Delhi Court January 2004 Judgments

Director of Income Tax Vs. Degussa A.G. Germany

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Del)295; [2004]270ITR301(Delhi)

1. This appeal is in respect of asst. yr. 1994-95. The CIT(A) as well as Tribunal, Delhi, Bench 'B', New Delhi, held against the Revenue and in favor of the assessed. The Revenue has preferred this appeal which pertains to the 3rd Installment of lumpsum payment for technical services received by the assessed, a German company. The AO had treated this payment as royalty and subject to tax. The CIT(A) and Tribunal reversed this and held the same not to be royalty but business income and the same was exempt as the assessed had no permanent establishment in India.2. As regards the earlier two Installments, the CIT(A) had accepted the version of the assessed. The - said decision was challenged before the Tribunal by preferring an appeal No. 708/Del/1993 for the asst. yr. 1990-91. Examining the matter, the Tribunal held that the payment cannot be considered to be royalty but business income and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue by an order dt. 29th Oct., 1999, for the asst. yr. 1990-91, Th...

S.K. Sharma Vs. Food Corporation of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 110(2004)DLT382; 2004(75)DRJ376

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioner challenges the orders dated 9.6.1997 and 27.6.1997. By the first order, petitioner's offer seeking voluntary retirement was accepted and it was directed that petitioner shall voluntarily retire w.e.f. 1.7.1997 and by the latter, petitioner's request, by way of application dated 7.6.1997, seeking to withdraw his application whereunder he sought voluntary retirement was rejected.2. Respondent is the Food Corporation of India established under the Food Corporation of India Act, 1964. Service of its employees is regulated by the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations 1971, which are statutory regulations framed in exercise of power vested under Section 45 of the Act.3. Petitioner joined service under the Government of India in the Food Department and was transferred to the Corporation w.e.f. 1.3.1965.4. Regulation 22-A of the Regulations gives an option to the employees of the Corporation to seek voluntary retirement. Relevant part of Regulation 22...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gopal Das Estate Housing (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Del)1; [2004]267ITR149(Delhi)

B.C. Patel, C.J.1. The appellant, who failed before the CIT(A) as well as Tribunal, has approached this Court, inter alias alleging that the finding recorded by the AO on p. 21 has not been considered either by the CIT(A) or by the Tribunal and, thereforee, in the opinion of the counsel, in view of the decision of the apex Court in the case of CIT v. Indian Woollen Textiles Mills : [1964]51ITR291(SC) , this would be a question of law as the relevant facts have not been taken into consideration by the authorities below. It was also submitted by learned counsel that it is open for the AO to consider the reasonableness of the amount of brokerage claimed by the assessed as business expenditure.2. The assessed was called upon to explain about the brokerage, which he claimed to the tune of Rs. 1,45,25,708 in his P&L; a/c. The assessed pointed out that the following aspects were required to be taken into consideration at the time of giving brokerage :1. The brokers were required to arrange th...

Craft Pac Containers (P) Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC577

1. M/s. Craft Pac Containers Pvt. Ltd. and their two Directors have filed these Appeals against Order-in-Original No. 44/2000 dated 12.12.02.2. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, Learned Advocate submitted that applicant company manufactured plastic containers and avail of MODVAT credit of the duty paid on the inputs in the manufacture of plastic containers; that these plastic containers are removed from the factory on payment of duty; that further they also manufacture plastic containers on job work basis for two other companies namely M/s. CPC Polymers Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Polycare Enterprises; that in respect of these goods manufactured on job work basis, the raw material is supplied by the buyers and they avail exemption under Notification No. 5/98-CE dated 2,6.98 (S. No. 69); that in respect of these inputs received from the buyers they did not avail of Modvat credit; that the Commissioner under the impugned Order has disallowed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 5/98 on the ground that ...

Cce Vs. Bhandari Foils P Lt.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal, the Revenue has questioned the validity of the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the penalty imposed under Rules 13(2) of the CENVAT Rules on the respondents.2. The learned JDR has contended that the penalty under the said Rule could not be set aside and as such, the impugned order is invalid. On the other hand, the learned Counsel has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.3. I have been both sides and gone through the record. The perusal of the record show that on conducting physical checking of the finished goods and inputs lying in the factory premised of the respondents by the Central Excise authorities, some shortage of the inputs was found.But they deposited the duty amount in respect thereof much before the issuance of the show cause notice. The adjudicating authority however still confirmed the duty demand with equal amount of penalty as detailed in the order-in-original. but in my view, the Commissioner ...

