Delhi Court December 2004 Judgments

Dhar Cement Ltd. and ors. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(121)LC65Tri(Delhi)

1. The appellant filed these appeals against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise whereby the benefit of Notification No. 24/91-CE dt. 25.7.1991 and 5/93 dt. 28.2.1993 was denied to the appellant.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Ordinary Portland Cement falling under Chapter 25 of Central Excise Tariff. The appellant availed the benefit of above mentioned notifications and cleared the cement at concessional rate of duty. A SCN was issued to the appellant on the ground that annual capacity of the plant is more than 1,98,000 tonnes per annum, therefore, they are not entitled for the benefit of concessional rate of duty as per the provisions of notification.3. The adjudicating authority denied the benefit of notification. The appellant filed an appeal and the Tribunal vide Final Order No.60-62/02-C dt. 15.3.2002 remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority with the direction to approach competent auth...

Acit Vs. Smt. Pushpa Devi JaIn [Alongwith

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)93ITD289(Delhi)

1. These are 26 appeals relating to the same group of assessees. Common facts are involved and common issues are to be adjudicated in these appeals. For the sake of convenience, these are being decided by a combined order.2. Shri Salil Agarwal, Advocate represented the assessee. Shri Rananjay Singh, DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.3. In these three appeals, the revenue have taken the following common grounds : "1. Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that capital gain is not taxable in respect of sale agreement dated 7.9.91 in pursuance of which possession over property was transferred to the buyer who constructed shops and payments of Rs. 55,00,000/- was received through cheques. 2. Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that there was no transfer of property whereas A.O. had sufficient material on record to substantiate that there was transfer of property within the provisions of Section 2(47) and 53A of I.T. Act, 1961. 3. Ld. CIT (A) has erred in ...

Sri Shanmuga Bleaching Works Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC790

1. The following question has been referred to the Larger Bench for consideration : - "Whether, in the facts of this case, the appellants are entitled to file an application for rectification of mistake with reference to Final Order Nos. 258-260/2001, dated 9-2-2001 at any time within four years from the said date notwithstanding the amendment to Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 under Section 140 of the Finance Act, 2002?" 2. Shri K.R. Natrajan, learned Advocate for M/s. Sri Shanmuga Bleaching Works has sent written submissions with a request to decide the matter on merit. We, therefore, heard Shri Kumar Santosh, learned SDR, and perused the records and written submissions made by the Appellants.Sub-section (2) of Section 35C of Central Excise Act provided before this amendment by Section 140 of the Finance Act, 2002 that the Appellate Tribunal may at any time within 4 years from the date of the Order, with a view to rectify any mistake apparent from the record, amend any O...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. National Publicity

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)STR112

1. The proceeding relates to claim of interest on service tax. The respondent had deposited a cheque towards service tax within the time limit. However, interest claim was made on the ground that the date of transferring the amount by the bank should be taken as the date of payment. In appeal, the Commissioner set aside the claim with the following observation : I have carefully gone through the case record & submissions made by appellant. I observe that the bankers cheque was presented to the designated bank on due date i.e 15-3-97. The cheque was honoured by the bank. In the light of, Directorate of Service Tax, Mumbai's Circular issued vide F. No. V/DGST/30-Misc 46/2000, dated 28-3-2000 clarifying that in the cases where service tax amount has been deposited in an authorized bank by cheque, before the due date and this cheque is not dishonoured later on, the department need not initial proceeding for recovery of interest/penalty etc. I here by set aside the order of adjudicatin...

Stericat Gutstrings P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC823

1. Shri Bipin Garg, learned Advocate pleaded that the appellants are manufacturing surgical sutures and sending these for sterlisation to Bhaba Atomic Research Centre, Bombay and Shri Ram Institute of Industrial Research, Delhi. These surgical sutures become excisable only after sterlisation. During the relevant period, the appellants were under the impression that sterilisation is being done by BARC and Shri Ram Institutes of Industrial Research, the goods become excisable at their premises and they are liable to duty. But in 1996, the Tribunal has decided the issue against them and held that the appellants are liable to pay the duty. The period of dispute i.e. on 27.12.1991, the officers of Central Excise visited their factory premises and seized surgical sutures which they had received from their job workers for clearance to customers. Shri Bipin Garg pleads that they are not disputing the duty which they had already paid. But he disputed the quantum of redemption fine and penalty ...

