Delhi Court June 2004 Judgments

Metro Polymers and ors. Vs. Indian Renewable Energy

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: IV(2004)BC48

1 This appeal has been filed by the defendants in O.A. 472/97 (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant-defendants") against the impugned order dated 28.4.2000 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the DRT") dismissing the application filed by the appellant-defendants to set aside the ex parte final order passed against them on 24.3.1998 in O.A. 472/97.2. The respondent-Indian Renewable Energy Development agency Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent") filed the O.A. before the DRT for the recovery of Rs. 24,86,977 with interest and costs. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT passed the ex parte final order on 24.3.1998 accordingly.3. On 30.11.1998 application to set aside the ex parte final order was filed on behalf of the appellant-defendants. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT after giving opportunity of hearing to both sides dismissed the said application by his order dated 28.4.2000. The ...

Asstt. Dir. It (Exemption) Vs. Prakash Education Society

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Del)1091

ORDERPradeep Parikh, A.M.:Both these appeals by the department are directed against two separate orders of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), dated 13-8-1998 and 20-5-1999, for assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97, respectively. As the issues involved in both the appeals are common, we find it convenient to dispose of both the appeals together by this combined order. The main grievance of the department in both the appeals is against allowing the benefit of section 10(22) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as the Act), to the assessed.2. The assessed is a trust and had declared nil income in both the years under consideration. It is registered society engaged in the running of residential school by the name G.D. Birla Memorial School at Ranikhet. As per its income and expenditure account, the assessed had a total income of Rs. 1,99,64,443. As against this, it had debited expenses amounting to Rs. 1,47,04,829. On perusal of the income and expenditure account, it was ...

Buns and Cones P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT437TriDel

1. The applicants filed these applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duties and penalties. The issues involved in these appeals are whether Blending of Ice cream in a mixer with various flavours to make sundae, shakes etc. amounts to manufacture. The contention of the applicants is that they are receiving duty paid Ice cream, which is already marketable, and on the request of the customers, the applicants are adding some flavour before serving the Ice cream. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicants had a strong case in their favour as they were receiving duty paid Ice cream, which is already marketable, the pre-deposit of whole of the duty and penalties is waived for hearing of the appeals. Adjourned to 24th August, 2004....

Salwan Furnishing Co. Vs. Jt. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)1SOT485(Delhi)

These are cross appeals, one by the assessee and one by the revenue, directed against the order of the CIT (A) dated 21-9-2000 whereby penalty of Rs. 4,99,200 levied by the Joint CIT, Range 23, New Delhi under section 272A(2)(g) for the financial year 1995-96 is reduced to Rs. 24,272.The relevant facts may be indicated at the outset. The deduct or firm has been filing its TDS return in Form No. 26C with the Income Tax Officer, Ward 23(5), New Delhi. On a reference received from the said Income Tax Officer, the Joint CIT issued show-cause notice dated 10-12-1999 for late issue of TDS certificates. In all 35 TDS certificates have been issued late according to the Joint Commissioner and the accumulated delay involved is 4992 days. The penalty order indicates that the details of delay are annexed as per Annexure 'A', date of issue of certificates was not mentioned in the TDS certificates filed along with Form No. 26C and, therefore, Joint Commissioner proceeded on the basis that the date ...

Wipro Ge Medical Systems Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT491TriDel

1. This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai dated 28-11-2003. Under the above order the Commissioner has loaded the value of the goods imported by the assessee by 20%. He has also added the lump sum payment of technical know-how fee to the total value of all parts imported by the appellant from M/s. Yogokawa Medical Systems (YMS) and Affiliates of M/s. GEYMS & Affiliate under Rule 9(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules. (1) Whether the lump sum amounts paid as technical know-how fee by the appellant to M/s. Yogokawa Medical Systems for transfer of technology relating to the manufacture of Ultra Sound Scanners and CT Scanners is required to be added to the value of the imported components (2) Whether loading of the transaction value of medical equipments imported by the appellants by 20% based on instance of one import by a third party is justified specially when the show cause notice did not cont...

