Delhi Court July 2003 Judgments

Freeze Corner Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 109(2004)DLT805; 2004(73)DRJ193

D.K. Jain, J. 1. The validity of a composite order, dated 13 June 2003, passed by the Commissioner Sales Tax, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner') disposing of the two revision petitions filed by the petitioner under Section 47 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (for short the Local Act) and Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ( for short the Central Act) is under challenge in this writ petition. By the impugned order the Commissioner has declined to interfere with the order passed by the first appellate authority, namely, the Additional Commissioner, whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.75 lakhs under the Local Act and Rs.2 lakhs under the Central Act, as a condition precedent for entertainment of their two appeals, in respect of assessment year 1999-2000.2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the material facts giving rise to the writ petition are as follows:On the basis of some incriminating documents recovered during the course of survey c...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shehnaz Hussain

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 109(2004)DLT796; 2004(73)DRJ697; [2004]267ITR572(Delhi)

D.K. Jain, J.1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the order, dated 11 October 2002, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench 'E' New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal') in ITA No. 1911/Del/1998, pertaining to the assessment year 1991-92. 2. The background facts giving rise to the appeal, which need to be noted, are as under:The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'assessed') is an individual, deriving income from manufacture and sale of ayurvedic herbs. Search and seizure operations, under Section 132 of the Act were conducted at the business premises of the assessed on 10 September 1990. An inventory of the stocks of the finished products and packing cartons of the two proprietary concerns of the assessed, namely, M/s.Shahnaz Herbal and M/s.Shahnaz Ayurvedic was taken and value of the finished products as well as packing material was worked out.During the course of assessment proceedi...

Cit Vs. Ms. Shehnaz Hussain

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2004]136TAXMAN3(Delhi)

D.K. Jain, J.This appeal by the revenue under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the order, dated 11-10-2002, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench 'E', New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal') in ITA No. 1911 /Del/ 1998, pertaining to the assessment year 1991-92.2. The background facts giving rise to the appeal, which need to be noted, are as under:The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'assessed') is an individual, deriving income from manufacture and sale of ayurvedic herbs. Search and seizure operations, under section 132 of the Act were conducted at the business premises of the assessed on 10-9-1990. An inventory of the stocks of the finished products and packing cartons of the two proprietary concerns of the assessed, namely, M/s. Shahnaz Herbal and M/s. Shahnaz Ayurvedic was taken and value of the finished products as well as packing material was worked out.During the course of assessment proceedings, the asse...

Hindustan Commercial Investment Trust Ltd Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)90TTJ(Del)346

ORDERRam bahadur, J.M.:This appeal by the assessed arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-XIV, New Delhi, dated 22-2-1995, for the assessment year 1991-92.2. Below reproduced are the grounds of appeal :'I (1) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs. 24,99,750 on computers purchased from M/s. Pertech Computers Ltd. (PCL) and leased out in the normal course of the business of the appellant.(2) On the facts, evidence and material on record, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) should have held that the computers in question had actually been purchased by the appellant-company and the ownership of the said computers was that of the appellant-company and the appellant-company was fully entitled to claim depreciation on the same.(3) The view taken and reasoning relied upon by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in upholding the disallowance of the impugned depreciation are vitiated and bad in l...

Fairdeal Engineering Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT207TriDel

1. In this appeal, the appellants have challenged the validity of the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 8-10-2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the Order-in-Original of the A.C. who confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 99,155/- with interest against the appellants.2. The learned Counsel has contended that without issuing the show cause notice, no duty demand could be confirmed under Section 11A of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal.3. On the other hand, the learned JDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.5. The bare perusal of the impugned order shows that the duty demand has been raised against the appellants on the strength of the order dated 25-7-2001 vide which the A.C. had ordered forfeiture of duty payment facility on fortnightly interval till the period of 2 months or till that date of the dues listed therein were paid, whichever was later. That order of the A.C. had never been challenged by the appellants. The argument of the learn...

