Delhi Court June 2005 Judgments

A.C.i.T. Vs. J.L. Kumar, Prop., Anmol

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal, preferred by the Department, is directed against CIT(A)'s order dated 17-2-1997 relating to A.Y. 1990-91.2. The Revenue has taken two grounds in this appeal to challenge the deletion of penalty of Rs. 4,03,600/- imposed by the AO Under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. Shri R.A. Gupta, Sr. DR appeared for the assessee whereas Shri Rajesh Jain FCA represented the assessee. 4.1 The assessee was engaged in the business of publication and sale of books. Return of income for the assessment year 1990-91 was filed by the assessee on 30-8-1990 declaring total income at Rs. 52,110/-. The assessee had shown g.p. rate of 14.05%. On the direction of the AO the assessee filed details of month-wise purchases (direct) sales and production vide letter dated 23-12-1991. The same were scrutinized by the AO. On scrutiny the AO found that the g.p. rate for eleven months' period ending on 28-2-1990 was 30% approximately whereas the g.p. rate for the whole year was only 14.05...

Cce Vs. Rishabh Velvellen (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT955TriDel

1. In this appeal the revenue has contested the correctness of the impugned order vide which the Commissioner(Appeals) has allowed the refund in cash to the respondents.2. I have heard both the sides. Ld. DR has contended that the refund of the cenvat amount could only be allowed in that very account and not in cash to the respondents, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be modified. But keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in my view, the contention of the Ld. DR is not liable to be accepted.2. The respondents had cleared the packing material of Modvatable Inputs vis. empty drums without payment of duty. They on the issuance of the Board's circular dt.19.7.99 after admission of departmental appeal before the Apex Court in the case of West Coast Indl. Gases Ltd. v. CCE, Cochin, deposited the duty amount of Rs. 3,07,652/- under protest during the period 2000-01 2001-02. But later on when the decision of the Apex Court went against the Department, the Board agai...

Raja Forgings and Gears (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(102)ECC289

2. Appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In this case there are four issue involves: (1) On 20.3.98, the goods manufactured by the appellant were found outside the factory in a Tempo and appellant also issued invoices but the duty was not debited in their statutory record. Appellants are not disputing the demand of duty in this regard. (2) The demand of Rs. 54,238.50 was made in respect of the defective goods, which were received in the factory but are not found in the factory of the date of visit. (3) The demand of Rs. 3,45,773 is in respect of the goods, which were mentioned in the inter-office memo but were not entered in their statutory record. (4) The goods valued at approximately Rs. 10,00,000 were seized which were found in the factory but were not entered in their statutory record.3. Appellants are not contesting of duty in respect of the first issue.The appellants are only challenging the imposition of penalty.4. In resp...

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Bharat Security Services and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT454TriDel

2. Revenue filed these applications for condoning the delay in filing the appeals. In view of the reasons explained in the applications, the delay is condoned.3. With the consent of the party, the appeals are taken up for final hearing.4. Revenue filed these appeals against the orders-in-appeal whereby the penalties imposed on the respondents were set aside as the respondents paid Service tax along with interest prior to 23-9-2004. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that a Voluntary Disclosure Schemes known as Extra Ordinary Tax Payer Friendly Scheme was circulated vide letter dated 23-9-2004. Under this-scheme any service provider who got registered up to 30-10-2004, are not liable for any penal action. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that in view of the immunity from penal action under this Extra Ordinary Tax Payer Friendly Scheme, no. penalty is imposable on the respondents, as they have paid service tax prior to 30-10-2004.5. The contention of the Revenue is tha...

Precision Stamping Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT453TriDel

1. In this appeal the issue relates to the denial of the Modvat credit of the amount in question to the appellants.2.The credit has been disallowed to the appellants by the Id.Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the dealer took over the business from another person and permission for that taking over was not allowed and as such the dealer could not issue the modvatable documents to the appellants. But in my view this ground is not legally tenable. At the time of issuance of invoices, the dealer was registered dealer. The appellants have received the goods from the dealer under the duty paid valid invoices. The actual receipt of the goods received by them, the duty paid character and utilisation of the goods by the appellants in their factory remains undisputed. There is also nothing on the record to suggest if any, proceedings had been initiated against the dealer. Under these circumstances, the appellants could not be denied the Modvat credit on the basis of the invoices in que...

