Delhi Court December 2005 Judgments

Lav Kush Textiles Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Even though the matter is listed today for consideration of stay application, upon hearing both sides and perusing the records, we find that appeals themselves can be disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, we take up the appeals after waiving the requirement for pre-deposit.2. Duty demand of over Rs. 1 lakh and penalties are the subject of the appeals. The appellant assessee is a manufacturer of aluminium conductors. Duty demand is in respect of freight amounts collected by the assessee from the Electricity Boards. The impugned order has held that freight was also required to form part of assessable value of manufactured goods.3. Contract of sale fixed price in FOR destination terms, though sale took place at the time of removal of the goods from the factory itself.Freight amount is known separately. In such a case, inclusion of freight in the assessable value is not permissible under law, as sale price of excisable goods is the basis for excise valuation. Freight is a separate el...

Vinitec Electronics (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal filed by Vinitec Electronics (P) Ltd. against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Delhi-II. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of U.P.S. availing Modvat credit on inputs received by them alongwith duty paying documents. They are maintaining the prescribed records. On 27.9.96, Central Excise Officers visited their factory seized records and one number of UPS on the ground that the same was found in excess of the last balance recorded in RG.1(stock) register. The panchnama drawn had mentioned that the stock of inputs recorded in R.G. 23A Part I was also not available in the factory premises for physical verification. (According to the appellant, no copy of this panchnama was made available to them on the date of its preparation). However, the officers recorded the statement of Shri S.L. Singhal who is also a consultant apart from being authorized signatory to the appellants. In the statement. Shri Singhal had stated that he could not...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ascom India (P) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)99TTJ(Delhi)728

1. The appeal by the Revenue and the cross-objection by the assessee are directed against the order of CIT(A)-V, New Delhi, dt. 29th Nov., 2004, in deleting the penalty of Rs. 6,80,000 levied by the AO under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act.2. In ITA No. 798/Del/2005, the Revenue has raised the following ground : On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 6,80,000 in respect of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in respect of claims/deduction.3. In C.O. No. 192/Del/2005, the assessee has taken the following grounds : 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Departmental appeal filed by the Dy. CIT, Ward-2(1), New Delhi, is incompetent and not maintainable in law as the original assessment was made by the ITO and penalty was also levied by the ITO only illegally and hence, the Dy. CIT had no jurisdiction or authority to file the appeal on behal...

Prof. Ram Prakash Vs. D.N. Srivastava

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 126(2006)DLT6; 2006(86)DRJ335

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. C.M.(M) 661/2003 is directed against the order of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') dated 28.8.2003 in R.C.A. 541/2003 whereby the learned Tribunal has, while affirming the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 2.7.2003, held that interest on delayed payment of rent does not constitute the component of rent legally recoverable for the purpose of Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') and consequently the contractual rent having been deposited within the period of two months from the date of notice without interest was valid tender giving no cause of action to maintain a petition under Section 14 of the Act.2. Brief facts of the case, as noted by the Tribunal are:'1. The appellant served on the respondent a notice dated 10.9.92 demanding arrears of rent @897/- p.m. w.e.f. 1.5.92 to September, 92. In the notice demand was also made for payment of interest and electricity charges which were due to t...

Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. Shri Prabhati Patni, Proprietor C ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(3)ARBLR518(Delhi); 125(2005)DLT511; 2006(86)DRJ48

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The question that arises for consideration is whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain the OMP No. 34/2000 filed by the petitioner praying for the rejection of the award dated 31.10.1999 made by the respondent No. 2.2. The facts leading to the filing of the petition (OMP No. 34/2000) are as follows. The petitioner and the respondent No. 1 entered into an agreement on 01.07.1992. In terms of clause 4.9 of the conditions of contract governing the said agreement, disputes between the parties were to be settled by reference to arbitration. Clause 4.9, so much as is relevant, is reproduced hereinbelow:-'4.9 Arbitration.4.9.1 Settlement of Disputes.In case any dispute or difference shall arises between the parties either upon any question relating to the meaning of the specifications, designs, drawings and instructions herein before mentioned or these conditions, or otherwise concerning the work, or the execution, or failure to execute the same, whether arisi...

