Delhi Court May 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 24 of about 292 results (0.011 seconds)Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Unique Laminates (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2008(230)ELT421(Del)
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. CM No. 1071/05 is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condensation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 35H of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act).2. The Appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 15th February, 2000 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT). According to the Appellant, the order was received on 24th May, 2000.3. The limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 35H of the Act is six months. The appeal should have been filed by 24th November, 2000.4. However, our record shows that the appeal was signed by the Commissioner of Central Excise on 21st October, 2004 and actually filed in the Registry of this Court on 3rd January, 2005. Obviously there is an enormous delay of over four years in filing the appeal.5. The Appellant has stated that delay was on account of frequent transfer of officers dealing with the matters (not necessarily this matter) and the resultant communication gap...
Tag this Judgment!Central Warehousing Corporation a Statutory Authority Under Section 3 ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(Del)426; 120(2005)DLT503; 2005(82)DRJ682; [2005]277ITR452(Delhi)
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. Central Warehousing Corporation was established by an Act of Parliament, namely the Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962. The primary purpose of this Corporation was warehousing of agricultural produce and other commodities. The income of the Corporation was exempted from tax under Section 10(29) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') up to the assessment year 2002-2003, under various instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi, last being dated 27th August, 2002. In normal course of its business, the Corporation has set up godowns and warehouses at various places in the country for the purposes of providing modern and scientific facilities for storage of agricultural and other commodities. It is further the case of the petitioner that they are subject to audit by the statutory auditors appointed by the Central Government of India on the recommendations of Comptroller and Auditor General of India. The accounts of th...
Tag this Judgment!The East India Hotels Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Assessing Authority (Sales ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 120(2005)DLT300; [2005]142STC376(Delhi)
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. Petitioner No.1 is a Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The main object for which the Company was incorporated, was to carry on the business of hotels and restaurants. The Company was also registered dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941/Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 in respect of Hotel Oberoi International with a registration certificate No.17/A/34646 and was assessed from time to time by the concerned authorities to Sales Tax under the provisions of the said Act. According to the petitioner, due to misrepresentation of the relevant provisions of the Act and particularly the term 'sale of goods', the petitioner-Company was assessed to sales tax. They were filing quarterly returns for the assessment year 1976-77. However, the misinterpretation of the respondents in relation to provisions of Sales Tax Act was cleared by the decision of the Supreme Court in Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi 42 ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kesr Kimam Karyalaya
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(Del)611; [2005]278ITR596(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 6th February, 2002 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench C (the Tribunal) in ITA No. 823(Del)/96.2. A common order was passed in respect of two assessed, namely, M/s K.K. Marketing and M/s Kesr Kimam Karyalaya. In respect of M/s K.K. Marketing, the Revenue has filed ITA No.16/2003 while in the case of M/s Kesr Kimam Karyalaya, the Revenue has filed ITA No.11/2003.3. The assessment year in both the appeals is the same, that is, 1994-95. In respect of this assessment year, the assessed were required to pay the first installment of advance tax on 15th September, 1993 while the next two installments were due on 15th December, 1993 and 15th March, 1994.4. A search was carried out in the premises of the assessed in August, 1993. During the search, a large amount of cash was recovered and so, when payment of advance tax was becoming due in September, 1993 the assessed wrote to the department that the cash seize...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd Ramzan Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 120(2005)DLT417; 2005(82)DRJ435
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This application for bail was argued at length. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was carrying three bags one on each shoulder and one held in his right hand and each of these bags is alleged to have contained Indian Hemp (ganja). The alleged contents of the bags were of 7.5 kg., 7.5 kg and 7 kg of ganja totalling 22 kg which is above the commercial quantity of 20 kg prescribed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act). As such, on the basis of the allegations made in the FIR, the case would fall under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the factum of recovery of the alleged quantity of ganja is itself in doubt. He firstly submitted that there were no public witnesses although the recovery is said to have been made on a public road in the afternoon. Secondly, he submits, with a great deal of vehemence, that the samples said to have be...
