Delhi Court June 2004 Judgments

Plasser India (P) Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)84TTJ(Delhi)1024

1. This appeal has been filed by the assessge on 11th Dec., 2000, against the order of the learned CIT(A)-XXI, New Delhi, dt. 28th Sept., 2000, in the case of the assessee in relation to the assessment order under Section 143(3) for asst. yr. 1997-98. In this case, the assessee took originally five grounds of appeal. Thereafter, on 22nd June, 2004, the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee has requested for admission of two additional grounds of appeal being grounds Nos. 6 and 7. After hearing the parties, we have allowed, in the interest of justice, the additional grounds of appeal to be taken by the assessee.2. Grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 4 and 5 are general and the same are covered by subsequent grounds of appeal.3. Grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3 are directed against the order of the CIT(A) not allowing the assessee's claim of deduction on account of warranty obligation. During the course of hearing before us, the learned Authorised Representative fairly conceded that the...

Super Cassette Industries Ltd. Vs. Entertainment Network (India) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2004Delhi326; 112(2004)DLT549

Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 20th October, 2003 passed by the Copyright Board at New Delhi in Case No. 10/2003. Appellant's main grievance is against the direction of the Copyright Board directing the Registrar of Copyrights to grant a compulsory license under Section 31(1)(b) of the Copyrights Act, 1957. 2. It is alleged that the appellant is one of the leading music companies engaged in the production and/or acquisition of rights in sound recordings. According to the appellant, through keen perception of ever changing consumer practices, infrastructural investment, technological upgradations and a skilled, cohesive work force, and an aggressive commitment towards quality, companies such as the appellant play a vital role in creating the music which then become available for the mass consumption.3. According to the appellant its most valuable asset is the copyrights in cinematographic films and sound recordings. The music of the appellant is ...

Jt. Cit Vs. Apten Corpn.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2004]140TAXMAN57(Delhi)

ORDERP.M. Jagtap, A.M.This appeal is preferred by the revenue against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals)-X, New Delhi dated 1-11-1999.2. In ground No. 1, the revenue has challenged the action of learned Commissioner (Appeals) in directing the assessing officer to allow deduction under section 80-O as claimed by the assessed.3. In this case, return of income was filed by the assessed declaring a total income at Rs. 26,89,800. In the said return, the assessed had claimed deduction under section 80-O to the extent of Rs. 44,99,385. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer asked the assessed to file copy of agreement with the foreign client, as well as note of its activities in support of its claim for deduction under section 80-O. In reply, it was submitted by the assessed that deduction under section 80-O has been claimed in respect of the consultancy fees received by it from Ws. Sumitomo Corporation, Japan for rendering technical and engineering consul...

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited Vs. Ishwar Chand Gupta

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.3.1999 passed by District Forum-I, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 1094/1996-entitled Sh. Ishwar Chand Gupta v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited and Another. 2. The facts, in brief, leading to the filing of the instant appeal are that the respondent was subscriber of telephone No. 2523530 and was receiving bills not exceeding Rs. 355/- in respect of the said telephone. However, the respondent received a highly excessive bill dated 1.12.1992 for Rs. 94,349/- for the period 16.9.1992 to 15.11.1992. Accordingly, the respondent represented to the appellant and requested the appellant to take the telephone in safe custody and also requested for the supply of details of the calls. However, despite repeated requests and reminders no action was taken by the appellant on the said representation whereas on the other hand the telephone of the complainant was disconnected for non-payment of bill...

Margra Industries Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC91

1. In this appeal at the instance of the importer challenge is against the order passed by the Commissioner dated 7-7-2003. The issue coming up for consideration is whether Marble Block imported by the appellant from Italy and Oman with one side polished can be considered as polished Marble Block or as rough Marble Block for the purpose of classification and Import Export Policy for the year 2002-2007. If the goods are treated as rough Marble Block their import is restricted under a specific import licence. Admittedly, the appellants had no such licence. Second issue relates to the valuation of the goods.2. Commissioner has held that Marble Blocks in question are to be treated as rough Marble Blocks classifiable under Heading 2515.12.Rejecting the declared value, he assessed that Marble Block at US $ 305 PMT invoking the provisions of Rule 6 of the Customs Valuation Rules.He further ordered confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) & (m) of the Customs Act. A redemption fine ...

