer received the raw material that is the scrap from M/s. Shree Ambica Steel Industries and M/s. Lakshmi Steels Industries and it was found that no scrap was generated at the premises of those Units. Therefore, no scrap was received by registered dealers. Hence, the respondents are not entitled for the benefit of the Modvat credit.4. The contention of the respondents is that there...
Rollatainers Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC288
1. Challenge at the instance of the assessee is against the Order-in-Appeal No. 757-C.E./DLH/2001, dated 3-9-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the issue raised in this appeal is covered in its favour by the decision of this Tribunal in Associated Strips Ltd. and Anr. v. CCE, New Delhi [2002 (143) E.L.T. 131 (Tribunal) = 2002 (49) RLT 506(CEGAT-Del.)] 2. On going through the terms of the purchase contract between the parties, it is clear that the price is ex-factory. It is true that the Transit risk insurance policy is taken by the seller, appellant. That itself will not decide the issue. In majority of the transactions the freight has been paid by the buyer.3. In the light of the terms of the contract between the parties, it is clear that the sale has taken place at the factory gate and not at the buyers place. In view of the above, the appellant is perfectly justified in submitting that the issue raised in th...
National Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)(83)ECC278
1. The common issues involved in these two appeals, filed by M/s.National Fertilizers Ltd. are whether conversion of gauzes into saturated gauzes on account of continuous use amounts to manufacture and whether such saturated gauzes are classifiable as scrap of precious metals classificable under sub-heading 7101.80 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.2. Shri D.C. Mandal, learned Consultant submitted that the Appellants use Catchment Gauzes and Platinum/Rhodium Gauzes as catalyst in the manufacture of Nitric Acid; that during the process of manufacture, the impugned gauzes become ineffective after continuous use which are cleared by them for refining and refabrication; that the Adjudicating Authority has held, under the impugned order; that gauzes precious metals are converted into waste and scrap of precious metals having altogether different use and qualities and this is part of the process of manufacture and the scrap of precious metals is classifiable under sub-heading...
A.P. Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC766Tri(Delhi)
1. The present appeals are directed against classification of "coal tub body" under Central Excise Ch. subheading 8607 and consequent demand of duty. The appellants have claimed classification of the goods under sub-heading 8609 of the Tariff. The contending sub-headings are extracted below to facilitate discussion."86.07 8607.00: Parts of railway or tramway locomotives or rolling stock.86.09 8609.00: Containers (including containers for the transport of fluids) specially designed and 2. The lower authorities classified the goods under sub-heading 8607 and held that the tub bodies could fall under "bodies (not mounted on under Frames" or non self propelled railways or tramway rolling stock (e.g. coach or truck doors, partitions, hinged sides of wagons, side stachions, running boards, water tanks for Tenders)" as mentioned at page 1419 of HSN Explanatory Notes. The impugned order has held that these items are parts of rolling stock.3. As against the above finding in the impugned order,...
Applied Electro Magnetics Pvt. Vs. Syndicate Bank
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2002
Reported in: II(2003)BC89
1. This is an appeal against order dated 11.2.2002 passed by DRT-I, Delhi in O. A. No.210/97 Syndicate Bank v. Infocom Digital Systems Ltd. and Ors.2. The appellant is defendant No. 10 in the said O.A. The O.A.proceeded ex parte and a final order against all the defendants was passed on 7.1.2002. The appellant moved an application before the Tribunal below for setting aside the ex parte decree against it. By the impugned order, that application of the appellant has been rejected and hence this appeal.3. Mr. Pramod Saigal, Advocate for the appellant contended that the appellant was neither the borrower nor the guarantor. It had only accepted certain bills of exchange but those bills were not entertained for payment as the goods had been returned to defendant No. 1 which had taken the loan from the respondent Syndicate Bank. During the course of the submissions made by learned Counsels for the parties, it emerged that the respondent Bank had sent the bills of exchange to the appellant f...
Vanson Kids Stuff Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)83ITD268(Delhi)
1. A short but interesting question has arisen in this appeal. The controversy relates to the question whether the remuneration paid to the partner representing his HUF can be allowed as deduction under Section 40(b) as amended by Finance Act, 1992 effective from asst. yr.1993-94.2. The assessee is a partnership firm comprising of three partners, namely, Shri Sudershan Kumar Sethi son of Shri Sunder Dass Sethi, Smt.Kanchan Sethi wife of Shri Pawan Kumar Sethi and Shri Pawan Kumar Sethi representing Pawan Kumar Sethi, HUF. This deed was executed on 1st day of April, 1992. According to Clause (8) of the partnership deed, the parties, of second and third part were working partners and they were entitled to remuneration at rate as may be agreed upon between the partners from time to time. In view of this clause, these two partners were paid remuneration and the same was claimed as deduction. According to the AO, payment of remuneration is allowed only to a working partner which has been d...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »