Delhi Court December 2005 Judgments

Paras Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 9-9-2004 wherein confiscation of the goods imported and penalty imposed have been upheld.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants imported 175 Nos. of industrial sewing machine from M/s.Brother International. The declaration made on the bill of entry in respect of these sewing machines was port of shipment as Singapore and country of origin as China. These sewing machines were imported by the appellants under EPCG licence No. 0330004053, dated 7-8-2003. When the goods were sought to be cleared the inspection of the goods revealed that the description on the goods found was "Brother Industries Ltd., Nagoya, Japan" and the country of origin China was not mentioned. On the presumption that the goods amounted to misdeclaration the said importers were directed to prove their bona fide. The appellants requested for waiver of show cause notice and sought adjudication of the matter. The adjudicating...

Viacom Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC51

1. This appeal is directed against imposition of penalty of Rs. 5,42,000/- on the appellant.2. Perused the record and heard learned Senior Departmental Representative. The appellant is not present.3. The appellant was only buyer of the goods in question. It had no responsibility in regards to payment of correct duty amount in respect of the goods purchased by it. Imposition of penalty is not justified.4. In the result, the penalty is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellant....

Advance Lamp Components (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC94

1. When the matter was called out for stay I observe that the question involved in this matter is in short compass. Since the question involved in this case is in short compass I take up the appeal itself for disposal with the consent of both the sides, after granting stay and waiving the condition of pre-deposit.2. Learned Advocate submits that they received the rejected material in their factory on 21.8.1998 and filed D-3 declaration for availing the benefit of Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. There was a correspondence from the Range Suptd. to them to produce some documents which were not available with the appellants. The appellants then filed Modvat declaration on 12.2.1999 for availing Modvat Credit on the rejected goods received back from their purchaser. They took the Credit on 13.2.99. The department issued a show cause notice on this action and on adjudication of the said show cause notice adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed equivalent penalty...

Jagannath Steel (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC97

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 24.9.2003 wherein it was held that the appellants are liable to pay duty on the inputs lying in stock as on 1.8.1997.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants are manufacturers of M.S. Ingots and Billets falling under Chapter 72. The appellants were availing Modvat benefit. From 1.8.97 the appellants' products got covered under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act which was further compounded levy scheme on the goods manufactured by the appellants. The Central Government by notification No. 33/97 dated 1.8.97 amended Rule 57F(17) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which disallowed the Modvat Credit allowing unutilized inputs as on date i.e. 1.8.97. The appellants were issued show cause notice asking them to show cause as to why an amount of Rs. 6,46,771/- be not demanded from them for the inputs lying in stock in finished goods and W.I.P. The appellants contested the show cause notice. The adj...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Steel Shree Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Revenue is in appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has granted relief to the respondents in terms of Notification No. 50/97-C.E., dated 1 August, 1997, as amended by Notification No. 57/97-C.E., dated 30th August, 1997.2. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the quantity of Hot Re-Rolled products lying in the assessee stock as on 31-8-97, when the Compounded Levy Scheme was introduced w.e.f. 1-9-97. The total demand of duty confirmed by the original authority in respect of such goods was to the tune of Rs. 9,518/- with penalty amount of Rs. 2,500/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that Notification No. 50/97-C.E., dated 1 August, 1997 was amended vide Notification No. 57/97-C.E., as dated 30th August, 1997 vide which Notification No. 50/97-C.E., dated 1 August, 1997 was made applicable to products produced prior to 1-9-97 (instead of 1-8-97) and the second change brought by the Notification was that the nominal center distance was changed...

