Delhi Court June 2003 Judgments

Cce Vs. Pratap Rajasthan Spl. Steel Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(112)LC61Tri(Delhi)

1. In this appeal, the Revenue has questioned the validity of the impugned order-in-appeal dated 31.12.2002 of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing modvat credit in respect of the Ramming Mass.2. The learned Counsel has contended that the goods in question i.e.Ramming Mass were not eligible for modvat credit as input for having been not used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product by the respondents. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal. But the bare perusal of the impugned order shows that the Asstt. Commissioner firstly considered the Ramming Mass as input of the appellants for the manufacture of the final products, but later on vide corrigendum dated 19.7.2002 directed that the word 'input' should be read as 'capital goods' and Rule 57-Q and Rule 57-U be read in place of Rule 57-A and 57-I. It is thus quite evident that the Asstt. Commissioner has disallowed the modvat credit to the respondents on the Ramming Mass as 'capital goods', But the Commissioner (Appea...

Cc Vs. Hindustan Motors Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(89)ECC617

1. In these three appelas, filed by Revenue, the issue involved is whether the Respondents, M/s. Hindustan Motors Ltd., have imported complete Diesel/Petrol Engines in unassembled condition as claimed by the Revenue or as parts/components of such engines as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned common Order No. 6-8/2001 dated 28.12.2001.2. Ms. Neeta Lal Butalia, learned SDR, mentioned that M/s. Hindustan Motors Ltd. manufactures diesel and petrol engines for automobile car, etc.; that they imported the impugned goods from their collaborator M/s. Mitsubishi Motors Co. and classified the same under specific Tariff headings of the Customs Tariff applicable to individual parts; that the Bill of Entry and related Purchase Order, however, revealed that they had placed orders for specific numbers/sets of Engines/Transmission components and addons. she, further, mentioned that the Respondents have filed 104 Bills of entry; that components covered under each Bill of Entry ...

Himanshu Garments (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT366TriDel

1. This appeal has been directed against the impugned order-in-original dated 14-11-2002.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants sought to export certain goods by declaring them as dressing gowns to USA, a quota country. But on examination by the Customs officers, the same were found to be dresses. On account of this misdeclaration, the adjudicating authority had ordered the confiscation of the goods with an option to get the same redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1,25,000/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 70,000/- under Section 114 of the Customs Act.3. The learned Counsel has not contested the impugned order on merits.He has prayed for only reduction in the redemption fine and the penalty by contending that no duty element is involved and there is no material on the record to suggest if the appellants had exceeded the quota of the category 636 under which the goods, according to the Department, were covered. Therefore, no mala fide intention on the part of the ap...

Dhanshree Agro Poly Products Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT1060TriDel

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 25-10-2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original confirming the duty demand of Rs. 7,19,807/- with penalty of Rs. 40,000/-.2. The issue involved in the present appeal is availability of the benefit of Notification No. 9/99 during the financial year 1999-2000 to the appellants. The learned Counsel has contended the benefit of this Notification has been wrongly denied by misinterpreting the provisions of para 2 of the Notification. The appellants are SSI Unit and they had not crossed the prescribed limit of clearances and were entitled to the benefit of the Notification. On the other hand, the learned JDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.3. I have heard both sides. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of plastic cap covers, layflat tubings, plastic bags, etc.They had been availing the benefit of Cenvat credit after following the due p...

Chawla Techno Construct Ltd. Vs. D.C.i.T.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. The appeal has been directed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) dated 22.2.99 pertaining to assessment year 85-86.2. In the sole ground, the assessee has challenged the reopening of assessment u/s 147/148 of the I.T. Act.3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is a company incorporated under the Company Act which is engaged in the construction business. The return filed by it was considered and assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed. It appwears that in the order u/s 143(3), the investment allowance was allowed to the assessee. The CIT assumed jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and held that the assessee was not entitled to investment allowance. The order u/s 263 passed by the CIT was set aside by the Tribunal and the order of the AO was restored.Subsequently, the AO issued notice u/s 48 of the Act and by relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.C. Budhi Raja reported in 204 ITR 412 held that income of the assessee has escaped a...

