Delhi Court January 2004 Judgments

Director of Income Tax Vs. Hcl Infosystems Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Del)108; [2005]274ITR261(Delhi)

ORDER1. As pointed out by the Tribunal, the IT Department after a lapse of six years issued notices requiring the assessed to show cause why the remittances made by it to Hewlett Packard (USA) in respect of salaries paid by HP (USA) on behalf of the assessed to four 'foreign technicians'/expatriates, be not treated as 'fee for technical services' and why the assessed should riot be treated as an assessed-in-default for not deducting tax from the said payment under Section 195 of the IT Act. Considering the documents placed on record and various other documents, the Tribunal has arrived at a conclusion that the remittances were by way of 'salaries' and were not 'fee for technical services' as claimed by the Revenue. It is specifically observed by the Tribunal that the presumption raised by the learned CIT(A) cannot be sustained in view of the fact that insofar as HP (USA) is concerned, the fee for technology transfer and for the transfer of know-how by HP (USA) to HP (India) has already...

Vachanband Investment Ltd. Vs. Ito

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)89TTJ(Del)862

ORDERR.K. GUPTA, J.M.This is an appeal by assessed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) relating to assessment year 1991-92. The assessed has challenged the reopening of assessment under section 147 and also challenged the disallowance of hundred per cent depreciation claimed on bottles leased out to Mansarover Bottling Co. ITD.2. The brief facts of the case are that a search was conducted on assessed on 9-3-1999 and on the basis of material found during the course of search, notice under section 148 was issued on 22-3-2001. The block assessment was also completed on 30-4-2001, for the block period from 1-4-1989 to 9-3-1999. During the course of search the statement of Shri Nitin Kohli was recorded, who has stated that some financial arrangements were entered into between the assessed- company and Mansarover Bottling Co. ITD. From the assessment records the assessing officer noted that return declaring an income of Rs. 93,590 was filed on 31-3-1993. It was processed under sectio...

Guards Security Services (Regd.) Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)2STR79

1. Appellants filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The adjudicating authority confirming the demand of service tax Rs. 84073.40 and imposed equal amount of penalty under Section 76 and 78.2. Appellants are not challenging the amount confirmed by the adjudicating authority as arrears of service tax. However, the appellants are only challenging the amount of quantum of penalty.Appellants relied upon the decision of Tribunal in the case of Aakar Communication & Anr. Vs. CCE, Jaipur-II, reported in 2003-Taxindiaonline-73-CESTAT-Del where by the Tribunal held that penalty under the Finance Act, 1944 is discretionary and not mandatory.The adjudicating authority has discretion to impugned lesser the amount of penalty.3. In this case equal amount of penalty was imposed. In view of the above decision of the Tribunal and taking into facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty is reduced to Rs. 10,000/- Rupees Ten thousand only). The appeal...

Calton Instruments (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. (Appeals)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT174TriDel

1. Appellants filed these appeals against the common order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of A/C Kits. On 22-3-2001 the Officers of Central Excise Department visited the factory of the appellants and during the verification of the stock, 34 A/C Kits were found excess to their recorded RG-I record. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and imposed the redemption fine of Rs. 20,000/- and also imposed penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on Shri Narinder Narang, Director of the appellant's Firm.4. The contention of the appellants is that 34 A/C Kits were their day's production and as the officers visited the factory at about 12.30 P.M. as these kits are to be entered in their statutory record as their day's production. Therefore, the contention of the appellants is that they are not liable for confiscation.5. In respect of the penalty imposed on Shri Narinder Narang, Director of the appellant's Firm...

Sumi Mothersons Innovative Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC391

1. Appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal whereby the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of capital goods (moulds) was denied to the appellants.2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are manufacturing plastic parts and components of the motor vehicles and were availing the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of inputs as well as capital goods. The appellants manufacturing moulds in their factory on specific orders from M/s. General Motors India Ltd. and paid duty on these moulds. The M/s. General Motors India Ltd. entrusted these moulds to the appellants for further manufacture of various plastic components and parts of the motor vehicles for M/s. General Motors India Limited.A show cause notice was issued to the appellants on the ground that they were not entitled for the credit in respect of the duty paid on these moulds as the invoices were not in the name of the appellants.The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty.Appellants fil...

