Delhi Court June 2004 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Spbl Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-30-2004
Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC555
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. SPBL Ltd, is whether the man-made fabrics in stock as on 1-3-2001 with them was processed or not.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants process man-made fabrics which attract levy of Central Excise duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act up to 28-2-2001; that with effect from 1-3-2001 the duty became leviable under provisions of Section 3 of the Central Excise Act on ad valorem basis; that the Revenue has demanded Central Excise duty and imposed penalty in respect of stock of 84,407.50 mts. with them as on 1-3-2001 treating them as unfinished fabrics. The learned Advocate, further submitted that the duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act is with reference to the factory and not with reference to the stage at which the goods attained finality after passing through the activity carried on by the factory; that further Notification No. 19/2000-Central Excise, dated 1-3-2000 specifies the rate ...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. S.K. Industries P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-30-2004
Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT165TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue relates to the denial of Modvat credit of Rs. 91,011/- for the period April 98, to the respondents on the strength of invoice issued by M/s. Enkay Texo Food Industries Ltd. (100% EOU).2. I have heard both the sides and gone through the record. The perusal of the record shows that the adjudicating authority disallowed the credit as the supplier of the goods being a 100% EOU, could not issue invoice under Rules 52A and 173G of the Rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority by observing that the appellants had rightly taken the credit of duty as mentioned in the invoice. But he has failed to refer to any Rule or Tariff Heading under which duty at such a high rate was payable on the goods supplied by the supplier to the respondents. Apparently such a rate is not prescribed in the Tariff and as such could not be claimed by the respondents. Moreover, the invoice issued by the supplier, ...
Gopal Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-30-2004
Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT309TriDel
1. Applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 46,53,866/- and penalty of equal amount on the Firm.2. The demand was confirmed on the ground that applicants cleared the final product without payment of duty.3. The contention of the applicants is that the firm Gopal Industries Ltd. was dissolved on 31-3-2001 and the show cause notice was served on one Shri Giresh Kumar Rai whereas Shri Giresh Kumar Rai resigned from Gopal Industries Ltd. on 21-1-2001. No notice was served on the applicants. The contention of the applicants is also that no demand can be raised against the dissolved firm. We find that demand was raised on the basis of private record recovered from the premises of the Firm.The applicants also approached the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the action taken by the adjudicating authority on the ground that the Firm is no more in existence and the Hon'ble High Court directed the partners of the Firm to file reply to the show cause ...
Marks Consolidated Business Ltd. Vs. Industrial Finance Corporation
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-30-2004
Reported in: IV(2004)BC17
1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 18.9.2003 in LA. 446/2003 in Appeal 21/2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT'), by which the learned Presiding Officer declined the request of the appellant herein to refund the sum of Rs. 25 lakhs stated to have been deposited by the appellant with the Recovery Officer.2. By the order dated 4.6.2003 passed in Appeal 21/2003 preferred by the 5th respondent, the Presiding Officer of the DRT set aside the sale in favour of the 8th respondent herein, and while doing so, the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT also directed that the property be re-auctioned, and that the amount deposited not only by the appellant before him (5th respondent herein), but also the amount deposited by any of the respondents before him should be retained by the Recovery Officer till the property is sold in the re-auction.3. The appellant herein, through Basant Bansal, w...
Archirsha Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Industrial Finance Corporation
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-30-2004
Reported in: IV(2004)BC1
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 4.6.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT'). The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, by the said order, allowed the appeal filed by the 4th respondent herein against the order passed by the Recovery Officer in R.C. 116/2001 on 17.4.2003.2. The Recovery Officer had, by his order dated 17.4.2003, dismissed the objections filed by the 4th respondent herein for setting aside the sale in favour of the appellant herein in respect of the property, namely, Plot No. Spl (A&C), RIICO Industrial Area, Bhiwadi. Distt Alwar, Rajasthan, measuring 74764 sq. metres together with all buildings, plant and machinery', fixtures, fittings, and hypothecated goods/assets, etc. (hereinafter refered to as 'the Property in question').3. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, by the impugned order dated 4.6.2003, while allowing the appeal, set aside the sale in favour of the ...
