Delhi Court March 2005 Judgments

Cce Vs. Modern Polyplex Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(102)ECC112

1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the respondent.Heard Ld. JDR.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 15.7.99 or 18.7.99 the officers of Revenue department visited the premises of respondents and on physical verification it was found that certain final product and waste and scrap was unaccounted. Show-cause notice was issued for confiscation of the excess goods. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and allowed the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 20,000 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000. On appeal filed by the respondent, the Commissioner (Appeals) after relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Raipur v. Bhilai Conductors (P) Ltd., 2000 (125) ELT 781 held that the goods which are lying within the factory are not liable to confiscation in the absence of any allegation about the assessee indulging clandestine removal of the goods.3. The contention of the Revenue is that the goods which were not accounted in the statutor...

DolphIn Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In these two appeals, filed by M/s. Dolphin Laboratories Ltd., the issue involved is whether they are the manufactures of Gesdyp and dolamide or M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. 2. Shri B L Narasimhan, learned Advocate, mentioned that the Appellants manufacture Patent or Proprietary Medicines by using their own raw materials; that they also act as job worker for M/s.Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (M/s. Ranbaxy in short) under an Agreement; that M/s.Ranbaxy supply the necessary raw materials for the manufacture of medicines; that they clear these medicines on payment of Central Excise duty on the principles of valuation laid down by the Supreme Court in Ujagar Prints v. UOI-1989 (39) ELT 493 (SC) and 1988 (38) ELT 5355 (SC), that the Department has confirmed the demand of duty of Excise and imposed penalty on the ground that M/s. Ranbaxy are loan licensees and thus are the manufacturers of the impugned goods as they get the impugned goods manufactured under their own control or supervision...

Tarnik Investment and Trading Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)94ITD183(Delhi)

1. The main issue arising in this appeal relates to disallowance of short-term capital loss of Rs. 25,88,784 incurred by it on account of renunciation of its right to apply for 115000 partly convertible debentures (in short PCDs) in favour of LIC Mutual Fund (in short LICMF) as well as on sale of non-convertible portion of 785 PCDs.2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee-company held 231569 shares in Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. (in short TEWL). Vide its issue opened on 29th June, 1992, TEWL offered 15,75,000 14 per cent secured redeemable partly convertible debentures of Rs. 150 each for cash at par out of which 15,00,000 PCDs were offered on right basis to equity shareholders in the ratio of one debenture for every two shares held. Thus, the assessee was entitled to subscribe for 115785 PCDs. As per the terms of the offer, the assessee was entitled to subscribe for its entitlement wholly or in part. Alternatively, it could also renounce its right to apply, wholly or in pa...

Sudev Industries Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)98TTJ(Delhi)97

1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of learned CIT(A), dt. 22nd March, 2002, for asst. yr. 1995-96.2. Shri Rakesh Gupta, FCA, appeared for the assessee whereas Shri R.P.Meena, senior Departmental Representative, represented the Revenue.3. In this appeal the assessee has taken as many as five grounds out of which ground No. 1 is a legal ground which assails the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 as well as the validity of the assessment order which is as under: "Learned CIT(A)-XII, New Delhi, is not justified in law and on the facts while confirming the action of AO for issuing notice under Section 148 as : (a) The AO did not have any jurisdiction over the case to issue notice. (b) The AO did not have any reason to belief that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment due to omission or failure on the part of the assessee. (c) As no notice under Section 148 has ever been served upon the assessee." 4. At the time of hearing of the appea...

K.D. Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT329TriDel

1. Common issues are involved in all these appeals which are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. K.D. Exports imported plastic sheeting in rolls and Y.S. Enterprises imported self adhesive plastic sheeting in rolls. The declared value was not accepted by the Customs authorities who enhanced the value; the importers cleared the goods after paying the duty on the enhanced value; they filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) who held that the payment of duty on loaded value amounts to acceptance of the loading and hence could not be challenged. He further held that the value was enhanced on the basis of the value of subject goods in international market. On these two grounds he dismissed the appeals.Hence these appeals before the Tribunal.3. We have heard both sides. The contention of the importers is that the payment of duty on higher assessed value was only for the purpose of clearance of the goods and their filing of statutory appeal before the Commissi...

