Delhi Court June 2005 Judgments

Orion International Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(103)ECC19

1. In this appeal, which has been preferred against the impugned order-in-appeal by the appellants, the issue relates to the refund of anti-dumping duty, to them, which was collected at the time of clearance on the goods i.e. Maintenance Free Lead Acid Automotive Batteries imported from Korea.2. The learned Counsel has contested the validity of the impugned order on two grounds. Firstly, that the anti-dumping duty was legally not chargeable on the imported goods from the appellants under Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act in view of the law laid down in Commissioner of Customs, Chennai v. Suja Rubber Industries [2002 (142) E.L.T. 586 (Tribunal-Chennai)] and Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai . Secondly, that the anti-dumping duty was finally dropped by the competent authority, vide Notification No. 1/2002, dated 2-1-2002.3. On the other hand, the learned JDR reiterated the correctness of the impugned order. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants imported the goo...

Hewlett Packard India Ltd., Shri Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In these appeals, the appellants have contested the correctness of the common impugned order in original vide which the duty and penalty have been confirmed, as detailed therein for the period December, 1999 to July, 2002, on the strength of the shows cause notice dated 10.10.2002.2. The duty demand has been raised and confirmed against the appellants, by denying them the deductions in respect of the operating software/application software, transport charges and cash discounts.The learned Counsel has contended that the appellants are entitled to the deductions in respect of the operating as well as application software in view of the latest pronouncement of the apex court in CCE, Pondicherry v. Acer India Ltd. transport charges, the learned Counsel has contended that these charges for the subsequent period had been allowed by the Tribunal, in the appellants' own case vide Final Order No. 727 dated 10.5.2005 by the South Zonal Bench at Bangalore. He has produced the copy of that ord...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Frontline Capital Services Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)96TTJ(Delhi)201

1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue on 10th Sept., 1999, against the order of the CIT(A)-I, New Delhi, dt. 22nd June, 1999, in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment order under Section 143(3) for asst. yr. 1996-97.2. In this appeal, the Revenue has disputed the order of the CIT(A) that the loss claimed by the assessee on purchase and sale of share could not be treated as speculation loss. Facts of the case leading to this appeal briefly are that the assessee-company was a member of the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. and carried on the business of share broker. That apart, the assessee also carried on the business of purchase and sale of shares on its own behalf. During the year under consideration, the assessee declared brokerage income of Rs. 32,57,942.At the same time, the assessee disclosed loss in share trading at Rs. 34,73,739 and adjusted the same against share brokerage income and income of the assessee from capital gains and other sources. The lear...

Kinetic Technology (India) Ltd. Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)98TTJ(Delhi)90

1. As common issues are involved in these two appeals, the same were argued together by the Ld. AR of the assessee and the Ld. DR. We are deciding these two appeals by this consolidated order for convenience.2. The appeal in ITA 385/Del/2002 has been filed by the assessee on 12^th February, 2002 against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-XXX, New Delhi dated 20^th November, 2001 in the case of the assessee in relation to orders Under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act for assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000. Later on when the assessee realized that there were two assessment years involved the assessee filed one more appeal on 1^stOctober, 2004. In these appeals the assessee has disputed being treated the assessee in default Under Section 201(1) and being charged interest Under Section 201(1 A) of the Act in relation to salary received overseas by the assessee's Managing Director. The facts of the case, briefly are that the assessee is a company incorporated in India in which Kinetic Te...

Shahid Atiq Vs. Ito, Ward 5(8)

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)97ITD22(Delhi)

This miscellaneous application, filed by the assessee, arises out of the order dated 12-12-2003 rendered in ITA Nos. 3046 and 3049/Del./2000.Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate appeared for the assessee whereas Shri Jyoti Shankar, Sr. Departmental Representative represented the revenue.In paras 1 to 4 of the miscellaneous application it is averred that the ITAT committed an error in recording an incorrect finding in regard to the fact that the assessment had been made on the legal heir of the deceased assessee, who was representing him. Para 4 of the miscellaneous application contains the allegation that while allowing the appeal of the revenue and reversing the finding of learned Commissioner (Appeals), the Tribunal has recorded incorrect finding of fact. Para 4 of the miscellaneous application is as under: "4. It is most respectfully submitted that while allowing the appeals of the revenue and reversing the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), as it will be apparent from the...

