Delhi Court June 2004 Judgments

J.C.i.T., Spl. Range-14 Vs. National Agriculture

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)92ITD35(Delhi)

1. Through this misc. petition Under Section 254(2) of the Act, the revenue states as under:- "Vide orders No. 4648 to 6656/D/96 dated 31.8.98 the ld. Members of ITAT, D-Bench, New Delhi, have decided that the assessee, M/s NAFED, is entitled to deduction Under Section 80(P)(2)(a)(iii). The assessee, which is a cooperative society, is an apex body having several cooperative societies as its members. Its income, inter alia, included the income from marketing of the produce of its members. The assessee claims that its income was eligible for deduction Under Section 80(P)(2)(a)(ii). The claim of the assessee was endorsed by the Hon'ble Delhi Cooperative Apex Marketing Society Ltd. v. CIT (Addl.) 201 ITR 338, the Hon'ble Supreme Court took a divergent view and held that the "agricultural produce of its members as appearing in Section 81(1)(c) meant that the agricultural produce produced by its members". As the assessee was marketing the produce of its members, which was not necessarily pr...

Onkar Engineers (P) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)84TTJ(Delhi)776

1. The only ground taken by the assessee in this appeal is that the IT authorities erred in facts and law in bringing the income from letting out of the godown and factory shed to charge under the head 'income from house property' instead of under the head 'business'. It is stated that they ought to have followed the order of the Tribunal for the asst. yr. 1992-93 in the assessee's own case.2. The assessee is a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of engineering goods and also carrying out job work and trading in emergency lamps and torches. During the year under consideration, the company let out part of the factory shed and godown to M/s Global Export for storage and packing of goods. In the return, the assessee claimed that the rental income of Rs. 1,36,000 shall be assessed under the head business. On this basis, the expenses on account of payment to the staff amounting to Rs. 96,600 and administrative expenses of Rs. 35,379 were claimed against the rental income. The AO to...

M.W.P. Migma Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC146

1. The appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of CI castings. On 27.10.98 the officer of Revenue visited the factory of the appellant and during verification of the stock, it was found that there was excess stock of finished goods and there was also shortage of some of finished goods compared with the recorded balance in RG-I register. The goods found in excess, the adjudicating authority confiscated the same and in respect of the goods found short the demand was confirmed. Some amount of Modvat credit was also denied on the ground that the capital goods on which the credit was taken are not covered under the definition of capital goods. The goods, which were confiscated, were allowed to be redeemed on payment of a fine of Rs. one lakh and penalties imposed on the appellant.3. The contention of the appellant is that the entry of production in RG-1...

Hast Shilp Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC345

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The brief facts of the case are that on 24.1.97, the Officers of Revenue Department visited the office premises of M/s. Kurlon Limited and on verification it was found that M/s. Kulon Limited were purchasing pillows from the present appellant with brand name of M/s.Kurlon Limited. Thereafter the Officers of Revenue Department made enquiry from the present appellant and it was found that that the present appellants entered into a contract with M/s. Kurlon Limited for supply of pillows and one of the condition of the agreement was that pillows will carry the brand name of "Kalpana Valvet Touch" of M/s.Kurlon Limited. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants demanding duty after denying SSI exemption on the ground that the appellants were clearing the branded goods without payment of duty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed the equal penalty amount unde...

K.L. Concast Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC774

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. K.L. Concast Ltd., is whether the value of clearances of excisable goods liable to Central Excise duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of ascertaining the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods for home consumption during the preceding financial year.2. Shri Rajesh Chibber, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture shapes, sections, bars and rods of non-alloy steel; that prior to 1-4-2000 they were working under Compounded Levy Scheme as envisaged in Section 3A of the Central Excise Act; that from 1-4-2000 the duty became liable to be discharged on the goods manufactured by them under Section 3 on ad valorem basis in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act; that they filed a declaration claiming benefit of SSI Notification No. 9/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000; that the Dy.Commissioner under Order-in-Original No. 166/2000, dated 18-12-2000 dis...

Union Metals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT329TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal is whether M/s. Union Metals are clearing excisable goods manufactured by them bearing the brand name of another person.2. Shri Vipin Garg, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture Footrest out of footrest pressure die casting received from LML; that the product manufactured by them does not bear any brand name; that the Footrest is supplied back in corrugated sheets which also admittedly does not bear any brand name; that plastic tape purchased from the manufacturer bearing the words 'LML' and 'PIAGGIO' is used to wrap corrugated sheet packet containing Footrest; that the Joint Commissioner under Order-in-Original No. 66/2001, dated 13-9-2001 has disallowed the benefit of small-scale exemption and confirmed the duty besides imposing equal amount of penalty on the ground that the goods have been removed bearing the brand name of another person; that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected their appeal under the impugned Order. Th...

Astro Auto Ancillaries (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT478TriDel

1. The appellant manufactures components from C.R. Sheets and strips, Under the impugned order duty demand has been raised on the basis that the "appropriate rate" of scrap arising in the said manufacture would be 18% of raw materials consumed, while the appellant's books of accounts indicated a wastage of only 12% and that duty was being paid only in respect of such lower percentage. It is also stated in the order that the Managing Director of the appellant had admitted in his statement that the appropriate rate of wastage was 18%.2. The appellant's contention in the present appeals is that the order has been based on presumptions and assumptions and that the findings are internally contradictory.3. We have perused the records and heard the learned SDR also. We find merit in the appellant's contentions. The dispute is in relation to a fact as to what was the metal scrap generated in the appellant's factory during the period in question, in the manufacture of parts.Appellant's account...

All India Personality Vs. Dcit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against the order of block assessment Under Section 158BC passed by DCIT-II, New Delhi. The Block Period comprised of 1.4.88 to 15.1.99.2. Briefly stated, the facts are these: The assessee is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. This Society was set up in 1980. The main object of the society is to establish schools in India and to prove good quality education to all without distinction of race or creed or caste or social status. It did not file any return of income for any assessment year under the bonafide belief that it was not required to file any return of income in as much as the income of the society was totally exempt under the provisions of Section 10(22) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short Act). A survey operation as well as search and seizure operation was carried out at the premises of the assessee on 15^th January, 1999. In response to notice Under Section 158BC, the assessee filed the block return declaring nil undisclo...

All India Personality Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)85TTJ(Delhi)514

1. This appeal is directed against the order of block assessment under Section 158BC passed by Dy. CIT-II, New Delhi. The block period comprised of 1st April, 1988 to 15th Jan., 1999.2. Briefly stated, the facts are these : The assessee is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. This society was set up in 1980. The main object of the society is to establish schools in India and to provide good quality of education to all without distinction of race or creed or caste or social status. It did not file any return of income for any assessment year under the bona fide belief that it was not required to file any return of income inasmuch as the income of the society was totally exempt under the provisions of Section 10(22) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short Act). A survey operation as well as search and seizure operation was carried out at the premises of the assessee on 15th Jan., 1999. In response to notice under Section 158BC, the assessee filed the block return d...

Prem Pharmaceuticals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC514

1. Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of medicaments which include various variations of Intra Venus Fluids (IV Fluids) falling under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.2. A common issue, namely, whether appellants' claim for exemption under Notification No. 6/2000 as amended by Notification No. 36/2000, dated 4-5-2000 for IV Fluids in respect of their product is justified is raised in these appeals. Since identical issues are raised by the appellants, we propose to dispose of the appeals under this common order.3. Appellants were manufacturing IV Fluids for the last so many years and from time to time they had been filing classification declarations under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 along with the labels and the same were approved by the competent authority. After 1994, the appellants submitted classification declaration and paid central excise duty accordingly without any objection from the Central Excise Department.4. M/s. Prem appellants in E/...