Delhi Court July 2005 Judgments

Siya Nand Gola Vs. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]154TAXMAN282(Delhi)

T.S. Thakur, J.In this petition for a writ of Certiorari the petitioner has assailed the correctness of an order dated 24-10-2002 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax whereby he has declined to exercise his revisional jurisdiction under Suction 264 of the Act and upheld the order of assessment made against the petitioner. The facts giving rise to the petition lie in a narrow compass and may, thereforee, be set out as under :2. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Polyester Buttons in the name and style of Glossy Polyester. In the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1998-99, the assessing officer noticed that the petitioner had shown a sum of Rs. 2,76,033 towards Sundry Creditors. The assessing officer directed the petitioner to provide confirmation from the said creditors and to prove that the credits shown against them were genuine. Apart from the said direction, margin of the order sheet maintained by the assessing officer were...

Dr. JaIn Airways (P) Ltd. Vs. Delhi Gulf Airways (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Complainant entrusted a Helicopter to the O.P. for maintenance pursuant to the assurance of competence, expertise and ability to provide service to repair and maintain the Helicopter and make it airworthy. The Helicopter remained in the possession of the O.P. from June 1992 whereas the certificate of airworthiness was alleged to have been obtained in September 1993 by the O.P. and the requirement of major overhaul was intimated to the complainant only in January 1994. The complainant paid Rs. 4,96,667 from 17.6.1992 till September, 1994 to the O.P. It is alleged that the O.P. verbally intimated the complainant that certificate of airworthiness has been obtained whereas no such certificate was sent to the complainant. However, the Helicopter was returned in November 1995 but it remained grounded and did not fly for a single day. 2. On account of the failure of the O.P. to give Airworthiness Certificate and remove the defects in spite of having received conside...

Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides. The applicants filed this application for waiver of predeposit of duty and this is demanded in respect of waste of lubricating oil. As this issue is already covered by the decision of the this Tribunal in the case of Vikrant Tyres Ltd v. CCE, Mysore - , we are taking up this appeal after waiving the predeposit of the duty.2. In this case, the applicants are getting lubricating oil which is used in the machine and after use, this oil is drained off from the machine and duty is being confirmed in respect this of waste oil. We find that this issue is covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Vikrant Tyres Ltd. (supra) whereby it was held that the oil coming into existence was not as a result of production of manufacture and was not being a marketable commodity and hence it is not chargeable to duty. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed....

Klin-o-pack Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT945TriDel

1. The appellants are manufacturer of Collapsible Aluminium Tubes falling under Tariff Item 27(f) of the Central Excise Tariff. They were selling these collapsible tubes without caps to the customers. They were sending these collapsible tubes for capping to M/s. Metcon, another partnership company adjacent to the factory of the appellant on the direction of customer. One of the partners of the appellant company was the power of attorney holder of M/s. Metcon. The allegation of the department is that the aluminium collapsible tubes should have been assessed after adding the value of the caps. Since the duty was paid only without adding the value of the caps, therefore, there has been short levy of duty to the extent of Rs. 2,43,488.45 (basic) and Rs. 24,348.84 (special) for recovery of which notice was issued under Section 11A of the central Excise Act.2. Shri Gopal Parashad, learned Advocate, appearing for the appellants pleaded that as per definition of containers chargeable to duty ...

Radhey Shyam Ratanlal and Ajay Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(103)ECC132

1. These two appeals raise a common question and have been argued together.2. In Appeal No. C/608/01, the appellant has challenged the order dated 27.3.2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs holding that the goods (white poppy seeds), covered by bills of Entry No. 662784 dated 8.12.2000 and 663451 dated 18.12.2000 were liable for confiscation under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground that the value of consignment was under-declared at US $ 850 MT and that the difference in duty on the refixed value at US $ 1129 CIF PMT which came to Rs. 5,40,623 was payable. A redemption fine of Rs. 5,40,000 was imposed in lieu of confiscation of goods. By the same order, the duty difference in respect of similar goods covered by bills of Entry No.664212 dated 27.12.2000, 664947 dated 3.1.2001, 665311 dated 8.1.2001 and 665314 dated 8.1.2000 was worked out on the basis of the refixed value at US $ 1129 CIF PMT at Rs. 8,55,156 and the goods were confiscated under Section 111(m) o...