Indian Hume Pipes Co. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC554

1. In this appeal at the instance of the assessee the challenge is against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore dated 24.4.2002. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Pre-stressed cement concrete pipes falling under heading 68.07 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They have entered into an agreement with Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (for short, TWAD) for execution of full project including manufacture, supply and laying of concrete pipes, M.S. pipes and fittings, walls and earth work of excavation and refilling etc. It is alleged by the Department that the appellant had not declared the actual place of removal in their declaration filed under Sub-rule (3A) of Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 with an intention to evade payment of excise duty. It was the case of the appellant that the contracts were for supply of pipes, laying and testing at site on turnkey basis and that the contract contained the cost...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT1067TriDel

1. In this application, the appellant-Revenue prays for condonation of delay of 15 days involved the filing of Appeal Nos. E/1325 and 1328 to 1330 of 2003. The appeals are against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) remanding a case to the original authority under Sub-section (3) of Section 35A of the Central Excise Act. It appears from the present application that the department had initially accepted the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) but later on, doubted the legal validity of that order in view of conflicting decisions of different Benches of the Tribunal on the question whether the Commissioner (Appeals) had power of remand under Section 35A(3). Apparently, this doubt lingered in the mind of the department for some time, resulting in the present delay of the appeals. Reiterating this position, ld. SDR submits today that a Larger Bench of the Tribunal has since resolved the conflict by holding that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power of remand. There is no reason to do...

Rajasthan Electronics and Vs. Commr. of C.Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)LC339Tri(Delhi)

1. The issue raised in this appeal is the correct classification of, (1) Auto Zero Control Panel Assembly, (2) Photocell, and (3) Switch Units. Under the impugned order, the Commissioner has held that these items will not be classifiable as parts of electronic milk tester under Tariff Heading 90.27 of the Central Excise Tariff, Commissioner has instead held them to be classifiable under tariff Heading 85. This has been done by relying on Note 2 to Chapter 90.2. We have perused the records and have heard both sides. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the impugned order has not discussed the grounds for classifying the goods under Chapter 85. He also pointed out that tariff item 85.17 indicated in the order for switch units appears to be clearly erroneous. As against this, learned SDR has pointed out that the Commissioner's finding that Note 2 of Chapter 90 is attracted to the Classification of this items is required to be upheld. He also has pointed out th...

Jayco India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC45

1. The appellants are manufacturers of confectionery products. In November 1996, they took Modvat credit of the Countervailing Duty paid on one of their inputs imported and cleared under Bill of Entry dated 30.3.96. This credit was taken on the basis of a certified photocopy of the duplicate Bill of Entry, issued by the Customs authorities. Both the original authority and the first appellate authority have denied this credit of the appellants on th ground that the credit had been taken on the basis of invalid document, not presecribed under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules 1944. The decision of the authorities is challeged in the present appeal on the ground that, the triplicate copy of Bill of Entry having been lost in transit, duly certified triplicate copy of Bill of Entry issued by the Customs authority was a valid document under Rule 57G for the purpose of Modvat credit. It has also been claimed that the TR-6 challan evidencing payment of duty and containing a reference to th...

Suncity Threads Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Appellants filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, whereby the demand was confirmed and penalty was imposed on the ground that the appellants were not entitled for the benefit of exemption notification.2. Appellants were purchasing doubled or multifold yarn falling under chapter 55 of the Central Excise Tariff on payment of duty. Such yarn was either in hank form or on cone. Yarn in hank form was rewinded to come through winding machines and thereafter reeled into reel-tube and were packed and marketed.3. The contention of the appellants is that this process does not amount to manufacture. The contention of the appellants is also that they were not engaged in doubled of multifold or single yarn and the facility for doubled or multifold yarn is also not available in their factory. The appellants relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. v. M/s . Anand Threads (Final Order No. 1/2003-B dated 27.12.2002).4. Th...