Jt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. Swarup Vegetable Products

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)98TTJ(Delhi)420

1. These two Appeals have been filed by the Revenue on 12^th May, 2000 against the orders of the Ld. CIT(A), Muzaffaraagar dated 29^th February, 2000 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment order Under Section 143(3) as well as order Under Section 154/143(1)(a) for assessment year 1995-96.2. We shall take up the Revenue's appeal in relation to intimation Under Section 143 (1)(a) first. Facts of the case leading to that appeal briefly are that the assessee filed return of loss declaring loss at Rs. 48,74,233/-. The Ld. AO made an order Under Section 143(1)(a) on 12^th September, 1996 wherein various adjustments were made aggregating to Rs. 81,22,524/-. Hence instead of loss as declared by the assessee the assessment was completed at an income of Rs. 32,48,299/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed an application Under Section 154 and the Ld. AO passed the order Under Section 154 on 23^rd December, 1997 whereby the adjustments made were reduced to Rs. 38,20,539/-. Still aggriev...

Shri Shahid Atiq L/H of Late Sh. Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)98TTJ(Delhi)971

1. This miscellaneous application, filed by the assessee, arises out of the order dated 12^th December 2003 rendered in ITA Nos. 3046 and 3049/Del/2000.2. Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate appeared for the assessee whereas Shri Jyoti Shankar, Sr. DR represented the Revenue.3. In paras 1 to 4 of the miscellaneous application it is averred that the IT AT committed an error in recording an incorrect finding in regard to the fact that the assessment had been made on the legal heir of the deceased assessee, who was representing him. Para 4 of the miscellaneous application contains the allegation that while allowing the appeal of the Revenue and reversing the finding of learned CIT(A), the Tribunal has recorded incorrect finding of fact. Para 4 of the miscellaneous application is as under: "4. It is most respectfully submitted that while allowing the appeals of the revenue and reversing the findings of the learned CIT(A), as it will be apparent from the above, that the very basis contention ...

Kulcip Medicines (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant distributes the medicines manufactured by M/s. Cipla Ltd. Under the impugned order it has been held that the appellant is a clearing and forwarding agent of Cipla and service tax was payable on the appellant's receipts under Heading 'Clearing and Forwarding Agent'.That finding is being challenged in the present appeal.2. The submission of the appellant is that in terms of the contract with Cipla, delivery of the medicines was effected by Cipla to the appellant at Ambala and the appellant carried out only further distribution. The learned Counsel for the appellant took us through the terms of the agreement and highlighted that there was no clearance of the goods from Cipla's factory by the appellant. If at all, his job was that of a forwarding agent. It is the appellant's submission that service becomes service of clearing and forwarding, only if, both clearing and forwarding are undertaken. It is being stressed that service tax is not attracted on clearing of forwardi...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. H.J.i. Prop. G.M.M. Co. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of notice. Heard learned D.R., Revenue filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) held that as the appellants had paid the duty and submitted return within a period of 6 months as provided under Section 71A of Finance Act, 2003, no interest or penalty is imposable on them. Only contention of the Revenue is that as per provisions of Section 71A of the Finance Act, 2003 there is no relaxation in respect of interest or penalty, therefore, the Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not sustainable.2. We find that provisions of Service Tax Act were amended with retrospective effect vide Finance Act, 2003 and Section 71A provides that an assessee shall furnish the return to the Central Excise Deptt.within 6 months from the date on which Finance Act, 2003 got consent of the President and the respondent filed necessary returns along with particulars regarding payment of ser...

Seagram Manufacturing Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. M/s. Seagram Manufacturing Limited (SML) the appellant herein, is engaged in the manufacture of whiskies in India since 1994. The manufacture is from imported Scotch Whisky concentrates (approximately 63% proof). In the case of three whiskies sold in India under foreign brands, namely 'Something Special', '100 Pipers' and 'Passport', the manufacturing process involved is to dilute the imported whisky concentrates to the permitted Indian concentration (42.8% proof) and to bottle. In the case of Scotch whiskies sold under Indian brands, namely, 'Blenders Pride', 'Oaken Glow', 'Royal Stag' and 'Imperial Blue' imported whisky concentrates (Malts) are mixed with indigenous whisky concentrates and are bottled. For either activity, SML imports whisky concentrates.2. The appellant's imports started from 1994. The imports were from a related company, M/s. Seagram Distillers Plc. Therefore, the Customs authorities took a view that the transaction value between the appellant's related supplie...