Delhi Court May 2005 Judgments

Suren International Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus., Icd

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. All these appeals are directed against a common order of adjudication, Order No. AKR/CC/TKD/31 & 32/03 dt. 30-6-2003 of the Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Tuglakhabad, New Delhi. Accordingly they were taken up for consideration and heard together and are disposed of under this order.2. The case relates to illegal import of tin, nickel and zinc through ICD, Tuglakabad, New Delhi by the first appellant M/s. Suren International Limited, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi by concealing those metals in consignments declared as of aluminium scrap. There is also import of excess quantities of aluminium scrap and import of copper scrap in the place of aluminium scrap. In regard to part of the goods under adjudication (17 container load) M/s. Suren International Limited had filed Bills of Entries and therefore, there is no dispute that the import was by that appellant. Part of the goods (23 container load) had been consigned to M/s. Suren International Limited and had reached ICD, Tuglakabad, though...

Vipul A. Shah Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT84TriDel

2. The applicant filed this application for rectification of mistake in the Final Order. The contention of the applicant is that they are entitled for interest on the delayed refund.3. I find that the refund claim of the applicant was rejected by the adjudicating authority and on appeal filed by the applicant the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund on the ground that the refund was in respect of the earlier order-in-appeal dated 13-4-99. In the ROM application, the only conten- tion of the applicant is that no order is passed in respect of the interest on the delayed sanction of refund as provided under Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962. The applicant can approach the appropriate authority for claim of the statutory interest and the appropriate authority will decide the claim of the applicant in accordance with law. As the claim filed by the applicant in the present application is a statutory relief, therefore, by not mentioning in the impugned order cannot be termed as mistake. I...

Hns India Vsat Inc. Vs. Dy. Director of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)96TTJ(Delhi)486

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-XXIX, New Delhi dated 12/1/2004.2. The assessee in the present case is a wholly owned subsidiary company of Hughes Network Systems, Hughes Electronic Company having its registered office in USA. It is engaged in the business of providing telecom related services including installation and site supervision.M/s Hughes Telecom Co. was awarded contract for installation of telephony system in Mumbai. This job was subcontracted by the said company to HNSIPL (Indian) who, in turn, gave the said job to the assessee. During the relevant period, installation was done by the assessee at 12 different sites in Mumbai. In its return of income filed for the year under consideration declaring a total income of Rs. 2,42,61,670/-, a net profit ratio of 39.3% was shown by the assessee.During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the said rate of net profit was lower than the NP rat...

Hns India Vsat Inc. Vs. Dy. Director of Income-tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)95ITD157(Delhi)

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT (A)-XXIX, New Delhi dated 12-1-2004.The assessee in the present case is a wholly owned subsidiary company of Hughes Network Systems, Hughes Electronic Company having its registered office in USA. It is engaged in the business of providing telecom related services including installation and site supervision.M/s. Hughes Telecom Co. was awarded contract for installation of telephony system in Mumbai. This job was sub-contracted by the said company to HNSIPL (Indian) who, in turn, gave the said job to the assessee. During the relevant period, installation was done by the assessee at 12 different sites in Mumbai. In its return of income filed for the year under consideration declaring a total income of Rs. 2,42,61,670, a net profit ratio of 39.3% was shown by the assessee.During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the assessing officer that the said rate of net profit was lower than the NP rate of ...

T.N. Vohra Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)7SOT642(Delhi)

The assessee in this appeal is an individual deriving income from property and commission. For the year under appeal, he also declared income by way of capital gains, dividend etc. The assessee was acting as commission agent for M/s. Continental Carriers, New Delhi and M/s.Continental Carriers (P.) Ltd., New Delhi. From these two concerns he derived commission of Rs, 27,57,232 and Rs. 39,92,378 respectively during the accounting year ended 30-4-1994 relevant to the assessment year 1994-95 which is the year under appeal. The commission was derived at the rate of 1 per cent. He wanted the commission to be increased to 1.2 per cent M/s. Continental Carriers agreed to the assessee's request. However, Continental Carriers placed a condition. It stated that the assessee had to provide some more facilities such as an office and godown for the storing of cargo which should be in the vicinity of the International Airport at New Delhi. The assessee agreed to this condition. The arrangement was ...