Steel Industries of Hindustan Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC797

1. M/s. Steel Industries of Hindustan have challenged the demand of duty and penalty confirmed against them by the Commissioner Central Excise (Appeals) under the impugned Order.2. Shri Rajesh Chibber, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture Re-rolled products which attracted Central Excise duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act during the relevant period; that during the period from April 1998 to March 1999 their factory remained closed at different periods and some time for more than 15 days; that accordingly they had not deposited the amount of duty under the belief that they were eligible to the abatement of duty on account of closure of factory under Sub-section (3) of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, read with Rule 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that they had filed abatement claims from time to time with the competent authority; that, however, they were issued a show cause notice proposing demand of duty on the ground that during April ...

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Modi Olivetti Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)84TTJ(Delhi)1038

1. ITA No. 2245/Del/1999 is an appeal by the assessee and ITA No.2143/Del/1999 is an appeal by the Revenue, and both the appeals are directed against the order of CIT(A)-I, Meerut, dt. 26th Feb., 1999, relating to the asst. yr. 1991-92.2. First, we shall take up the appeal of the assessee, i.e., ITA No.2245/Del/1999 for consideration.3. Grounds No. 1.1 to 1.4 of the grounds of appeal of the assessee read as follows : "1.1 That the CIT(A) erred on the facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 77,16,120 being advertisement expenses debited as deferred revenue expenditure in the books of account. 1.2 That the CIT(A) erred in holding that the expenditure in question does not pertain to the year. 1.3 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the double addition of Rs. 29,51,509 being the deferred revenue expenditure written off in the books of account and added back by the appellant in its return of income. 1.4 That the CIT(A) erred in holding that the appellant ...

O.K. Play (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC256

1. Appeal Nos. E/1221/2004 and E/1944/2004 are at the instance of assessee M/s. O.K. Play (I) Ltd. challenging the orders passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Gurgaon dated 28-11-2003 and 20-4-2004.Appeal No. E/1210/2004 filed by the assessee and appeal No. E/2360/2004 filed by the Revenue are both directed against order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), D-III, Gurgaon dated 6-2-2004. Since the issues for consideration in these appeals are common and the assessee is the same, we propose to dispose of the appeals under a common order.2. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of various types of toys for children. Pursuant to two show cause notices dated 1-5-97 and 4-11-97 a duty demand of Rs. 2,31,47,904/- was raised against the assessee invoking the extended time under proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. A penalty of Rs. 2,50,29,984/- was also sought to be imposed. Confiscation of land, building, plant and machinery was proposed under Rule 173Q. Th...

Goetze (India) Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC656

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal whereby the refund claim was rejected. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that the discounts in the assessable value were claimed by the appellants by way of refund after the finalization of provisional assessment.2. The appellants were clearing the goods and were paying duty on provisional basis. The assessment was finalized and the discounts in the claim in the present refund application were disallowed by the Competent Authority while finalizing the assessment. The finalisation of assessment was not challenged by the appellants. It is an admitted fact that the finalization of assessment is an appealable order.Instead of filing appeal, the appellants filed the refund claim. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Frick (India) Ltd. v. Collector, 2000 (71) ECC 4 (SC) : 2000 (120) ELT 285 held that the refund claim without challenging the appealable order, is not maintainable. In view of t...

C.T. Scan Research Centre (P) Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus., Icd

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC480

1. The issue involved in this appeal relates to the availability of benefit of Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988 to the C.T. Scan Machine imported by M/s. C.T. Scan Research Centre (P) Ltd. 2 Shri A.K. Jain, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants imported one Computerised Axial Tomography Scanner and a spare C.T.X-Ray Tube and availed the benefit of Notification No. 64/88-Cus. under Bill of Entry dated 24-7-91; that a show cause notice dated 17-9-98 was issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Customs to show cause as to why goods imported by them should not be confiscated and why penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 112 of the Customs Act, that the Commissioner, under the impugned Order, has confiscated the impugned goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 25 lakh and appropriate duty and has imposed a penalty of Rs. 2.5 lakh on the Appellants On the ground that they have not fulfilled the conditions specified in th...