Amit Modi, Shri Anuj Malik, Skam Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC313

1. These appeals are directed against confiscation of export garments, imposition of penalties and reduction of amounts of drawback claimed, on account of finding that the prices of the exported goods had been overstated in the export documents so as to claim higher amounts to drawback.2. The goods under exports were cotton knitted T-shirts and Polo shirts and the exports were during June-July 1999. The T-shirts in question were exported against the price of Rs. 150 per piece while Polo shirts were exported at a price of Rs. 225 per piece. At the time of export itself, the Customs authorities had challenged the export prices as high and made enquiries about the market value of the exported items.The appellant exporter in their response informed that the goods had been purchased at a price of about Rs. 90 per piece and Rs. 115 per piece. They had also indicated a break-up of the price by way of costs, of the garment, packing charges, loading and other cost margin of profit etc. in orde...

Tanir Bavi Power Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC449

1. The appellant Tanir Bavi power Company Pvt. Ltd., imported a Barge Mounted Power Plant and its accessories during the period December 2000 to February 2002. The import was registered as a project import and goods assessed to custom duty, including additional duty of customs, at the time of their clearance.2. Subsequently, Finance Act 2002, under Section 130, granted retrospective exemption in respect of the whole of the additional duty of custom leviable during the period 8.12.2000 to 28.2.2002 in respect of Barge Mounted Power Plant. In terms of the said exemption the appellant claimed refund of the additional duty of customs (over Rs.93 crores) which had already been paid. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs sanctioned an amount of about Rs. 89 crores, thus, denying the refund of the remaining amount of over Rs. 4 crores. This was on the ground that the power project was commissioned on 8th June 2001 and between the date of commissioning the plant and the grant of refund, the a...

Sardari Lal Oberai Memorial Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)106TTJ(Delhi)468

1. That the orders passed by the learned CIT are bad in law as the orders have been passed after the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which the application was filed under Section 12A. Date of filing application is 29th Oct., 2001. 2. That the appellant was not allowed reasonable opportunity of being heard as per the provision of Section 12A. 3. That the learned CIT, Dehradun, has erred by not allowing the appellant-trust registration under Section 12AA of the IT Act when that said trust fulfils the criteria laid down under Section 12A(a) of the IT Act and it was validly created and its objects are charitable in nature. 4. That there is no violation of the conditions as laid under Section 12A of the IT Act.2. The assessee filed an application for registration under Section 12A of the IT Act. Copies of this application are placed at p. 5 of the assessee's paper book. As per this application, the trust was created on 1st Feb., 2001. A certified copy of the instrument un...

Sardari Lal Oberai Memorial Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)3SOT229(Delhi)

"1. That the orders passed by the learned CIT is bad in law as the orders have been passed after the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which the application was filed under section 12A. Date of filing application is 29-10-2001.2. That the appellant was not allowed reasonable opportunity of being heard as per the provision of section 12A.3. That the learned CIT, Dehradun has erred by not allowing the appellant trust registration under section 12AA of the Income Tax Act when that said Trust fulfils the criteria laid down under section 12A(a) of the Income Tax Act and it was validly created and its objects are charitable in nature.4. That there is no violation of the conditions as laid under section 12A of the Income Tax Act." The assessee, filed an application for registration under section 12A of the Income Tax Act copies of this application are placed at page 5 of the assessee's paper book. As per this application, the trust was created on 1-2-2001. A certified copy of...

Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT735TriDel

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and cess of approximately of Rs. 2 crores which the applicants have quantified as payable by them per month, arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh: However, after hearing both sides for some time on the stay application, we find that it would be possible to dispose of the appeal itself at this stage and hence with the consent of both sides, we proceed to dispose of the appeal, after waiving the pre-deposit.2. Vide communication dated 24-2-2005, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise informed the appellants who are manufacturers of cement and clinker that the benefit of exemption to clinker used for captive consumption under Notification 67/95-C.E., dated 16-3-95 was not available to them as exemption was available only in respect of the goods which are exempt from payment of excise duty. The same communication held that the assessees were not entitled to provisional assessment as t...