National Steel and Agro Vs. Industrial Finance Corporation
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-30-2004
Reported in: IV(2004)BC22
1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 4.6.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') in Miscellaneous Appeal 21/2003.2. By order dated 4.6.2003 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal 21/2003, preferred by the appellant herein, the Presiding Officer of the DRT set aside the sale in favour of the 4th respondent herein, and while doing so the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT also directed that the property be re-auctioned, and that the sum of Rs. 5.85 crores deposited by the appellant should be retained by the Recovery Officer till the property is sold in re-auction.3. The appellant in this appeal is aggrieved only with that portion of the order whereby the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT directed that the sum of Rs. 5.85 crores deposited by the appellant herein before the Recovery Officer shall be retained by the Recovery Officer, and that after the auction sale the Recovery Officer wil...
Swarup Vegetable Products Indus. Vs. Jt. Commissioner of Income-tax,
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-30-2004
Reported in: (2005)93ITD279(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(Appeals) on various grounds which are as under: 1. That eh authorities below has erred on facts and under the law in disallowance of interest of Rs. 3,15,760/- (correct figure is Rs. 3,17,760/-) paid to the P.N.Bank on amount borrowed for the purpose of renovation addition to plant & machinery thereby treating it as capital expenditure. 2. That the authorities below has erred on facts and under the law in maintaining the disallowance of Rs. 78,353/- being charges/damages for late payment of provident fund debited under the head earlier year expenses claimed at Rs. 9,93,878/-. 3. That the authorities below has erred on facts and under the law in maintaining disallowance of Rs. 50,000/- out of general expenses claimed at Rs. 3,47,233/-without pin pointing any item of inadmissible in nature. 4. That the authorities below has erred on facts and under the law in maintaining addition/disallowance of Rs. 17,73,490/- ...
Rakesh Gupta Vs. Income Tax Officer [Alongwith Ita
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-30-2004
Reported in: (2005)95TTJ(Delhi)1100
1. Since common issue is involved in all these appeals, the same are being disposed of by common order for the sake of convenience. The common issue arising in these appeals relates to the validity of reassessment proceedings.2. Briefly stated, the facts are these : The Parliament introduced a scheme--Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme (VDIS) by Finance Act, 1997. The scheme is contained in Sections 62 to 78 of this Act. Both the assessees made disclosures of income of Rs. 10 lakhs each for the years under consideration in the form of cash vide declarations dt.30th Dec., 1997 accompanied by their affidavits. Since both the assessees did not pay the tax as required by the scheme, the AO issued notices under Section 148 to both the assessees by registered post for the years under consideration. In response to the same, the assessees filed returns disclosing nil income for the years under consideration except for asst. yr. 1990-91 for which no return was filed as according to the asse...
Lufthansa Cargo India Private Vs. Dcit [Alongwith T.D.S. Appeal
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-30-2004
Reported in: (2004)91ITD133(Delhi)
1. These are eight appeals filed by assessee and department against the orders of CIT (Appeals). Out of eight appeals, five appeals arise from a consolidated order passed by the CIT (A) for the three Financial Years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 relevant to Assessment years 1998-99 to 2000-01, respectively. The CIT (A) has partly confirmed the orders Under Section 201/201(1A) passed by the Assessing Officer holding the assessee to be in default for non-deduction of tax at source on payments made to non-resident parties for overhaul of its air-crafts, engines and components etc. She however held that such payments to the residents of UK and USA are not chargeable to tax keeping in view the provisions of the DTAAs with those countries. The Assessee is in the appeal before us for all the three years. The Revenue is in appeal for Financial Years 1998-99 to 1999-00 only. As the issues are common in all the three years, these appeals are disposed by a consolidated order.2. The remaining th...
Haji Nazir HussaIn Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-30-2004
Reported in: (2004)91ITD42(Delhi)
1. The Hon'ble President, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, vide order dated 17.2.2004, has nominated me as Third Member to express my opinion in this case on the following questions as been referred to him by the then Members Under Section 255(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Judicial Member's decision that addition of Rs. 4,38,284/- was unsustainable both on legal and factual ground i s correct or the view taken by the Accountant Member that the said addition rightly came to be made and confirmed under Section 68 of the Act is justified? (2) Whether the Judicial Member has been right in holding that interest Under Section 217 of the Act was not leviable or the Accountant member's view has been correct that the assessee is entitled to only consequential relief after giving effect to the final order passed by the Tribunal?" 2. Brief facts giving rise to this reference are in short compass. The assessee was a forest contr...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »