Delhi Court November 2004 Judgments

Cit Vs. Mayur Recreational and Development Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2005)196CTR(Del)97

B.C. Patel, CJ.In the present appeals, it is pointed out that the Tribunal, Delhi Bench, disposed of ITA No. 2967/Del/1995, for the assessment year 1992-93 on 12-12-2002. Subsequently, an application was moved under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by the assessed. An appeal being IT Appeal No. 168 of 2003, was also filed by the assessed in this court. During the pendency of the appeal, the Tribunal disposed of the assessed's application by passing an order dated 16-3-2004, recalling its earlier order of 12-12-2002. This fact was brought to the notice of this court, which disposed of the assessed's appeal (IT Appeal No. 168 of 2003) on 13-4-2003, as the appeal became infructuous, in view of the recall of order in its entirety. But, as the revenue was aggrieved by the Tribunal's order dated 16-3-2004, recalling the earlier order dated 12-12-2062, in its entirety, it preferred the appeal (IT Appeal No. 491 of 2004), inter alia, raising a ...

Bharti Cellular Limited Vs. Blue Bells Model School

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Feeling aggrieved of the order dated 28.7.1999 passed by the District Forum whereby the appellant was directed to pay Rs. 23,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment the respondent suffered for disconnection of his mobile phone on 27.4.1998 appellant has preferred this appeal. Admittedly the payment of the bill for the month of March, 1998 was payable by 23.4.1998 but was paid on 24.4.1998. Possibility of having failed to post the payment by 27.4.1998 by the appellant in their record cannot be ruled out. 2. Merely because the consumer happened to a Chairman of school does not mean that he is entitled to loss of business by way of mobile telephone. The object of the Consumer Protection Act is only to provide compensation on account of deficiency in service and not by way of loss of business. If consumers are compensated on account of loss of business then there will be no end and providers of service will go bankrupt. Industrialist and b...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Rana Steels

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC357

1. Revenue has filed the present Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.376/04 dated 28-5-04 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the penalty from Rs. 22.87 lakhs to Rs. 1.5 lakh. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of respondents M/s. Rana Steels, Shri Alok Arora, learned Advocate has requested for adjournment of hearing on account of some personal difficulty. As the appeal relates only to the enhancement of penalty, we take up the Appeal for disposal after hearing Shri H.C. Verma, learned Departmental Representative and after perusing the records.2. M/s. Rana Steels manufactured MS rounds, MS bar, channels, angles etc. which attracted Central Excise duty on the basis of annual capacity of production under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act during the relevant period. The Additional Commissioner, Central Excise confirmed the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 22.87 lakhs and imposed equivalent amount of penalty besides directing them to pay interest at the r...

indocom Projects Equipments Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT291TriDel

1. In this Appeal filed by M/s. Indocom Projects Equipments Ltd., the issue involved is whether benefit of Notification No. 5/98-C.E., is available to the goods manufactured by them.2. Shri Naveen Mullick, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufactured various types of machines falling under Chapter 84 and structures for tanks of iron and steel falling under Chapter 73 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that they had classified Bulk Mix Delivery System under Heading No. 8479.10 whereas the Department has classified it under Heading 87.05 of the Tariff and confirmed the demand of duty besides imposing penalty. Learned Advocate, further, submitted that the appellants are not challenging the classification of Bulk Mix Delivery System under Heading No. 87.05; that the benefit of Notification can be claimed at any stage and it cannot be denied merely because they had earlier classified their product under Chapter 84. Finally, he submitted that this being an iss...

Uniworth Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT191TriDel

1. This is an application by M/s. Uniworth Textiles Ltd. for waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty Rs. 6,88417/- and penalty of Rs. 50,000/-.2. Shri Rupesh Kumar, learned Advocate, submitted that the Applicants, a 100% Export Oriented Undertaking, had exported the goods to Nepal availing the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 97/91-C.E., dated 7-10-91; that the benefit of Notification has been disallowed to them on the ground that the concessional rate under the notification is available only if the goods are allowed to be sold in India and since the goods have not been allowed to be sold in India the benefit of this notification will not be available. The learned Advocate contended that if the goods have not been allowed to be sold in India, then the Central Excise duty cannot be demanded in terms of proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Central Excise Act and the duty is payable only under Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act which at the r...