R.K. Ispat Udyog and anr. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. There is a duty demand of Rs. 1,67 lakh and penalty of Rs. 40,000 against the first appellant who is the manufacturer of the goods in question. The second appellant was an employee of the first appellant.2. The duty demand has been confirmed by taking resort to the extended period available under proviso to Section 11A to the Central Excise Act, 1944 or the ground that the appellant had collected additional amounts from the buyers, but such realizations were not disclosed to the Central Excise authorities.3. The appellant is not disputing the fact of collection of additional amount or not disclosing that fact to the Central Excise authorities.In these circumstances, proviso to Section 11A is clearly attracted.The appellants' defence is that extended period was not invocable in the present case, because Central Excise authorities had visited the appellant's factory in October 1996 (the duty demand is for the period 1995-96) and they had become aware of the short levy and they could ...

Shivalaya Trading Corpn. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT199TriDel

1. These are two appeals, arising out of common Order-in-Original No.47/2002, dated 29-10-2002 by which the Commissioner Customs has redetermined the anti-dumping duty payable by both the Appellants.2. Shri L.P. Asthana, learned Advocate submitted that both the Appellants imported Acrylic Staple fibre from Taiwan; that the country of Origin was declared as Taiwan as mentioned in the Bills of Entry and port of lading, was declared as Keelung; that the goods were accordingly assessed to duty as of Taiwan origin and was cleared on payment of appropriate duty; that subsequently as a result of search of the premises of the Shipping line M/s. Tata and NYK Transport Ltd. on 3-2-99 certain documents were resumed by the officers which showed that the country of origin as Thailand and not Taiwan; that in terms of Notification No. 81/97-Cus., dated 24-10-97, anti-dumping duty at the rate of Rs. 9.73 per Kg. was leviable on import of acrylic fibre of Thailand origin; that during investigation sta...

Dimension Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C., Icd

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(181)ELT237TriDel

1. These appeals are directed against a common adjudication order AKR/CC/ICD/TKD/49-50, dated 22-9-2003 of the Commissioner of Customs, I.C.D., Tughlakabad, New Delhi. Accordingly, they were taken up together for consideration and are disposed off by this common order.2. The case relates to over invoicing of cycle tyre exports with a view to claiming excessive duty entitlement under Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme (DEPB). The facts of the case are that the first appellant M/s.Dimension Overseas (P) Ltd., filed Shipping Bill No. 1207422, dated 16-4-2002 for export of cycle tyres at a unit value of US $ Rs. 3.95 tyres (Rs. 192/-). This consignment was intercepted and examined by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRT) authorities. Investigations showed that the value of the tyre was about Rs. 26/- per piece, while in the export document the appellant had declared an F.O.13. exports price of Rs. 192/-. The same amount was declared as Present Market Value (PMV) also The export of ...

Haryana Wire Products Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC650

1. In this appeal, M/s. Haryana Wire Products, the Appellants, are challenging the confiscation of copper wire, duty demanded thereon, confiscation of copper rods and duty thereon and penalty imposed on them.2. Shri Naveen Mullick, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture copper wire out of copper rods; that when the Central Excise Officers visited their factory premises on 4.6.98, they intercepted one tempo loaded with 8 rolls of copper wire standing in front of their factory gate; that the officers had also found another 18 bundles of copper rods lying near the factory gate; that one, Shri Praveen Kumar, son of Shri Mahavir Prasad, proprietor of the unit, could not produce the duty-paying documents in respect of both copper wire and copper rods; that, subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner has passed the order confiscating the copper rods, copper wire, etc., which had been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order. The learned Advocate, furth...

Nugas Technologies India (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT376TriDel

1. The contention raised by the appellant in these appeals is that in the process of conversion of old and used diesel operated buses into CNG run buses no manufacturing process is involved. During the process of conversion, there is no major change in the engine of the bus except that the mode of fuel is changed from diesel to CNG. The engine continues to be an internal combustion engine. If that be so, there is no justification in demanding the duty.2. We find, prima facie, merit in the contention raised by the appellant. Under these circumstances, the condition for pre-deposit is waived. There Will be a stay of recovery of the demand. Post for regular hearing on 9-9-2004....