Deputy Director of Income Tax Vs. Vishwa Hindu Parishad

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)81TTJ(Delhi)571

1. The following ground was initially raised in this appeal directed by the Revenue against the order passed by the CIT(A) : "On the facts and the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) had erred in allowing exemption under Section 11 even though no order under Section 12A(a) was passed." 2. Subsequently by means of a written communication dt. 18th July, 2002, an additional ground was raised and which runs as under : "On the facts and the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in allowing exemption under Section 11 even though the assessee had been banned on 10th Dec., 1992 for a period of two years under Section 6 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.".3. The aforesaid ground has been admitted by means of an interim order of even date.4. Before we proceed to deal with the grounds certain facts are required to be set out and these are that the assessee was required to file the return of income for the year under consideration on or before 10th Oct., 19...

Ambrish Jalswal Vs. Astt. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)87TTJ(Del)777

ORDERRambahadur, J.M.These two appeals by the assessed arise out of the consolidated order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Bareilly, dated 6-11-1997 for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. They are taken together and, disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. Ground No. I which is common in both the appeals, relates to the alleged non-justification of the Commissioner (Appeals) in restricting the deduction for additional conveyance allowance to Rs. 20,000 as against Rs. 43,229 claimed for assessment year 1995-96 and Rs. 40,000 as against Rs. 82,061 for the assessment year 1996-97. In both the cases, the assessing officer observed that the information was sought from the LIC of India which has intimated that the assessed has not furnished any details or given any undertaking that he has actually incurred expenses to the extent of Rs. 43,229 and Rs. 82,061 wholly and exclusively for the purpose of employment. During the scrutiny proceedings also the fact was br...

Orient Enterprises Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)90TTJ(Del)1146

ORDERP.N. Parashar, J.M.:This appeal has been filed by the assessed against order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), dated 13-6-1997, for assessment year 1993-94.2. The appeal was listed for hearing on 7-11-2002. On that date the appeal was adjourned at the request of the learned counsel for the assessed to 1-1-2003. Thereafter, the appeal has been listed on several dates but none has appeared. Thereafter the appeal was adjourned to 29-4-2003, and from 29-4-2003 to 13-6-2003. For 13-6-2003, notice dated 13-5-2003, was sent through registered post but the assessed has not turned up. Since notice was sent through registered post, it is presumed that the assessed has been served with the notice of hearing. This appeal is, thereforee, being decided on merits after hearing learned Departmental Representative and after considering the entire material on record including the paper book filed by the assessed, which is on record.3. Ground Nos. I to 4 : These grounds are directed against the ord...

Modesto Corpn. and ors. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(89)ECC656

1. Pursuant to information that Shri Ishwar Panjabi, owner of M/s.Modesto Corporation , Delhi was fraudulently importing and selling various goods in the guise of diplomatic cargo, the Customs Officers intercepted one Maruti Van No. DID-7306 in Sanik Farm, New Delhi of the morning of 8.11.88. Shri G.D. Mehta was driving the said van and he was the sole occupant. The van contained five cardboard cartons. Upon opening the said cartons, they were found to contain 4600 rolls of Konica DX Colour film of Japanese origin valued at about Rs. 3.0 lakhs in the Indian market and Rs. 92,000 GIF. Since Shri Mehta failed to show any document evidencing lawful import or possession of the films they were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. So was the Maruti Van No. DID-7306. Upon enquiry, Shri Mehta disclosed that these goods were obtained from Shri Ishwar Panjabi and were collected from 201 Sanik Farm, New Delhi. Thereupon, Customs Officers searched those premises. The search resulted...

Ratnagiri Textiles Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Both the appellants are 100% EoUs. Being so, their clearances to Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) are liable to duty in terms of proviso to Section 3 (1) of the Central Excise Act. The effect of this is that duty payable on the goods cleared by these units would be the aggregate customs duty leviable on similar goods when imported into India.2. In the present cases, dispute has arisen as to what is the rate at which additional duty of customs (CVD) is to be levied on the goods cleared by the appellant's EoU to the DTA. The appellants contended before the lower authorities that rate of duty applicable would be the effective rate of duty as fixed under exemption notification and not tariff rates of duty. The lower authorities held to the contrary, based on proviso to Section 5A of the Central Excise Act. This finding is challenged in the present appeals.3. The appellants contend that it is well settled that additional duty of customs (CVD) is to be levied at effective rates and not at Tari...