Purolator India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(182)ELT385TriDel

1. The issues involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Purolator India Ltd., relate to determination of assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act and whether the Appellants have cleared new excisable goods in place of defective goods received back in their factory.2. Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, learned Advocate, mentioned that the Appellants manufacture Filter Elements, Inserts and Cartridges and components thereof; that the excisable goods manufactured by them are either sold from their two factories to various vehicle manufacturers or stock transferred to depot where from the goods are stock transferred to various C & F Agents; that the Commissioner under the impugned Order has confirmed demand of duty and imposed penalty, by invoking extended period of limitation holding that the deduction on account of volume discount, cash discount and sales tax from the value is not admissible and that they had removed fresh excisable goods without payment of duty in place of defect...

Sports and Leisure Apparel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT429TriDel

1. The issue involved in these two appeals, filed by M/s. Sports & Leisure Apparel Ltd. and their Company Secretary, is whether the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 15/2000C.E., dated 1-3-2000 (Sri. No. 14) is available to the knitted garments manufactured by them.2. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate, mentioned that the Appellants manufacture knitted/crocheted fabrics, Article s of apparel and clothing accessories; that they do not take Cenvat credit of duty paid on any of the inputs used in the manufacture of woven garments; that they avail exemption in respect of knitted garments under serial No. 14 of Notification No. 15/2000-C.E., since knitted garments are manufactured out of duty paid yarn and fibres; that the duty demand has been confirmed and penalties imposed on both the Appellants by the Adjudicating Authority after denying the benefit of the exemption Notification on the ground that the condition No. 4 of the Notification has not been satisfied.3. The le...

Jal Pac India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT527TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Jal Pac India Ltd., is whether the benefit of Notification No. 94/96-Cus., dated 16-12-96 is available to them.2. We heard Sh. Shita Raman, learned Advocate for the appellants and Sh. D.N. Choudhary, learned S.D.R. for the Revenue.3. The learned Advocate submitted that the appellants manufacture polyester metallised film which is exported by them under Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) Scheme; that they had exported two consignments under Shipping Bill dated 30-4-2001; that the consignments were rejected by the foreign buyer and the consignments were returned to them; that consequently, they had re-imported the goods under Bill of Entry dated 18-9-2002 claiming the benefit of Notification No.94/96; that the said Notification exempted the goods from payment of such duty of customs as is in excess of amount of central excise duty leviable at the time of importation subject to the condition that they produce a DEPB licence before the Cus...

Cambrian Hall Educational Trust Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)93TTJ(Delhi)838

1. Both the above appeals by the assessee are directed against different orders of CIT(A)-I, Dehradun, dt. 11th July, 2003, for asst.yrs. 1995-96 and 1994-95. Since common issues are involved in both the appeals, therefor, both the appeals were heard together and we dispose of the same by this common order.2. Early hearing was granted in the stay petition to hear both the appeals.3. The learned counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that facts in both the appeals are identical and issues are similar, therefore, he would prefer to argue ITA No. 4260/Del/2003 in asst. yr.1995-96. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that the order in ITA No. 4260/Del/2003 may be followed in ITA No.4259/Del/2003. The learned Departmental Representative has no objection if the appeal may be decided in asst. yr. 1995-96 and the order thereon may be followed in asst. yr. 1994-95.4. The learned representatives of both the parties have accordingly argued only in ITA No. 4260/Del/...

United Hotels Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)93TTJ(Delhi)822

1. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order of the learned CIT(A), dt. 26th Feb., 2001, for financial year 1997-98. The grievance of the assessee is against treating the reimbursement of salaries of Rs. 39,55,161 paid to the deputed staff of group hotels as fees for professional and technical services and thereby holding the assessee to be in default for not deducting tax at source. The assessee is also aggrieved against charging of interest under Section 201(1A) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act).2. On verification of the annual TDS return in Form No. 24 along with the P&L a/c and its annexures, it was observed by the AO that an amount of Rs. 39,55,161 had been debited in the P&L a/c as "deputed staff salaries". The amount was stated to have been paid to Taj Palace Hotel and Taj Mahal Hotel as reimbursement towards the salaries of certain personnel of those hotels who were deputed in the hotel of the assessee to render certain services. Nine employees were deputed fro...