Tag this Judgment!Deccan Fibre Glass Ltd. Through Its Director Mr. T.S. Balaram Vs. Unio ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 120(2005)DLT475; 2005(82)DRJ577
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 22nd March, 1982 passed by the Government of India in a revision filed by the Petitioner under the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (the Act).2. The Petitioner manufactures mineral fibres and yarns in its factory in Thimapur. The end product is the following:-(a) Chopped strand mat 'glass fibre'.(b) Chopped strand 'glass fibre'.(c) Rovings 'glass fibre'.(d) Yarn spun wholly out of glass fibre; and(e) Woven roving 'glass fibre'.3. These goods are cleared by the Petitioner under Item 22F of the First Schedule to the Act.4. The jurisdictional Assistant Collector was of the view that the Petitioner was also manufacturing glass fibres as an intermediary product but the Petitioner wrongly did not show this in its classification list.5. The Petitioner did not accept the view of the Assistant Collector and filed an appeal before the Appellate Collector who confirmed the view of the Assistant Collector.6. In ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Bhagwant Finance Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(Del)462; [2006]280ITR412(Delhi)
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. Petitioner's company filed their negative return declaring total income of Rs.7,65,310/- on 31st December, 1992 for the assessment year 1992-93. The case of the assessed was taken up for scrutiny and a notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') was issued in response to which the assessed appeared and the Assessing Officer vide his order dated 29th March, 1995 recorded that there was violation of provisions of section 269SS and 269T. A notice was issued to the assessed who filed a reply on 27th January, 1995. As the Assessing Officer found no substance in the reply of the asseessee, on the ground that ignorance of law is not an excuse and he directed initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and also accepted the surrender of the assessed to the extent of Rs.12.75 lacs. Aggrieved from this order, the assessed preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Commissioner of Income-tax vide his o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Auto Lamps Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(Del)459; 120(2005)DLT104; [2005]278ITR32(Delhi)
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The assessed filed the return declaring loss of Rs. 9,62,033/- for the assessment year 2001-02 on 31.10.2001. The authorities took up the case of the Petitioner for scrutiny under Section 143(2)(i) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') and served a notice upon the assessed. The assessed was duly represented during the assessment proceedings in which the assessed filed a revised return along with a copy of the challan. In the covering letter, the assessed stated that the amounts were mentioned in the Audit Report but the same had not been paid. However, due to oversight the same was overlooked. Vide assessment order dated 6.2.2003 the Assessing Officer declined to accept the contention of the assessed and noticed that the assessed company had made provisions of Rs. 10,56,540/- on account of PF, Pension Fund, EFIC and Bonus but did not make the payments nor added back the same in its income in terms of Section 43(B) of the Income Tax Act. Cons...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hcl Info System Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(Del)129; 120(2005)DLT207; [2006]282ITR263(Delhi)
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. By this order we would dispose of above 8 Income Tax Appeals preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act').2. M/s HCL Info System Ltd., the assessed deals with computer hardwares. They are liable in law for proper tax deduction at source on the salary paid to its employees which are posted in various parts of the country in the offices of the assessed. For the purpose of verification notice under Section 136(6) of the Act was issued to the assessed on 25.9.1998 in response to which Senior Manager of the assessed attended the proceedings. According to the Assessing Officer a survey was conducted under Section 133(A) of the Act on 1.3.1999 and it came to the notice that employees were getting conveyance allowance and leave travel allowance which were not considered for purpose of deduction of tax from salary. Further according to the Revenue the company did not obtained any documentary evidence with regard to these t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Rgl Convertors
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 120(2005)DLT111; 2005(82)DRJ581; 2005(191)ELT145(Del)
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Appellant has filed CM 152/2005, which is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning delay in filing an appeal under Section 35H of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act). CM 153/2005 is an application for condoning delay in re-filing the appeal.2. The case reveals an extremely sorry state of affairs coupled with incorrect affidavits being filed by the Appellant to somehow or the other get the delay condoned. That the Commissioner of Central Excise should indulge in such a practice is all the more shocking.3. The Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) passed an order dated 13th March, 2003. It is stated in the application for condensation of delay that the order is dated 17th March, 2003 but that hardly matters because admittedly the order was received by the Appellant on 7th April, 2003.4. The limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 35H of the Act is six months. Consequently, the appeal should have bee...
Tag this Judgment!