Rajandheer (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2004Delhi208; 109(2004)DLT442; 2004(72)DRJ601

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The action of the respondent Delhi Development Authority (for short, `DDA' ) in determining the sub-leases in respect of various plots located in Mohan-Cooperative Industrial Estate has given rise to these writ petitions. The impugned orders of deter inaction allege that there has been breaches on the part of the sub-lessees of the terms and conditions of the sub-lease deeds. The sub-lease deeds in question specify the user to which the plot can be put to. In almost all the matters, the action has een taken on account of the fact that the petitioners are using the properties in question for commercial and trading activity while it is only the manufacturing and industrial activity which can take place on the plot and that too in terms of the prescribed user as per the Master Plan. In some of the cases, the action has also been taken on account of there being sub-letting by the sub-lessees to third-parties. 2. In view of the fact that common questions of law had ...

Cce Vs. Adarsh Steel Rolling Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC382

1. In this appeal which has been filed by the Revenue, the issue relates to the duty liability of the respondents in respect of the scrap arising out of turning and boring of the raw material for the manufacture of the components/parts of the rolling mills.2. The amount of duty involved is only Rs. 9547.65. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dropped this demand after reversing the Order-in-Original by following the ratio of the law laid down in the case of Diesel Components v. CCE, 2000 (70) ECC 277 (T) : 2000 (120) ELT 648. But the ratio of the law laid down in that case appears to had been wrongly applied by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). In that case it has been only observed that scrap/waste arising in the course of dismantling of railway locomotives was not liable to duty, But such is not the position in the present case regarding the scrap on which the duty had been confirmed by the adjudicating authority and set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). The adjudicating authority, ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Girdharilal Sugar Allied

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT350TriDel

1. Since the issue involved in both these appeals is common, the same are taken up together for hearing, 2. None has come present on behalf of the respondents, although the notice for today's hearing was sent to them. No request for adjournment has been also received from them. Therefore, I proceed to decide the appeals on merits after hearing the learned JDR.3. In these appeals, the Revenue has made challenge to the impugned orders vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the orders-in-original and set aside the adjustment of the pre-deposit amount of the respondents towards their duty claim set up by the Department.4. The learned JDR has contended that the pre-deposit amount could be legally adjusted against the outstanding duty amounts which the respondents failed to pay. Therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. But I am unable to subscribe to this contention of the learned JDR. The bare perusal of the impugned orders shows that, in fact, there was no confi...

R.S. Goel and Co. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT447TriDel

1. The appellant made a request to decide the appeal on merits. The appellant challenged the imposition of penalty of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994.2. The appellant is practising as a Chartered Accountant at Jodhpur and on imposition of service tax the Chartered Accountants Society filed a writ petition in the Hon'ble High court of Rajasthan and the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 16.8.2002 while dismissing the writ petition observed as under : - "However, we permit two months time to the practising chartered accountants to comply with the requisite formalities prescribed under the Service Tax law and to pay arrears of service tax. We expect that they department will not take any penal action against practising chartered accountants." 3. The contention of the appellant is also that the subsequent to the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No. 46/(AKD)ST/JPR-II/2003 dated 13.3.2003 set aside the penalty imp...

M.L. Agarwal Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: I(2005)BC79

1. Heard Counsel for the appellant. The appellant has approached this Tribunal with this Miscellaneous Appeal against the impugned order dated 3rd April, 2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the DRT"), declining the request of the appellant to be made a party to O.A. 103/2002 pending before the DRT.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has purchased the property in question on 28th January, 2000, which was subsequently allegedly mortgaged in favour of the 1st respondent-Bank on 11th March, 2000. According to the appellant, he has got in his favour, the agreement to sell, receipt for payment of money, Will, Power of Attorney and Special Power of Attorney to show that he is a purchaser. He also claims that the appellant has been handed over the possession of the property also. The learned Counsel for the appellant points out that the 1st respondent-Bank has obtained an...