Delhi Court March 2004 Judgments

Yamuna Synthetics (P) Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Del)69

ORDERG.S. Pannu, A.M.These two appeals by the assessed are arising out of the respective orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 4-8-2003 and 5-8-2003, pertaining to assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. Since the two appeals by the assessed raise a common ground, they are disposed of by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. Although the assessed has preferred multiple grounds of appeal, but essentially the grievance of the assessed is against the stand of the lower authorities in holding that the transaction of unsecured loan from M/s Sumit Polymers Ltd. was a sham transaction.2. Briefly, the facts and background giving rise to the present dispute can be summarised as follows. The assessed had received loans of Rs. 89.35 lakh and Rs. 33.10 lakh in the two assessment years in question, namely, 1996-96 and 1996-97, respectively, from one M/s Sumit Polymers Ltd. During the course of the impugned assessment proceedings, commenced in terms of section 1...

Dy. Cit Vs. Satya Prakash (individual) and (Huf)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Del)90

ORDERP.N. Parashar, J.M.:These are five appeals of the revenue and the cross-objections of the assesses pertaining to assessment year 1993-94 in the case of co-owners. Since identical issues are involved in these appeals and the cross- objections, these are decided by a common order for the sake of convenience.2. Smt. Parwinder Kaur, learned Departmental Representative, appeared for the revenue and Shri Anand Prakash, learned counsel represented the assessed.ITA No. 208/Del/2002 & C. O. No. 363/Del/20023. The department has taken as many as four grounds in this appeal, but the main issue involved is as to whether the interest received by the assessed on delayed payment were of compensation is a capital receipt or a revenue receipt.4. The facts concerning this matter have been given in detail in the assessment order, dated 29-3-2001, and the appellate order dated 7-11-2001, in the case of Mahesh Chand (Indl.). However, we would like to narrate the relevant facts for deciding the issue i...

V.S.M. India Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT282TriDel

2. Appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi whereby redemption fine of Rs. 75,000/- and penalty of Rs. 75,000/- imposed on the assessee.3. The contention of the appellant is that the goods found in the factory which is not entered in the Statutory record was assessed by the Revenue Officer on the assumption that the goods were manufactured by them. Appellant filed necessary declaration under the KVSS scheme for settlement of the dispute. The same was accepted by Revenue authorities and in pursuance of the order passed by the adjudicating authority appellant deposited the duty in respect of the goods. The appellant relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kedia Great Galleon Ltd. v. CCE, Indore reported in 2001 (135) E.L.T. 218. He submits that in case the matter was settled under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme the redemption fine and penalty cannot be imposed. This view was followed by the decis...

Super Trading Co. and ors. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC507

1. In these 8 appeals, arising out of a common Order-in-Original No.244-52/03 dated 30.5.2003, the issue involved relates to availability of deemed Modvat Credit under Notification No. 58/97-CE dated 30.8.97.2. Shri Balbir Singh, learned Advocate, submitted that all the appellants manufacture M.S. sockets, out of M.S. bars which they procure from M/s. Dhiman Industries Ltd., who were paying Central Excise duty under the provisions of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act; that all the appellants availed of deemed Modvat Credit at the rate of 12% of the invoice value under Notification No. 58/97-CE; that the duty has been demanded and penalties have been imposed on the ground that their supplier M/s. Dhiman Industries Ltd. had not discharged their duty liability as per the annual capacity of production determined by the Commissioner; that the invoices, alongwith which they had received the goods, contain the declaration to the effect that the duty had been paid under Rule 96ZP; that in ...

G.D. International Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC214

1. This appeal at the instance of the exporter is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad dated 29-11-2001.2. The appellant presented for export 147000 ladies skirts under 9 shipping bills dated 1-2-2000, 7-2-2000, 9-2-2000, 9-2-2000, 11-2-2000, 14-2-2000, 15-2-2000, 14-2-2000 and 14-2-2000 for export. Goods under two shipping bills were being exported to Cairo. The other seven to Jordan. The Commissioner passed order confiscating the above goods and allowed redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 1,75,000/-. Drawback claimed by the appellant on the above shipping bills as well as previous eight consignments was denied. Amount of Rs. 10 lakhs was imposed as penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962.Aggrieved by the above, the exporter has come up in appeal.3. The appellant had declared FOB value of Rs. 46,20,603.35 in respect of nine shipping bills referred above and claimed a drawback of Rs. 7,39,296.54. The goo...