Modern Food Industries (India) Ltd. Vs. Raj NaraIn Pratap NaraIn Rolli ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 126(2006)DLT627

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.IA No. 3469/1994 IN CS (OS) No. 456/19931. At the inception, there was some doubt whether this Court should take up the matter in view of increase in the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court, but the subsequent notification dated 22.08.2003 issued has been brought to the notice of this Court where such matters are liable to be retained and orders have been passed in this behalf. It may be clarified that in view of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 31 of the Act, the award having been filed in the present Court, it is this Court which would have the jurisdiction to hear and determine the present controversy.2. The petitioner had awarded a contract to the respondent for supply, installation and commission of an automatic slicing and wrapping machine for manufacture of bread. Disputes arose between the parties on account of the allegation of the petitioner that the respondent had failed to perform its obligations under the contract / purchase order, while ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Thirani Chemicals Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2007]290ITR196(Delhi)

T.S. Thakur, J.1. The assessed-company, in order to modernise and expand its activities and with a view to augment its long-term capital requirements, raised funds to the extent of Rs. 406.65 lakhs during the relevant accounting year by issue of debentures on rights basis to the existing shareholders. The expenditure incurred by the assessed in this regard aggregated to Rs. 22,09,889. The assessed claimed deduction of the said amount from its taxable income. The Assessing Officer, however, came to the conclusion that the expenditure would qualify only for amortisation under Section 35D of the Act. He further held that the decision of the Supreme Court in India Cements Ltd. v. CIT : [1966]60ITR52(SC) stood nullified by the introduction of Section 35D. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) affirmed the view taken by the Assessing Officer and held that the expenditure could not be allowed as a revenue expenditure because of the introduction of Section 35D with effect from Ap...

Cit Vs. Thirani Chemicals Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Del)146; [2006]155TAXMAN233(Delhi)

T.S. Thakur, J.The assessed-company, in order to modernize and expand its activities and with a view to augment its long-term capital requirements, raised funds to the extent of Rs. 406.65 lacs during the relevant accounting year by issue of debentures on right basis to the existing shareholders. The expenditure incurred by the assessed in this regard aggregated to Rs. 22,09,889. The assessed claimed deduction of the said amount from its taxable income. The assessing officer, however, came to the conclusion that the expenditure would qualify only for amortization under section 35D of the Act. He further held that the decision of the Supreme Court in India Cements Ltd. v. CIT : [1966]60ITR52(SC) stood nullified by the introduction of section 3bD. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed the view taken by the assessing officer and held that the expenditure could not be allowed as a revenue expenditure because of the introduction of section 35D with effect from 1-4-1971. In a furthe...

Mr. Sanjay Dalmia and ors. Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 126(2006)DLT38

ORDERJ.P. Singh, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing criminal complaint under Sections 138, 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act pending before Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. I have heard Mr. Gurdyal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner on the point of admission and have gone through the copies of the documents placed on the file.2. Three orders dated 31.8.2002, 22.12.2004 and 19.5.2005 are being challenged in this petition. Vide order dated 31.8.2002 the petitioners/accused person were summoned. Vide order dated 22.12.2004 the Metropolitan Magistrate has rejected two applications: (i) for recalling the summoning order and (ii) for holding that the offence should be deemed to have been compounded. In the order dated 19.5.2005 the Metropolitan Magistrate has after hearing the learned counsel for the parties noted that except representative of the company no other accused was present in the court. Learned c...

Supra Enterprise Vs. Bygging India Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2006)BC344; 126(2006)DLT183

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is an application moved by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC') whereby the defendant seeks the dismissal of this suit on the ground that this court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same. The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of approximately Rs. 33.06 lakhs which the plaintiff claimed as the price of the goods (cast iron pipes) which were supposedly supplied to the defendant. The learned counsel for the defendant has drawn my attention to para 46 of the plaint wherein it is stated as under:-That the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court as the bills raised by the plaintiff mentioned that the disputes would be subject to Delhi jurisdiction.2. The learned counsel for the defendant, while referring to the aforesaid averments made in the plaint, states that this is the only statement made in the plaint wi...