Delhi Court August 2003 Judgments

Real Overseas (P) Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Del)185

ORDERSmt. Diva Singh, J.M.:This is an appeal filed by the assessed against the order dated 31-8-2001, of Dy. CIT, Circle-15(1), New Delhi, pertaining to block period 1-4-1986 to 19-4-1996, corresponding to assessment years 1986-87 to 1996-97 up to 19-4-1996.2. Various grounds have been raised by the assessed which read as under'1.1 The -learned assessing officer acted without jurisdiction and without authority of law in passing the impugned order under section 158BD read with section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the appellant determining its total undisclosed income of the block period at Rs. 47,26,800 without there being any action taken against the appellant under section 132 or 132A.1.2 There was complete lack of jurisdiction on the part of the learned assessing officer in issuing notice dated 21-8-2000, under section 158BC/BD requiring the appellant to file return for the block period on the facts and circumstances of the case, since no satisfaction, as envisaged by s...

ircon International Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC755

1. In this appeal at the instance of the importer, the issue that arises for consideration is whether the cost and service charges paid towards Application engineering, Technical data and drawings, shop drawings and specification, Pretest, quality and supervision, design and seasoning and erection and supervision are includible in the assessable value of goods imported under 3 Bills of Entry dated 4.11.96, 10.9.96 and 25.2.97. Aggrieved by the finding of the Commissioner that they are so includible, the importer has com up in appeal.2. The appellant, a Government of India Undertaking was appointed as Project Management Consultants for construction of hanger for aircraft, namely, Boeing 747-400 by Air India at Bombay. The contract, inter alia, included providing facilities of (a) Under Carriage Lifting Platforms and (b) Suspended Docking System for attending to the maintenance of the Aircrafts. The appellant invited tenders for supply and erection of the aforesaid facilities. Later the...

Cce Vs. Knitwell India Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC53

1. In this appeal which has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the issue relates to the availability of deemed credit in respect of the inputs to the respondents, on which duty liability has not been allegedly discharged in full by the supplier/manufacturer under Section 3-A, but received by them under Notification No. 58/97-CE dated 30.8.1998.2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) by following the ratio of the law laid down by the Tribunal in an identical case of "Delhi Steel Indus, v. CCE, Chandigarh" 2002 (48) RLT 753, in which this very issue arose, had allowed the deemed credit to the respondents by reversing the Order-in-Original of the Asstt. Commissioner who disallowed the credit of the amount in question i.e. Rs. 40,813 and imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000 under Rule 173-Q.3. The learned JDR has contended that the above-said judgment of the Tribunal could not be followed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on two grounds; firstly, that the reference...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Knitwell India Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT626TriDel

1. In this appeal which has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the availability of deemed credit in respect of the inputs to the respondents, on which duty liability has not been allegedly discharged in full by the supplier/manufacturer under Section 3A, but received by them under Notification No. 58/97-CE., dated 30-8-1997.2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) by following the ratio of the law laid down by the Tribunal in an identical case of Delhi Steel Indus, v.CCE, Chandigarh [2002 (149) E.L.T. 673 (Tri. - Del.) = 2002 (48) RLT 753] in which this very issue arose, had allowed the deemed credit to the respondents by reversing the order-in-original of the Asstt.Commissioner who disallowed the credit of the amount in question i.e.Rs. 40,813/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 173Q.3. The learned JDR has contended that the above said judgment of the Tribunal could not be followed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on tw...

Methodex Systems Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC600

1. In this appeal at the instance of the importer the issue raised is whether the Customs authorities were justified in enhancing the assessable value of currency counting machine imported by the appellant.2. The appellant as part of its trading business imported currency counting machine (hereinafter referred to as CCM) from two overseas suppliers, namely, M/s. Herny Yung of Taiwan and M/s. Jaewoo Corporation of South Korea. These machines are of two models, namely, Floor Model and Desk Top Model. Initially the appellant imported CCM from M/s. Herny Yung @ USD 900 from April, 2000 to September, 2000. For the period October 2000 till March 2001 the price was reduced to US $ 850 in view of the increase in the volume of import. Since M/s. Henry Yung was not able to supply entire requirement of the appellant, the appellant imported 42 number of CCM from M/s. Jaewoo Corporation at a unit price of 920 US $ under Bill of Entry dated 26-2-2001. Since the price quoted by M/s, Jaewoo Corporati...

Sadbhavana Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC607

1. This appeal has been directed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 7-10-2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original of the Deputy Commissioner ordering confiscation of the seized goods of foreign origin under Section 111 of the Customs Act with an option to get the same redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 10,000/- and also imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the appellants.2. On 14-11-2000, the Officers of Customs and Central Excise conducted search of the premises of the appellants' firm at 502, M.G. Road, Indore, where they are running a business under the name and style of M/s. Sadbhavana and during the course of search, the goods of foreign origin (toys) valued at Rs. 19,205/- were found and the same were seized on the belief that they were smuggled goods and liable to be confiscated under the Customs Act.3. Shri S.K. Khandelwal, Proprietor of the firm, admitted the foreign character of the goods, but failed to p...

United Metal Printers Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC686

1. The appellant M/s. United Metal Printers manufactures metal boxes of different dimensions. These are classifiable under Chapter Heading 73.10 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period 1996-2000 the appellant cleared part of their production under claim of exemption under Notification No. 8/96 dated 27.3.1996 and other subsequent notifications. The claim of the appellant was that the boxes in question were exempted under the following heading of the notification: Subsequently show-cause-notice dated 22.2.2001 was issued alleging that there was evasion of central excise duty of about Rs. 67 lakhs in respect of boxes cleared as geometry boxes during the period April 1996 to December 2000. Under Order-in-Original No. 2/2003 dated 31.1.2003, Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-1 confirmed the same duty demand.The Commissioner also demanded interest in respect of the duty amounts not paid under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and imposed a p...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Industrial Cables Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT391TriDel

1. The Department has filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing a refund claim of the respondents. The refund claim for Rs. 26,719/- was filed on 13-9-83 and the same was in respect of the Central Excise duty paid in excess in respect of goods cleared on 12-1-83 and 11-2-83. The price lists for the said clearances were finalized on 6-5-83. The original authority rejected the refund claim on the ground of limitation and unjust enrichment. The first appellate authority has, by order-in-appeal No. 93/2003, allowed the refund claim, holding that the claim is not hit by time bar. It appears from the record that this case has had a chequered history between the aforesaid order of the original authority and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) presently under challenge. There have been several rounds of litigation over this period, during which the question relating to unjust enrichment got settled in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the only question ...

Cce Vs. Rockwool Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Revenue filed these appeals against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Rockwool manufactured by the respondents are held to be classifiable under Heading 6807.00 of Central Excise Tariff.3. We find that issue is in respect of Classification of Rockwool is decided by the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 204/2002-D dated 22.8.2002 : 2002 (105) ECR 916 (T) in the case of M/s. Minwool Rock Fibres Ltd., Rajnandgaon. The Tribunal in this case held that the correct classification of the goods in which more than 25% by weight of red mud, press mud or Blast Furnace Slag or one or more of these material is present under Heading 6807.10 of Central Excise Tariff. The issue involved in these appeals is covered by the above decision of the Tribunal. Therefore, we find no merit in the appeals. Both the appeals are rejected....

Km. Mahima Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)510; 106(2003)DLT143

J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. The petitioner has been placed in a piquant situation by the Magistrate as well as by the learned Sessions Judge. She had filed a complaint under Sections 366A/376/506(2), IPC against respondent for having been raped. According to her she became pregnant on account of the act of rape. On her representation she was sent for medical examination. The pregnancy test which was conducted on 23rd June, 2003 was found to be positive, though the occurrence is said to be have taken place on 24th May, 2003. 2. In order to preserve her honour and her repugnance to have a child born out of rape she moved an application before the learned Magistrate for permission to terminate her pregnancy and for preservation of fetusand DNA test for the purpose of evidence that she was raped by the accused-respondent. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application but with the observation that there is no provision in the aforesaid Act for intervention by the Court as it is the prerogative of...