indore Wire Company Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC518

1. We have examined the records of the case. The question arising in this case is whether M.S. (Mild Steel) Galvanised Wires manufactured and cleared by the appellants during 1981-82 and 82-83 were classifiable under Tariff Item No. 33B of the First Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 [i.e. the old Central Excise Tariff] as claimed by the department or under T.I. No. 26AA of the said Tariff as claimed by the assessee. The Collector of Central Excise held the classification in favour of the Revenue and confirmed demand of duty of Rs. 23.66 lakhs against the assessee. The appeal preferred against the decision of the Collector was disposed of by this Bench as per Final Order No.E/912/97-B dated 12.12.97. That order also was in favour of the department. The assessee approached the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench) with a writ Petition. The Hon'ble High Court passed the following order: "This court doth order that this petition succeeds and is allowed. Th...

Mahalaxmi International Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC468

1. The appellant M/s. Mahalaxmi International Exports, imported during 1996 and 1997 some consignments of watch components at Jaipur. They were assessed to duty and allowed to be cleared by the Customs Authorities. Subsequently, three show cause notices were issued in 2001 by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence alleging that those consignments had been under-valued and there-by evaded customs duty.The main evidence relied upon in support of the allegation was that customs authorities at Hong Kong had reported to Indian Customs (through consul at Hong Kong) that the actual prices of the consignments were higher than the invoiced amounts and that false invoice values were put down in the invoice under an understanding between the foreign supplier and the Indian importer. The Hong Kong Customs Authorities also forwarded export declarations filed (in respect of some consignments) by the foreign supplier before Hong Kong Customs in support of their report that the price declarations we...

Cce Vs. Punjab Alkalis and Chemicals Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC71

1. The issue raised in this appeal at the instance of the Revenue is whether hydraulic testing charges collected by the assessee from its customers has to be included in the assessable value of caustic soda, hydrochloric acid, hydrogen gas, liquid chlorine manufactured by the assessee. Commissioner (Appeals) took the view that in the light of the Board's Circular No. 7/89-CE dated 7.7.89 such charges are not liable to be added to the assessable value of the products manufactured by the assessee. Aggrieved by above, the Revenue has come up in appeal.2. Respondent is engaged in the manufacture of caustic soda, Hydraulic Acid, Hydrogen Gas, Liquid Chlorine etc. Show cause notice sought to add hydraulic testing charges collected by the assessee from its customers as part of value of goods produced by the assessee. Before filling the gas into tonners hydraulic test is conducted with respect to the tonners. The assessee collected charges from their customers.Revenue contended that hydraulic...

Late Shri K.M. Bijli, Through Vs. Dcit, Spl. Range 35

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1.These two appeals have been filed by the legal heir of the assessee against separate orders of the ld. CIT(A) dated 3.8.1998 and 2.1.2001 for assessment year 1982-83. Both these appeals pertained to the same assessment year 1982-83 in the case of late Shri K.M. Bijli. In the first appeal ITA No.4779/98, the impugned order of the CIT (A) is against setting aside of the reassessment made by the Assessing Officer dated 30.3.1998 whereas the second appeal bearing No. 253/2001 is against the CIT (A)'s order dated 2.1.2001 sustaining certain additions made by the Assessing Officer vide the reassessment dated 3.3.2001. The controversy arising in these two appeals has unfortunately traversed a torturous path of litigation involving as many as three successive reassessments made by the Assessing Officer three times whereas the matter has been adjudicated by the first appellate authority on three different occasions. This is the second time that the same issue has come up before us, the earli...

Narinder Singh @ Narinder Bahadur Vs. Rajinder Prasad

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 110(2004)DLT618; 2004(74)DRJ39

Vikramajit Sen, J. 1.This Revision has been filed by the Petitioner stating therein that 'due to recent amendments in the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a legal bar has been created to the filing of the present Revision Petition, but still there is a remedy for invoking of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.' It has then been prayed that the present Petition be converted into one under Article 227 of the Constitution. In this regard reference may be made to Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur vs . Swaraj Developers and Others, : [2003]3SCR762 in which the Apex Court had clarified that a Revision is not maintainable against interlocutory Orders. The Applicant appears to be aware of this judgment. In this very decision, however, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:'35. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that even if the revision applications are held to be not maintainable, there shoul...