Delhi Court June 2005 Judgments

Bhagwat Prasad Verma Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Roorkee

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)7SOT256(Delhi)

The assessee has filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) passed in Appeal No. 34/RKE/Commissioner (Appeals)-11/2003-04, dated 19-2-2004, on as many as six grounds, but mainly projecting the grievance that the assessment order passed by the assessing officer after issuing notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, is illegal because the notice under section 143(2) was issued beyond the period of limitation and secondly, that the authorised representative of the assessee were not within the jurisdiction to surrender the explained income of Rs. 3,00,000.The relevant and material facts for the disposal of this ground of appeal are that the assessee had made an investment of Rs. 3,00,000 in FDRs, which were not shown in the balance sheet filed along with the original return of income. The assessing officer conducted enquiries in the case of the assessee and found that during the period relevant to assessment year 1995-96 the assessee had made investment of Rs...

Mahavir Vanaspati Company Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal, which has been filed by the appellant against the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the issue relates to the denial of the benefit of Notification No. 16/2000 Cus dated 1.3.2000 to them in respect of short receipt of imported inputs i.e. (Palm Oil).3. The appellants, during the relevant time, were engaged in the manufacture of vanaspati. They imported grade palm oil for use in the manufacture of the vanaspati at a concessional rate of duty in terms of above said Notification. The benefit of this Notification has been denied to them in respect of that much quantity of the imported oil which they received short and was lost in transit. The duty in respect of that quantity of oil, of Rs. 2,94,471/- with penalty of Rs. 30,000/- has been confirmed against them.4. But the case of the appellants stands covered by the Apex Court judgment in the case of BPL Display Devices Ltd. v. CCE, Ghaziabad reported in 2004(174) ELT 5 (SC) wherein also the inputs were imported for use in the ma...

Batra Hospital and Medical Vs. C.C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT253TriDel

2. Applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 1,32,37,001/- and penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs. In this case the applicant made import of medical equipment and availed the benefit of Notification No. 64/88-Cus. dated 1-3-88. Demand was confirmed and appellant failed to fulfill the condition of Notification No.64/88-Cus. as in the year 1995-96 the percentage of free patient is less than 40%.3. The contention of applicant is that machines were imported in the year 1992 and except for these years 1995-96 the percentage of treatment of free patients is more than 40%. In the year 1998 the percentage of free patient is 47% whereas in the year the percentage of patient is 51%.4. The contention of the Revenue is that they have not fulfilled the condition of the notification as they are treating less than 40% of free patient. The Revenue relied upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Custom (Import), Mumbai v. Jagdish Cancer & Research Centre reported in 200...

Govind Mills Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal, the appellants have contested the correctness of the impugned order vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected their refund claim by invoking the principles of unjust enrichment.2. None has come present on behalf of the appellants. No request for adjournment has also been received by them. Therefore, I proceed to decide the appeal after hearing ld. DR. The perusal of the record shows that the appellants have claimed refund of the differential duty paid by them during 12.10.97 to 7.12.98. The adjudicating authority allowed the refund claim but order has been in my view rightly set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) by applying the principles of unjust enrichment.The plea of the appellants that this principle is not attracted when the duty has been discharged under the compound levy scheme, is misconceived and cannot be accepted. In view of the law laid down by the Tribunal in the case of K.B. Rolling Mills Vs. CCE reported in 2004 166 ELT 345 wherein it has ...

Anand Textiles Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT334TriDel

2. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 3,33,042/- and penalties. The applicant had already deposited an amount of Rs. 78,397/- and penalty of Rs. 25,000/- is also deposited by them. The Revenue confirmed the demand on the basis that documentation and service charges are to be included in the assessable value of the goods. The contention of the applicant is that these are nothing but buying commission which are not to be included in the assessable value of the goods, in view of the provisions of Rule 9 of Customs Valuation Rules. The contention is that buying commission is only a fees paid by an importer to his agent for the service of representing abroad in the purchase of goods. The contention is that the applicant rendered service to the importer which is mentioned in the invoices as documentation services charges which is in fact any buying commission. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie, we find that the applica...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ranbaxy Lab. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT337TriDel

1. In this appeal the revenue has sought the enhancement of the penalty and imposition of interest against the respondents, by modification of the impugned order vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on account of wrongful availment of Modvat credit by the respondents of Rs. 1,15,525/- and dropped the demand of interest in toto.2. I have heard both the sides. The representative appearing on behalf of the respondent has contended that since the duty was paid before the issuance of SCN neither penalty nor interest can be confirmed against the respondents. He has also referred to the Tribunal's judgment in the case of CCE, Lucknow v. Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. 993. But in my view, his contention is not liable to the accepted. It is not a case of a short payment or non-payment of duty by the respondents falling under Section HA of the Act. It is a case where there had been wrongful availment of the Modvat credit and falls under the provisions of Rule 57-I. Ad...

Leader Valves Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT459TriDel

1. In this appeal the appellants have questioned the correctness of the impugned order-in-original vide which Commissioner of Customs has confirmed the duty demand against them.2. I have heard both sides and gone through the record. The facts are not much in dispute The appellants purchased the DEPB scrips from M/s.Parker Industries and imported Gun Metal Scrap against the same vide Bill of Entry No. 109, dated 16-1-1998. The goods were cleared by the Customs authorities. However, later on it revealed that the transferor of the scraps, M/s. Parker Industries, had procured DEPB scrips from the office of the JDGFT Authority, Ludhiana by misrepresentation and fraud and the same were then cancelled vide order dated 16-1-2002. This cancellation did not have a retrospective effect.3. Regarding the purchase of DEPB scrips by the appellants and their liability under Section 112 of the Customs Act, Id. Commissioner has observed as under: However, I find nothing on record to infer that M/s. Lea...

Saroop Lal Adlakha Vs. Dcit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)99TTJ(Delhi)724

1. Since common issues are involved in all these appeals, the same are being disposed of by the common order for the sake of convenience. The issues arising in these appeals are :- (i) Whether the penalty proceedings were not validly initiated as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. 246 ITR 568; and (ii) Whether this judgement of the jurisdictional High Court is per incuriam.2. Since legal issues are involved in these appeals, it is not necessary for us to set out the facts in detail. It is suffice to say that in all these cases the assessments were completed Under Section 143(3) and at the end of the assessment order it was mentioned to the effect that penalty proceedings are/are being initiated separately.Apart from these observations the Assessing Officer had not whispered anything about the satisfaction in terms of Section 271(1)(c). On these facts the question for consideration is whether the penalty proce...