Nutech Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC612

1. This is an Appeal filed by Nutech Industries Ltd. against Order-in-Original No. 02/Commr/LKO/2003 dt. 6.6.2003. Shri P.N.Awasthi, learned advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufactured parts of arms and ammunitions which were classified by them under sub Heading 8485.90 of Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that under the impugned order the Commissioner has classified the parts under Heading 93.06 of Tariff and confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000 on them; that they are not disputing the demand of duty but they are challenging the imposition of penalty, computation of the duty and requested for the permission to avail of Modvat credit. He further, submitted that once the product is held to be liable to Central Excise duty, it is settled law that the Modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs will be available to them; that the Commissioner has disallowed the Modvat credit on the ground that they had not complied with proced...

Diamond Cement Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal which has been preferred by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the availability of the modvat credit of the amount in question of the certified copy of the invoice.2. So far as receipt, duty paid character, of the inputs and the utilisation of the same in the final products by the appellant is concerned, the same remains undisputed. The only ground on which credit has been disallowed to them is that they failed to produce the duplicate copy of the relevant invoice. But from the order-in-original, I find that on account of loss of the duplicate copy as well as of the original copy, the appellants procured certified copy of the invoice from the Inspector of Central Excise and produced the same before the competent authority. The learned Counsel has contended that at the time of taking credit, the duplicate as well as the original invoices were with the appellants and the same were lost only in transit. In the other hand the learne...

Forech India Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC400

1. Appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Conveyor Belts, Transmission Belts and appellants were availing the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of the inputs used in their final product on 22.11.2000. The Officers of the Revenue Department visited their factory and it was found that there was a shortage of Dipped Synthetic Fabrics which is used as inputs in their final product. On verification, it was also found that there was excess stock of the finished goods as per their recorded balance. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants for denying the Modvat on Dipped synthetic fabrics and for confiscation of the goods found in excess.The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand in respect of the duty of Rs. 23040 in respect of Dipped synthetic fabrics which were found excess and the confiscation of the goods found in excess allowed the exces...

Cce Vs. Ratlam Wires Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC634

1. In this appeal, the Revenue has questioned the validity of the impugned Order-in-Appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the Order-in-Original and set aside the duty and penalty besides allowing modvat credit, as confirmed on them by the adjudicating authority.2. None has come present on behalf of the respondents, They have sent a letter intimating that their consultant had fallen ill and the appeal may either be adjourned or decided after taking into account their cross-objections and case law referred therein. Therefore, I proceed to decide the appeal after hearing the learned SDR and going through the cross-objections of the respondents. On 22.8.1997 the Preventive Staff of the Central Excise, Indore, paid a surprise visit to the factory of the respondents. They checked the record as well as conducted physical verification of the stock of the finished goods and inputs lying in the factory. On physical verification, the shortage of finished goods (Iron or non al...

B.C. Bhandari Vs. M/S. Amarjit Singh Johar and Sons

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Mahesh Chandra, Member: 1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant Sh. B.C. Bhandari against M/s. Amarjit Singh Johar and Sons, under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant agreed to purchase from the O.P. a flat on the first floor of property No. N-57, Greater Kailash -I, New Delhi. The flat consisted of Drawing-cum-Dining Hall with front canopy, one bed room with a bath room and a small balcony, a kitchen and part of terrace on the front side of the property. The entire sale consideration of Rs. 8,50,000/- was paid and Agreement to Sell was executed between the complainant and the O.P. In the Agreement to Sell a reference was made of Plan attached under the head Description of the Flat showing front side of the terrace sold by the O.P. to the complainant. 3. The case of the complainant is that the O.P. did not attach the said plan with the Agreement to Sell and subsequen...