Delhi Court March 2003 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hotel and Restaurant Association
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2003
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Del)374; [2003]261ITR190(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J.1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), is directed against the order dated July 22, 2002, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench SMC-I, New Delhi, in I. T. A. No. 174/Delhi of 1996, pertaining to the assessment year 1992-93. The following questions, stated to be substantial questions of law, have been proposed in the appeal memo. : 'A. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the accumulation of income by the assessed under Section 11(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for all objects for which the trust was created and not for specific purpose was neither prejudicial nor erroneous to the interests of the Revenue B. Whether Section 11(2) of the Act makes it necessary for the assessed to make specific mention of any purpose or purposes to enable it to accumulate the income ?' 2. Briefly stated the material ...
Sutlej Industries Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2003
Reported in: [2003]86ITD335(Delhi)
ORDERPer R.S. Syal, A.M.These two appeals by the assessed relate to the assessment years 1994-95 & 1995-96. Since both the appeals rotate around common issue, we are thereforee proceeding to dispose them of by a consolidated order for the sake of convenience.Assessment year 1994-952. The solitary effective ground projects the grievance of the assessed as under :'The Commissioner (Appeals) erred on the facts of the case and in law in not allowing interest under section 244A/other relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act on the amount of self-assessment tax paid, which became refundable under section 143(3)1/250 as per provisions of Income Tax Act from the date of payment of such tax.'3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessed became entitled to substantial refund on account of the appellate order. Refund also included certain amounts which had been paid as self-assessment tax. At the time of giving effect to the appellate order, the learned assessing officer granted ...
Caparo Maruti Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2003
Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC651
1. The appellant manufactures 'Sheet Metal Components' (Motor Vehicle) for Maruti Udyog Ltd. The production is undertaken by the appellant as a job work. The sole raw material for the manufacture of the components, 'Cold Rolled Sheet blanks', is supplied by M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd. (MUD, free of cost. Appellants paid conversion charge for the job they carry out. The components so manufactured by the appellants are liable to pay Central Excise Duty, and the appellants were clearing the goods on payment of duty. The duty on components being on ad valorem basis, their assessable value was computed on the basis of cost of production-value of the sheet blanks supplied by the appellants plus the cost of conversion. However, under a Show-cause Notice dated 27.8.2001, it was proposed to reopen the assessment on the ground that the goods were not assessed at the full assessable value. Under the impugned order, the Commissioner has reassessed the goods for the period from September 1996 to Februar...
Dcm Engineering Products Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2003
Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT612TriDel
1. This is an appeal at the instance of the importer against order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dt. 7-6-02. The order-in-original dt. 19-2-1999 was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation.The appellant contended that since the order 19-2-99 is the first speaking order received by it, there is no merit in the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the appeal filed before him was barred by limitation.2. We had occasion to consider a similar matter in our Final Order No.642/02-A in Appeal No. C/489/02/A. In the above order, we have taken the view that since the Assessing Authority have passed an order on the request made by the appellant and it was mentioned therein that an appeal would lie against that order before the Commissioner (Appeals) within three months from the date of the communication, the Commissioner (Appeals) could not have dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay. We follow the...
Hi-tech Carbon Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2003
Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC92
1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by M/s. Hi-Tech Carbon is whether the MODVAT credit of the duty paid on the inputs namely Carbon Block Feed Stock (CBFS) is available to them under Rule 57 A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Shri S. Madhavan, learned Chartered Accountant, submitted that the Appellants manufacture Carbon Black out of CBFS; that CBFS is subjected to process of thermal cracking which results in generation of Carbon Black in particle form and off gases or lean gases; that as off gases contains Carbon monoxide, it could not be flared up in the atmosphere being hazardous one and in terms of anti-pollution laws, they are required to burn Carbon monoxide content out of this mixture of gases which result in generation of hear; that the said heat is either used further in the manufacturing process or is utilized for generation of high pressure steam as a by-product in the factory; that the steam so generated is utilized in or in relation to the manufacture of Carbo...