ito, Ward 14(9) Vs. K.L. Bhakri

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)4SOT510(Delhi)

This appeal has been filed by therevenue on 3-12-1998 against the order of the learned CIT(Appeals)-XIII, New Delhi dated 11-9-1998 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment order under section 143(3) for assessment year 1992-93.In this appeal, the revenue has disputed deduction of Rs. 60,077 allowed to the assessee by the learned CIT(A) under the provisions of section 80-0 of the Act.Facts of the case leading to this appeal briefly are that daring the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed deduction under section 80-0 as per its letter dated 26-12-1994. The learned assessing officer found that assessee received commission income from certain foreign enterprises in relation to the import orders placed by Government organizations. On these facts, the learned assessing officer held that the assessee did not render any technical or professional services outside India. During the course of appeal before the learned CIT(A), the assessee submitted that it rendere...

ito, Baraut Vs. Tulsi Ram Bhagwan Dass

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)4SOT512(Delhi)

1. This appeal has been filed by the revenue on 12-1-2005 against the order of the learned CIT (Appeals), Meerut dated 8-10-2004 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment order under section 143(3) for assessment year 2001-02.In this appeal, the revenue has disputed deduction of Rs. 2,09,066 allowed to the assessee by the learned CIT(A) under the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. There is a typographical error in the grounds of appeal inasmuch as section 36(1)(ii) but on the facts of the case it is clear that dispute pertains to section 36(1)(iii) of the Act.Facts of the case leading to this appeal briefly are that the assessee claimed deduction of interest amounting to Rs. 2,09,066 on alleged cash loans from friends and relatives. The assessee argued that it had kept the cash loans inside an almirah for the purpose of business. The position of cash lying in almirah was as under: The learned assessing officer found out that trading activity of the assessee durin...

J.V. Strips Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(194)ELT237TriDel

2. The brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of C.R. sheets/Strips from HR Coils. On 9-9-99, the officers of the Revenue visited the residential premises of the Director Shri Krishan Bindal and recovered an amount of Rs. 11,00,000/- that was seized on the reasonable belief that which is liable for confiscation as it relates to the clearance of Excisable goods without payment of duty. The certain documents were also recovered from the premises of the Director Shri Krishan Bindal, which shows the receipt of raw material and physical stock available on the particular day. The comparison of the stock of raw material as recorded in the statutory record with the documents recovered from the Director shows that during the period 1-4-99 to 31-8-99 the appellants did not count for 1719.535 MT of raw material i.e., H.R. Coils. The document recovered from the premises of the Director also contains details of finished goods showing the specification etc. which...

Roop Rubber Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(102)ECC353

1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the appellants in spite of notice. Earlier also, on the last date of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellants. In these circumstances, the appeal is taken up in the absence of the appellants.2. Heard learned Departmental Representative. The appellants filed appeal against the Order-in-Appeal whereby the appellants refund was rejected the ground of unjust enrichment.3. Brief facts of the case are that appellants filed a refund claim of Rs. 23,757 on the ground that they had paid excess duty on rubber parts supplied to M/s. Life Long Appliances Ltd. The contention is that subsequently M/s. Life Long Appliances Ltd. reduced the price of the goods with retrospective effect and paid less amount. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for the refund.4. The contention of the Revenue is that the appellants paid appropriate duty at the time of clearance of the goods and the assessment made final. There was no request made by the ...

Assistant Engineer (Civil), Mpeb Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT35TriDel

1. In this appeal, the appellants had contested the correctness of the impugned order confirming duty and penalty on them as detailed therein.3. The confirmation of duty of rupees 1,37,963/- with penalty of rupees 10,000/- has been contested on the ground that the appellants had been wrongly held to be the manufacturer of the goods i.e. P.C.C. Poles on the ground that the machinery installed in factory run by M/s. ARS Engineering & Consultancy Services belonged to them. According to the counsel, the factory along with machine and machinery had been let out by the appellants to the above said firm which is actually engaged in the manufacture of P.C.C. Poles and supply of poles to the appellants by that firm is only against payment. Therefore, the duty demand, if any, could only be raised against the actual manufacturer of the goods and not against the appellants. On the other hand, S.D.R. has contended that raw-material for the manufacture of P.C.C. Poles had been supplied by the a...