Eicher Tractors Ltd., Shri V.P. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides. The applicants filed these applications for waiver of duty of Rs. 25,83,44,804/- and penalty of the equal amount on the firm and penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed on each of the officers of the firm.2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants are engaged in the manufacture of tractors having more than 1800 cc and less than 1800 cc. The agricultural tractors having less than 1800 cc are exempt from payment of duty under Notification No. 162/86-CE dated 1.3.86 (as amended). The appellants, prior to 1994 used to get the gear box and hydraulic assembly from other unit on payment of duty. In 1994, the applicants stopped in getting the gear box and hydraulic assembly from other unit and changed the manufacturing process and they started manufacturing tractors and the sub-assembly on a single assembly line.This change was conveyed to the revenue vide letter dated 12th October 1994. Subsequently, the applicants also vide letter dated 4.8.95 gave all the informatio...

Atul Commodities P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. A common issue is involved in all these appeals. Therefore, they are being taken up together.2. In these cases, the appellants made import of second-hand photocopier machines. The Show-cause Notices were issued for enhancing the value of the goods imported by the appellants as well as for confiscation of the second-hand photocopier machines Under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act on the ground that goods in question are consumer goods and required a Special Import Licence.3. The appellants are not challenging the impugned order whereby the value of the goods imported is enhanced by the Revenue.4. Appellants are only challenging confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The contention of the appellants is that goods were confiscated on the ground that these are consumer goods and not capital goods and required a special import licence. The appellants relied upon the decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Atul Commodities (P) Ltd. ...

Sarya Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT392TriDel

1. There is a delay of one year and 14 days in filing the present appeal. The ground for condonation of inordinate delay in filing the appeal is that, from time to time various persons were looking after the excise affairs of the company and they were interacting with the consultant, namely, Shri Anoop Misra, Asstt. Manager from 13-12-1989 to 1-2-1999; Mr. DPN Singh, DGM up to February, 1999; Mr. Ashok Tripathi from 19-12-1999 to 2-8-2002 and Mr. R.P. Singh, Commercial Officer, left the company and after that nobody in the company was aware of the pendency of the Central Excise matter against the company and that the company became sick and the BIFR package was finally sanctioned in the year 2004 and the new management thereafter applied for the copy of the order. But all these facts, under the law, in my view, do not constitute a sufficient cause for condonation of the inordinate delay of over one year. The company was very much in existence. The change of the officers or leaving of ...

Additional Commissioner of Vs. Hilton Roulunds Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)97TTJ(Delhi)490

1. This is Department's appeal for asst. yr. 1997-98, raising the following grounds : "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in holding that deduction under Section 43B amounting to Rs. 6.07 lakhs be allowed even if the amount has been paid beyond the period provided under the Provident Fund Act but paid within the grace period of 5 days. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in directing that interest under Section 234B charged in view of the decision of apex Court in the case of CIT and Ors. v. Ranchi Club Ltd., ignoring the retrospective amendment proposed by the Finance Act, 2001." 2. Apropos the first ground, the issue is as to whether provident fund contribution amounting to Rs. 6,07,388, paid under Section 43B of the IT Act within the grace period of 5 days beyond the prescribed date, is allowable or not. The AO disallowed the payment. The learned CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, directing the AO to allow deduction if ...

international Caterers Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Manmohan Singh Vs. Manor Hote ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: IV(2005)BC587; 122(2005)DLT20; [2007]79SCL234(Delhi)

A.K. Sikri, J. 1. These two petitions seek winding up of the same respondent company, namely, M/s Manor Hotel Pvt.Ltd.. CP No.107/2004 is filed by M/s International Caterers Pvt.Ltd. under Section 433(e) & (f) as well as Section 434 read with Section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short `the Act'). It is filed through Mr.Manmohan Singh, its authorized signatory and the petition is primarily founded on the allegation that the respondent company (hereinafter referred to as `the company) is indebted to the petitioner in the sum of Rs. 2,43,69,510/-, besides interest and it be deemed that the company is unable to pay the same.2. CP No.110/2004 is filed by Mr.Manmohan Singh in his personal capacity seeking winding up of the company under Section 433(f) read with Section 439 of the Act on the ground that it is just and equitable, in the facts of this case, to wind up the company. He is a shareholder and director of the company and the case sought to be made out in this petition is that ...