Addi. Cit Vs. Asahi India Safety Glass

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)6SOT656(Delhi)

The two appeals by the department and the cross objections of the assessee are directed against the combined order of the learned CIT(Appeals) dated 14-5-2001 for assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99.Since a common issue is involved in the appeals and cross objections, they are being disposed of together by this consolidated order. The common ground raised by the department is against the deletion of addition of Rs. 1,36,77,664 and Rs. 1,70,68,811 respectively made on account of software development expenses.During the years under consideration, the assessee had amortized an expenditure of Rs, 1,36,77,664 and Rs. 1,70,68,811 on account of software and professional expenses as deferred revenue expenditure.However, in its books of account, for assessment year 1997-98, it had not written off any part of the expenditure. In the books for assessment year 1998-99, the assessee had written off a part of this expenditure at Rs. 9,91,228. However, while computing its total income, the assessee...

Svapn Constructions Vs. Idpl Employees Cooperative Group Housing Socie ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 127(2006)DLT80

Anil Kumar, J.1. This order will dispose of petitioner's petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator.2. Brief facts to comprehend the disputes between the parties are that respondent No.1 which is a Cooperative Group Housing Society invited tenders for construction of 22 flats. The tender documents were to be collected from the office of the architect of the respondent No.1 M/s.Aakriti Consultants India (Pvt) Ltd, AC-1/179 C, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. The tenders were to be received up to 3.30 PM on 10.6.1993 at the address of C-2/112, DDA flats, Lawrence Road, Delhi-110035 and were to be opened at 4 PM on the same date.3. A letter dated 21.5.1993 was written to the petitioner intimating that the petitioner had been selected for issue of tender documents consequent to which tender was collected by the petitioner from the office of the architect at M/s.Aakriti Consultants India (Pvt) Ltd, AC-1/179 C, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi and te...

ite India Private Ltd. Vs. Shri Mukesh Sharma and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(1)ARBLR155(Delhi); 127(2006)DLT62; 2006(87)DRJ83

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration whereby a decree of declaration is sought to the effect that there exists no valid arbitration agreement between the parties and the letter issued by defendant No. 6, International Chambers of Commerce, at the request of defendants No. 3-5 is null and void whereby arbitration proceedings are sought to commence. A similar declaration is sought in respect of the letter dated 29.6.2005 issued by defendant No. 6 to the plaintiff directing the plaintiff to jointly nominate the arbitrator along with defendants No. 1-2.2. The plaintiff is a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at I-83, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi. Defendant No. 2 company also has the registered address at the same place.3. Defendant No. 1 Shri Mukesh Sharma is a citizen of India and had entered into a shareholders agreement with defendant No. 3 containing an arbitration clause. The shareholders ag...

Jitendra Nath Banerjee and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT1

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The prayer in this writ petition is for the passing of a writ of certiorari quashing the Orders of the Central Government dated 10.6.2005 directing adherence to Rule 59 (ii) of The Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. For facility of reference Rule 59 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 is reproduced below:59. Availability of areas for regrant to be notified:-(1) No area--(a) which was previously held or which is being held under a reconnaissance permit or a prospecting license or a mining lease; or of the Respondent/applicant that the goods were defective and there were triable issues raised by the Defendant in the application under consideration, as such they be granted unconditional leave to defend the Suit.Reply to this application was filed by the Plaintiff. While denying the contents of the application for leave to defend the Plaintiff termed the application of the Defendant as totally sham. It is averred by the Plaintiff that when the total cost of equipments was R...

Bhartesh JaIn Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)201CTR(Del)483

ORDERBy the Court :For the assessment year 1994-95, the appellant- assessed claimed to have borrowed two loans, one for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000 from M/s Elite Stock Management (P) Ltd. and the other for a sum of Rs. 19,00,000 from M/s Sujata Securities (P) Ltd. The assessing officer, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence assembled in the course of the assessment proceedings, came to the conclusion that the genuineness of both the loan transactions had not been established by the assessed. The assessing officer was of the view that the amounts allegedly borrowed by way of loans were actually assessed's own money which was pumped into his business in the garb of loans. The said amounts were, thereforee, added back to the taxable income of the assessed in terms of section 68 of the IT Act, 1961. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant- assessed appealed to the CIT(A) who affirmed the view taken by the assessing officer and held that the genuineness of the two loan transa...