Acit Vs. Shakti Builders

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)93ITD269(Delhi)

1. A short but interesting question has arisen in this appeal for our consideration regarding interpretation of the proviso to Section 142A inserted by Finance Act 2004 with retrospective effect. In the present case, the addition of Rs. 12,81,468/- was made by A.O. on account of unexplained investment in construction of a building at P-2, Sriniwaspuri, New Delhi on the basis of difference in the investment declared by assessee and the valuation of cost of construction made by Departmental Valuation Officer in pursuance of the reference made by A.O. On appeal, the CIT(A), on facts, reduced the addition to Rs. 1,12,382/-. Aggrieved by the same, the revenue has preferred this appeal.2. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for assessee submitted before us that the order of CIT(A) has to be upheld in view of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Amiya Bala Paul 130, Taxman 511 wherein it has been held that reference made by A.O. for determining the cost of construction was without jurisdicti...

international Airports Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)95ITD101(Delhi)

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-XVI, New Delhi, dated 18-3-1997, and in ground No. 1 raised therein, the assessee has challenged the action of learned CIT(A) in not admitting the additional grounds sought to be raised during the course of appellate proceedings before him whereas ground Nos. 2 and 3 relate to merits of the issues raised in the said additional grounds.The relevant facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are as follows. The assessee- company is a Government of India undertaking vested with ownership, management and running of airports in India. It also renders consultancy services and undertakes designing and construction of airports both in India and abroad. A return of income was filed by it for the year under consideration on 31-12-1993, declaring a total income of Rs. 1,06,20,30,860. The assessment came to be made under section 143(3) by the assessing officer vide his order dated 19-3-1996, assessing the total income a...

international Airport Authority Vs. Dcit, Special Range-14

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)95TTJ(Delhi)1075

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-XVI, New Delhi dated 18/3/97 and in ground No. 1 raised therein, the assessee has challenged the action of learned CIT(A) in not admitting the additional grounds sought to be raised during the course of appellate proceedings before him whereas ground Nos. 2 and 3 relate to merits of the issues raised in the said additional grounds.2. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are as follows. The assessee company is a Government of India undertaking vested with ownership, management and running of airports in India. It also renders consultancy services and undertakes designing and construction of airports both in India and abroad. A return of income was filed by it for the year under consideration on 31/12/93 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,06,20,30,860/-. The assessment came to be made Under Section 143(3) by the Assessing Officer vide his order dated 19/3/96 assessing the total income at R...

C.M. Prints Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants filed refund claim of Rs. 1,98,528/- on 24.4.03 consequent to the order-in-Appeal dated 27.3.2003 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in their appeal. The refund claim was sanctioned to them. But no finding was given on their request for interest. They, therefore, filed an application for refund of interest and the Asstt.Commissioner, Division - V, under his letter dated 4.9.03 informed them the under section 11BB of Central Excise Act, there is no provision of interest for the whole period from the payment of duty to the sanction of claim. Their claim was received in his office on 24.4.2003 and the same was sanctioned on 17.7.2003 within three months. Against this letter, they filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) after considering their pleas, came to the conclusion that refund arose as a consequential relief as their appeal appeal was allowed. The refund was allowed within three months of is filing. Therefore, he rejected the ...

Laxmi Iron and Steel Re-rolling Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC321

1. The issue involved in these two appeals filed by M/s. Laxmi Iron & Steel Rerolling Mills Ltd. and Shri DN Jain, Partner is whether the demand of Central Excise duty is time barred under the provisions of Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture iron and steel products; that they classified the products manufactured by them under sub-heading 7214.90 under the Classification List effect from 20.3.1990; that the Assistant Commissioner approved the classification on 24.4.90, classifying the product under sub-Heading 7211.30 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that on Appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) also rejected their Appeal; that the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 336/2000-B dated 3.3.2000 remanded the matter to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner for physical verification of the goods before deciding the classification list; that the demand has been confirmed for the period 26.3.990 t...