Delhi Court September 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 1 of about 196 results (0.020 seconds)Uni Products (i) Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC359
1. The issue in all these appeals is in respect of the classification of the Carpets manufactured by the appellants. The appellants classified the said product, as a "Jute floor coverings" falling under Chapter Sub Heading No. 5703.20 while the Revenue wants it to be classified as falling under Chapter Sub Heading No. 5703.90.2. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the carpets manufactured by the appellants are liable to be classified as 'Jute carpets' under chapter sub heading No. 5703.20 only. He submits that the manufacturing process involves the tacking of fibres of jute and Polypropylene together and then Needle punching the same to a Hessian cloth in a single processing, with polypropylene at the top layer. He takes us through the Chapter Note No. 1 of the Chapter 57, and according to him this chapter note is for the purpose of the classification of the Carpets in the Chapter 57, based upon the exposed surface being of some textile material, and once the carpets are c...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Modi Tyre Factory
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT286TriDel
1. The Revenue has preferred this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the order-in-original made by the Additional Commissioner by which a duty demand of Rs. 1,86,713/- was confirmed under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excises Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and a penalty of the like amount was imposed under Rule 173Q read with Section 11 AC and interest was also directed to be paid under Section 11AB of the said Act.2. The matter was called out for final hearing on 29-9-2005. No one appeared for the respondent. After the authorised representative of the department for the appellant Commissioner completed his arguments, the matter was kept in the second sitting to enable the authorised representative of the respondent to appear. However, no one was present through out the day for the respondent and the matter was, therefore, kept today to give a further opportunity to the respondents, to argue the matter. Even today, no one...
Tag this Judgment!Cce Vs. Arsh Castings Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2006)(195)ELT302TriDel
1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order set aside the demand which was confirmed by the adjudicating authority on the basis of entries made in few notebooks i.e. analysis report and dispatch book of laboratory, recovered from the premises of the respondent. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that this private record is meant only for internal movement of goods.2. This order is challenged by the Revenue on the ground that the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and this record recovered from the premises of the respondents are for internal use only is against the evidence on record. The contention is that this record is being maintained by Shri Om Parkash, chemist and he in his statement submitted that apart from preparing analysis reports he is also preparing record regarding the dispatch of the ingots. The contention is that Sh. Om Parkash in his statement...
Tag this Judgment!Satpushp Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2007)8STR319
2. The appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. The brief facts of the case are that on 5.12.91, the officers of Revenue visited the factory premises of the appellant and certain loose papers were recovered from Shri D.K. Rana. Shri D.K. Rana was an employee of the contractor who supplied labour to the appellant-firm and these loose papers shown the production from 1-11-91 to 30-11-91.According to these loose papers, the production of ingots is much higher than reflected in the RG-1 record. Physical verification was also conducted in respect of the final production found in the factory and it was found that there was shortage of final product. Show cause notice was issued asking for duty in respect of the final product found in short and in respect of the ingots as per slips recovered from Shri D.K. Rana which were not reflected in the RG-1 record. The adjudicating authority dropped the demand on the ground that the demand was rai...
Tag this Judgment!Spfl Securities Ltd. Vs. Dy Cit, Circle 3(5), New Delhi
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2006)6SOT562(Delhi)
This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 31-1-2002 pertaining to assessment year 1998-99.Following grounds of appeal have been preferred - "1. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was wrong to hold that the loss of Rs. 30,68,331 incurred by the assessee on the purchase and sale of shares, where delivery of shares were taken, as speculation loss, contrary to the provisions of sections 28 to 43.2. That the Commissioner (Appeals) was wrong to apply the Explanation to section 73, which is limited to section 73 only, to treat the business loss in shares as speculation loss.3. That the Commissioner (Appeals) wrongly applied the Explanation to section 73 to the facts of the case, and has wrongly interpreted and applied the decision of the Calcutta High Court in 192 ITR 365 and section 73. The finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) being contrary to law be vacated." In brief, the facts are that the assessee is a company incorporated under the p...
Tag this Judgment!Magnum Power Generation Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2006)102TTJ(Delhi)163
1. These are appeals filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A).2. The common ground of appeal taken in both these appeals by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition of a sum of Rs. 10,80,000 in the asst. yr.1998-99 and Rs. 12,60,123 in the asst. yr. 2001-02 on account of interest income. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had given inter-corporate deposits (in short 'ICD') to M/s Padmani Polymers Ltd. (in short 'PPL') for a period of 90 days from 22nd Sept., 1995 to 3rd Jan., 1996 @ 24 per cent. The ICD of Rs. 1 crore was renewed for another period of 90 days from 3rd Jan., 1996 to 3rd April, 1996 @ 24 per cent interest. At the time of repayment M/s PPL did not have sufficient funds and requested for deferment and rollover which had to be accepted under compulsion and finally received post-dated cheques as follows:------------------------------------------------------------- Date Amount(Rs.) Remarks-------...
Tag this Judgment!Taranbir Singh Sawhney Vs. Dy Cit, Na Cir. 11(1)
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2006)5SOT417(Delhi)
This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 26-9-2000 pertaining to assessment year-1997-98.'I. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the lower authorities were not justified in not accepting the statutory claim of deduction under section 54F even though the capital gains was used for investment in house property as per requirement of the section.That the rejection of the claim was on technical ground even though there is no dispute about the facts that the capital gain was used for investment in property in accordance with spirit and object of the section." In brief, the facts are that the assessee individual is a non-resident who filed his return of income for the assessment year under consideration declaring nil income. The return was due to be filed for the assessment year under consideration on or by 30-6-1997 but was filed on 13-11-1998. The assessing officer noticed that the assessee had declared capital gain on sale of sha...
Tag this Judgment!Bj Services Company Middle East Vs. Asstt. Cit (Osd), Range-1,
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)4SOT633(Delhi)
This is a bunch of 15 appeals by the assessee as an agent of the employees mentioned in the caption of this order filed against separate orders of the learned CIT(A)-I, Dehradun for the assessment year 2003-04. Since the issue involved in these appeals is identical, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.In all these appeals, the assessee has raised the following identical ground : "That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding tax perquisite grossing up to be on multiple stage and not on single-stage grossing up." The facts common to all the cases are that the assessee had filed original returns of income in all the cases on 19-9-2003 as agent of the persons mentioned in the caption of the order who were employees of the assessee and in the returns of income the assessee had declared income from salary. As per employment agreements made with the employees, the assessee had undertaken to pay tax on th...
Tag this Judgment!Sikkim Janseva Pratisthan (P.) Vs. Dy. Cit, Spl. Range-26
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2006)5SOT487(Delhi)
All the above appeals by the assessee are directed against common order of Commissioner (Appeals)-I, New Delhi dated 6-11 -1998 for assessment years 1992-93 to 1995-96.Briefly the facts are that the assessee -company is deriving income from dividend and interest etc. The assessee-company was treated as foreign company in the earlier years. Even for the assessment years under reference, the assessee had admittedly filed returns in the status of a foreign company. However, the assessee-company has shown income from dividend and interest and in the computation of total income, the assessee-company has claimed the deduction under section 80GGA(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act on account of contributions made to various institutions approved for the purpose of deductions under section 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. The assessing officer was of the view that since the assessee-company is a foreign company, the same was liable to tax at the rate of 25 per cent on gross amount of dividend, inte...
Tag this Judgment!Pepperi + Fuchs (India) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Cit, Circle 14(1)
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2006)6SOT10(Delhi)
This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 26-4-2002 pertaining to assessment year 1998-99 arising out of the order of the assessing officer dated 26-3-2001 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).The first ground preferred by the assessee dealing with the denial of reasonable opportunity of being heard by the assessing officer has not been pressed before us and is accordingly dismissed.The second ground taken by the assessee is with regard to the action of the Commissioner (Appeals) in not allowing depreciation in respect of plant and machinery, generator, dies and moulds amounting to Rs. 1,73,732. The assessee is in the business of assembly (manufacturing) and trading of proximity switch, isolation amplifiers, being electronic items. The assessing officer denied the claim of depreciation on the ground that since the manufacturing activities of the assessee have been discontinued with ef...
Tag this Judgment!