Hero Honda Motors Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)103ITD157(Delhi)

1. ITA 3093/Del/2000 is an appeal by the assessee, while ITA 2906/Del/2000 is an appeal by the Revenue and both these appeals are directed against the order dt. 31st March, 2000, of CIT(A)-VII, New Delhi, relating to asst. yr. 1996-97.2. We shall first take up for consideration the appeal by the assessee, viz., ITA 3093/Del/2000. The first ground of appeal reads as follows : 1. That the CIT(A), erred on facts and in law in confirming disallowance of expenditure on installation charges and management fee paid to HDFC in respect of assets taken on lease holding the same to be capital expenditure. 1.1 That the CIT(A); erred on facts and in law in holding that the assets were taken on lease on permanent basis resulting in enduring benefit to the assessee.This ground of appeal can conveniently be decided together with ground No. 3 of the grounds of appeal of the Revenue in ITA 2906/Del/2000, which reads as follows : 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT...

Sandeep Garg Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 120(2005)DLT359; 2005(82)DRJ265

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case against the petitioner is that he is alleged to have imported 'meat and bone mealG' which is a prohibited item according to the customs authorities. He is also alleged to have mis-declared the same in the documents submitted at the time of importation including the bill of entry and other related documents. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that what he has imported is not 'meat and bone mealG' per se but a product called RIGENERA (Fertilizer containing mixture of nitrates and phosphates). He submitted that the packing list shows the imported item as such. The same is the position in the bill of entry and the invoices. The learned counsel took me through copies of the packing list, bill of entry and invoice which are at pages 49, 50 and 51 of the paper book. He also indicated that the petitioner had a registration certificate in Form ' B issued by the authorities permitting him...

Shashi Kumar Saini Vs. the State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 120(2005)DLT313; 2005(82)DRJ255

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The present petitioner is admittedly a juvenile within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Though, there is some dispute as to whether the petitioner was 12 -+ years old or 14 years old. Be that as it may, the petitioner being a juvenile, the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 would be applicable. The Section reads as under:'12. Bail of juvenile. - (1) When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or ...

Rita Singh Vs. State Through (C.B.i.)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 120(2005)DLT115

ORDERR.S. Sodhi, J.Cr. M.A. 5103/20051. Allowed subject to just exceptions Application disposed of.Crl. M.A. 5102/20052. This is an application for modification of the order dated May 3, 2002, to the effect that the condition requiring the petitioner to obtain leave of the Court before travel abroad be deleted.3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that this condition is causing hardship inasmuch as, although the Trial Court has on occasions granted permission to travel abroad, yet unless such a permission is granted in time she is not able to travel, which causes hindrance in the normal working of business. Counsel submits that thrice she could not travel because permission was not granted in time.4. Heard Counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation, who submits that in the interest of justice, it would be proper if the petitioner is permitted to go abroad on her furnishing an additional bond together with travel itinerary and address of contact. He also submits that the petitioner...

Premier Plastics Pipe Inds. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been directed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority rejecting the refund claim of the appellants.2. I have heard both the sides and gone through the record. From the record, it is evident that the appellants supplied HDPE Pipes and other excisable goods to the Directorate General of Supplied & Disposal under an agreement wherein the rates of the goods were settled. At the time of clearance of the goods o those rates, duty was discharged accordingly, by the appellants. On account of reduction in the price agreed between the parties, the appellants have lodged the refund claim for the refund of the duty paid in excess. But in my view the refund claim of the appellants has rightly been rejected by the authorities below, by following the law laid down in the case of MRF v. CCE reported in 1997 92 ELT 309 (SC) wherein it has been observed that reduc...