Dina Metals Ltd. and Dina Mahabir Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2003
Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC126
1. M/s. Dina Metals Ltd. and M/s. Dina Mahabir Re-Rollers Pvt. Ltd. have filed these two appeals challenging the determination of their Annual Capacity of Production by the Commissioner, Central Excise under two Orders-in-Original Nos. 84/De novo/Commr/2002 dated 26.7.2002 and 77/De novo/Commr/2002 dated 25.7.2002 respectively.2. Shri R. Shanthanam, learned Advocate, submitted that M/s. Dina Metals Ltd., Appellant No. I M/s. Dina Mahabir Re-rollers Pvt. Ltd. Appellant No. 2 manufacture, M.S. Ingots hot Re-re-rolled products of iron and steel respectively that they never opted for payment of duty under the provisions of Rule 96ZO(3)/96 ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules respectively; that they have always paid duty on actual production in terms of the provisions of Rule 96ZO(1)/96ZP(1) read with Sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act; that the Appellate Tribunal, vide Order No. 408-409/Kol/2002 dated 2.4.2002, remanded their cases to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh ...
Pioneer Enterprises Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2003
Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC537
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Pioneer Enterprises, is whether the duty of Excise is payable by them on the excisable goods manufactured by them.2. Shri J.S. Agarwal, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture footwear and parts thereof; that they also do the job work on the raw material supplied by others; that M/s. Aero Club supplied the raw material to the appellants for doing job work under Rule 57AC(5)(a) under serially numbered delivery challans; that it is clearly mentioned on the challans that the duty would be paid by the principle manufacturer and the goods are to be returned after doing the job work to M/s. Aero Club; that M/s. Aero Club had sent an intimation under letter dated 19.4.2000 to the Asst. Commissioner intimating that they would be getting their products manufactured on job work basis and they also undertook the responsibility of discharging duty liability on the final products in terms of provisions of Notification No. 214/...
Hindustan General Indus. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2003
Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC540
1. The issue involved in this Appeal, filed by M/s. Hindustan General Industries Ltd., is whether the Central Excise duty is leviable on under frames, body sides, ends, roof and floor etc. as parts of Railway Wagons.2. Shri Krishna Kumar, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants fabricate Railway Wagons for and on behalf of the Indian Railways out of the raw materials and components provided by the Indian Railway; that an agreement was executed between Indian Railways and the Appellants on 25.3.1992 according to which Excise duty shall be reimbursed by the Railways; that a show cause notice dated 1.10.93 was issued to them for demanding duty amounting to Rs. 55.20 lakhs in respect of base floor, body ends etc. which came into existence as a part of the wagon; that the Appellants had sent detailed information/particulars with regard to the goods in question under their letter dated 30.6.1996; that on the basis of the said data, the Assistant Commissioner by a Corrigendum dated 2...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Wimpy Electronics (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2003
Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT307TriDel
1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of Notification No.13/97-Cus., dated 1-3-97 was allowed to the parts of connectors.3. The contention of the Revenue is that the respondents made import of parts of connectors and availed the benefit of Notification No.13/97-Cus., which provided concessional rate of duty to parts of connectors for the use in the manufacture of connectors. The contention of the Revenue is that the parts of connectors are not used in the manufacturer of connectors and the same are used in the manufacture of cable assembly. The respondent relied upon the statement of Shri Hitesh M. Shah, Director of the appellants. We have perused the statement. In his statement, Shri Hitesh M. Shah, Director stated that the imported parts are used in the connectors and connectors are further used in the manufacture of cable assembly. This fact is being disputed by the Revenue without any evidence on recor...
Anil Sanghi Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2003
Reported in: (2003)85ITD73(Delhi)
For period from 1-7-1995 to 31-12-1996, provisions of section 249(4) were not applicable in respect of first appeal before Tribunal under section 253(1)(b).For period from 1-7-1995 to 31-12-1996, provisions of section 249(4) were not applicable in respect of first appeal before Tribunal under section 253(1)(b).Various parts of Chapter-XX are independent by themselves as they operate in different spheres. There cannot be any overlapping of one into the other since these deal with appeals at different forums, i.e., the Commissioner (Appeals), the Tribunal, the High Court and thereafter, the Supreme Court and lastly, there is the part pertaining to the revisions before the Commissioner. Consequent to the insertion of Chapter XIV-B with effect from 1-7-1995 there was a conscious consequential amendment in section 253(3)whereby a proviso was inserted to the effect that the first appeal to the Tribunal in respect of the block assessment would have to be filed within a period of 30 days of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »