Delhi Court January 2004 Judgments

Abhiman Holdings (P.) Ltd. Vs. Ito, Co. Ward 1(1)

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)4SOT501(Delhi)

These are cross appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue against the order dated 9-1-2001 passed by CIT(A), New Delhi for the assessment year 1997-98.The effective ground of appeal states that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in law in sustaining addition of Rs. 2,16,193 as income from other sources under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee had shown agricultural income of 21,02,193, therefore, the assessee was asked to substantiate the agricultural income. The assessee has submitted that the land in question were purchased in the years 1982 to 1985 and the land were located at Village Gitroni, Teh. Mehrauli. The assessee vide its letter dated 1-12-1999 submitted that the assessee had produced various types of flowers like Chrysanthemums, Pink Replex, Crimson Charlie, Sunflower, Jasmine, Chadni etc. Further, it was submitted that the assessee sold various buds of flowers produced at various man...

P and B Creative Marketing Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(113)LC549Tri(Delhi)

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants filed a bill of entry dated 5.8.2000 and claimed the benefit of Notification No.80/70-Cus on the ground that the electric pump was imported in lieu of defective electric pump that has been imported earlier.3. The adjudicating authority denied the benefit of Notification No.80/70-Cus. The appellants filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed their appeal.4. The contention of the appellants is that they had imported electric pump which was cleared on payment of duty and their customer had not accepted the pump and the same electric pump was exported for replacement. The supplier of the pump, sent a new electric pump hence as the same pump, on which duty has been paid earlier exported, to the supplier, therefore, they are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 80/70-Cus.5. The conte...

Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC131

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd., is whether they are eligible to avail of the MODVAT Credit on the quantity of LDO which has been used in the manufacture of Sulfuric Acid which is exempted from payment of Central Excise duty.2. Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture zinc/lead in their Smelting Unit; that for the manufacture of zinc and lead, they use LDO in the Smelting operations; that by the process of roasting the Ore concentrates, Sulfer Di-oxide one of the impurities is generated; that this Sulfur di-oxide cannot be vented in the air due to its hazardous nature and Pollution control norms; that consequently, Sulfure Di-oxide is converted to Sulfuric Acid in the Sulfuric Acid Plant; that the Commissioner, under the impugned order, has confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty on the ground that LDO has been used in the manufacture of exempted product and that when Sulfuric Acid is removed without p...

Gujral Aircon Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT251TriDel

1. E/COD/165/03 : This is an application at the instance of M/s. Gujral Aircon Ltd. to condone the delay. There is no reference to the exact period of delay in the application. Going by the dates referred it is seen that there is about 17 months delay in filing the appeal.2. The order under challenge, namely, the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) No. 525-CE/DLH/2001 was dated 12-6-2001. According to the appellant it did not receive the copy of the order impugned. Appellant came to know about this order when they received a letter dated 21-2-2003 from the Superintendent, Central Excise, Range-VIII, New Delhi for deposit of amounts of duty and penalty. Thereupon a photocopy of the order was obtained and the appeal was filed on 23-4-2003. According to the appellant there is no delay in filing the appeal since it was filed within three months from the date of communication of the order i.e., the date of receipt of the photocopy of the order. When the matter came...

H.R. Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 24.1.2003. The show cause notice was issued against the assessee directing them to show cause as to why differential duty of Rs. 84292/- should not be demanded for the reason that discount given to different customers by assessee was varying from 4% to 49% which is in contravention of Section 4 of the Central excise Act. The original authority as well as the appellate authority took the view that discounts at varying rates cannot be treated as trade discount in accordance with normal practice of wholesale trade.2. We find that the appellant is fully justified in contending that the above view taken by the lower authorities is untenable in the light of the ratio of the decision by the Supreme Court in Metal Box India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Madras 2002-TAXINDIAONLINE-108-SC-CX. The learned DR, on the other hand, submitted that there is no material to show whether what was granted was discount at all...

Gajra Gears Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT475TriDel

1. In this appeal, the appellants have challenged the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected their appeal on the ground that there was no speaking order passed by the Asstt. Commissioner rejecting their refund claim.2. I have heard the learned JDR and Shri S. Mani, Co. Representative.The perusal of the record shows that the appellants submitted the refund claim before the Asstt. Commissioner who returned the same after observing that it was not maintainable as there was no provision for the refund of the reversed amount of Modvat credit on the rejected inputs. The appellants challenged that communication of the Asstt.Commissioner, but the Commissioner (Appeals) instead of hearing them on merits, has rejected the appeal on the ground that the letter of the Asstt. Commissioner informing them about the return of their refund claim, was not a speaking and appealable order. In my view, the Commissioner (Appeals) has lost sight of the fact that through t...

Horizon Industrial Products Pvt. Vs. Cc (icd)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT136TriDel

1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Horizon Industrial Products Pvt. Ltd., the issue involved relates to availability of DEPB in respect of Seamless/butt welded steel pipe fittings made from Seamless/ERW steel tubes known as bathroom radiators.2. Shri K. Kumar, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants are the manufacturers-exporters of precision engineering goods/parts as well as bathroom radiators of different specifications as per the demand of foreign customers; that in their Shipping Bill No. 1228179, dated 16-8-2002, they claimed DEPB benefit under entry No. 117 of product Group "Engineering" Code 61; that the Commissioner of Customs, under Order-in-Original dated 27-8-2002, allowed them the DEPB under Entry No. 414(61) and not under entry No. 117 (61); that the Commissioner also ordered confiscation of goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/- besides imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000/-; that on appeal, the Appellate Tribunal, vide ...

Additional Director of Income Tax Vs. Indo Soviet Medicare and Researc ...

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)94TTJ(Delhi)215

1. These appeals are preferred by the Revenue against the orders of the CIT(A) for different assessment years on common grounds. As such, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. The common ground in these appeals raised by the Revenue is that the CIT(A) has erred in allowing benefit of Section 10(22) of the IT Act, 1961, since the work of the assessee relates to the performance of contract and not for providing regular education to anybody interested in learning Russian language, etc.3. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the orders of the authorities below and documents placed on record. The facts on the impugned issue borne out from the record are that the assessee is a society registered on 12th Aug., 1988, having a separate trust deed mainly with the following aims and objects: "(a) To undertake scientific research in the areas of medical, sciences, technology, rehabilitation's healthcare s...

Callipers Naigai Ltd. and ors. Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2004)BC204; [2005]128CompCas730(Delhi); 110(2004)DLT41; 2004(73)DRJ104

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, inter alia, praying for a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned notice dated 30.4.2001 issued by the Respondent No.1 (Assistant Collector, Grade-I, Room No. 5, Office of the Deputy Commissioner (South), Abdul Hamid Marg (M.B. Road), Saket, New Delhi). The petitioners have also, inter alia, sought the issuance of an appropriate writ against the respondents preventing them from taking any coercive action against the petitioners on the basis of the aforesaid recovery notice dated 30.4.2001. 2. The petitioner No.1 took a loan from Respondent No. 3 (M/s Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation of U.P. Ltd.) - (hereinafter referred to as PICUP). The petitioners 2 and 3 are the guarantors to the said loan taken by the petitioner No. 1 from PICUP. The petitioner No.1's registered office is at Delhi and the petitioners 2 and 3 also reside in Delhi. PICUP, however, does not have any office in Delhi. 3. ...

Kishore Singh Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(73)DRJ79

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.1.The present appeal is directed against the judgment and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 44/92. By the aforesaid judgment and order, the appellant herein has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I IPC and he has been sentenced to undergo a period of ten years imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months.2. In Order to appreciate the contentions raised in this appeal by the appellant, which were advocated by his counsel appearing before me, it would be necessary to set out brief facts which resulted in the institution of the criminal proceeding against the appellant. The appellant Kishore Singh was employed as a driver by M/s.Rajiv Road Carriers and he used to drive their petrol tanker. M/s.Rajiv Road Carriers had their office at Industrial Area, Phase-II, Mangolpui,...