Delhi Court March 2006 Judgments

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sahara India Corporation Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)206CTR(Del)258; [2008]296ITR285(Delhi)

ORDER1. The AO had, for the asst. yr. 1996-97, rejected the assessed's contention that the shares held by it were its stock-in-trade. The AO was of the view that the shares were held as a long-term capital investment. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessed preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who reversed the view taken by the AO and held that the shares held by the assessed were actually its stock-in-trade and not capital investment as held by the AO. A further appeal filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal has been dismissed aggrieved whereof it is in appeal before us under Section 260A of the IT Act.2. Mr. Sabharwal, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue made a solitary submission for us. He urged that the Tribunal had not examined the question whether the shares held by the assessed were by way of stock-in-trade. The Tribunal had, according to the learned Counsel, proceeded on an assumption that the shares were indeed stock-in-trade and all that was required to be examined...

Durga Chemical Agency Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides and perused the record. The appellant paid service tax for the period September 1999 to March 2004. A refund application was filed on 13-8-04 seeking refund of the entire service tax paid on the ground that the service tax rendered did not come within the ambit of the service tax and that tax was paid under mistake of law.Commissioner Appeals accepted the appellant's submission that the tax was not due, but limited the refund amount to the period of one year prior to the date of refund application. While doing so, he was following the statutory time limit.2. The contention in the present appeal is that appellant paid service tax under mistake of law and the Commissioner Appeals was in error in imposing time limit on the appellant's claim.3. There is no merit in the appellant's contention. It is well settled that when a statute fixes a time limit, all the statutory authorities are bound by that time limit. That being the legal position, Commissioner could not have a...

Shri G.R. Batra, Prop. of G and G Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC177

1. M/s G. & G. Enterprises, New Delhi imported consignments of motor part/ condenser through Air Cargo Complex, Trivandrum vide Bill of Entry No. 3446 dated 21.07.97 and 3515 dated 3515 dated 25.7.97. They have declared the value of condenser as Singapore Dollar 3.00 FOB per piece. It was alleged in the show cause notice that the value of identical goods imported by them at Delhi vide Bill of Entry No. 605118 dated 9.12.97 was declared as US$ 45.6 FOB per piece. It therefore appeared that the value declared in respect of condenser imported under Bill of Entry No. 3446 dated 21.07.97 and Bill of Entry No. 3515 dated 25.7.97 and cleared from Air Cargo Complex, Trivandrum was grossly undervalued. Therefore, investigation was conducted and statements of Shri G.R. Batra Prop. of importing firm M/s G&G Enterprises and Shri Rajasekharan Nair, Representative of Customs House Agent firm M/s Air Travel Enterprises (K) (P) Ltd. were recorded. After investigation differential duty of Rs. ...

Shri Yogender Singh Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. On 31.8.1992; an FIR was registered by Gurgaon Police, about theft of vehicles manufactured by Maruti Udyog Ltd. Investigation led to the recovery of several stolen vehicles. While police authorities charged several persons including the present appellant, Mr. Joginder Singh for the theft, Central Excise Department issued show cause notice to recover duty on the stolen cars as well as to penalise the person concerned with the clandestine non-duty paid removal of the vehicles.Under the impugned order, a penalty of Rs 1.0 lakh remains confirmed against the appellant.2. The appellant was a mechanic at the relevant time with Maruti Udyog Ltd. The allegation was that the appellant was involved in the theft and stolen cars were recovered based on the statement made by the appellant and others before the police.3. The submission of the learned consultant appearing for the appellant is that in prosecution, the appellant has been acquitted and in a such case, the penalty imposed on him is n...

Makalu Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Vivek Nagpal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2007)BC276; [2006]133CompCas593(Delhi); 2006(89)DRJ300

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.IA No. 11181/2001 (Under Order xxxvII Rule 3(5) CPC)1. The plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 46,70,470/- under the provisions of Order xxxvII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code').2. The plaintiff is a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 09.07.1997 defendant came to the office of Mr. R.C.Kapoor, charted accountant and requested the plaintiff through its Manager Rohit Bahl to advance a sum of Rs. 25 lakh as loan. The plaintiff wanted collateral security and the defendant in view of the same surrendered 1,13,000 shares bearing distinctive numbers from 020082703-020195702 of M/s Padmini Polymers Ltd. The defendant is further stated to have given additional 29,000 shares bearing distinctive numbers from 020195703-020224702 of the same company towards the margin money for performance of the said agreement as prevalent in the market. On surrender of...

Madhu Sudan Vs. Dr. Suresh Gupta and Others.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. This is the most unfortunate case of medical negligence which resulted in the death of small child of 2 years who was taken to the O.Ps. only for micro stitches on the minor injury on his forehead and after being put under anaesthesia he never regained consciousness and died within three days. Through this complaint, complainant has sought Rs. 10,00,000 (Rupees ten lacs) as compensation. 2. Complainants son Master Ankur, who was 2 years old suffered minor injury on his forehead on the evening of 27th May 1991. He was given immediate attention at the clinic of Dr. M.M. Sharma, K-Block, Lajpat Nagar by way of three stitches. As ill luck would have it, apprehending possibility of visible scar the complainant took his son to Delhi Plastic Surgery Clinic on 29th May, 1991 of which O.P. Dr. Suresh Gupta is owner Surgeon. He advised micro stitches. The unfortunate child was admitted in the hospital at 10.00 a.m. under anaesthesia with Ketamine injection and was take...

Friends Spinners (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri Hari Shankar, ld.Advocate for the appellants and Shri V. Valte, ld. SDR for the revenue, we find that the demand of duty of Rs. 5,19,130/- stands confirmed against the appellants along with the confiscation of seized yarn as also imposition of penalty on the finding that during the period relevant for the purposes of the present appeal, the appellants had cleared polyester synthetic yarn under the guise of shoddy yarn.2. The appellant's factory was visited by the Central Excise Officers on 8-7-98, who conducted various checks and verifications. As a result of investigation, it was found that the appellant was manufacturing polyester yarn, which attracted higher rate of duty of 18% BED and AED @ 15% of BED. The appellants had never declared the manufacture of polyester yarn with the Central Excise department and never entered the POY waste in their records. On physical verification, the polyester yarn weighing 2100 Kgs was found layi...

The Commissioner of Central Vs. H and R Johnson (India) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeal), revenue has filed the present appeal.2. As per facts on records, the respondents M/s. H & R Johnson (India) Ltd., are engaged in the manufacture of Ceramic Glazed Tiles and paving falling under Chapter heading No. 6906.10 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Two types of price lists were filed by the said assessee, one in Part-I (for the clearance of goods at factory gate price) and other in Part-IV (for clearance of their goods through branch depots). A dispute as regards the clearances and subsequent sale from the depots arose in respect of the value of the said goods. Accordingly, four show cause notices were issued to the assessee covering the period May 1989 to March 1990 raising demand of duty of Rs. 12,42,666.84. The said show cause notices were adjudicated vide order-in-original dated 28/07/90 confirming demand of duty against the assessee. The said order of the original adjudicating authority was appeal...

Shakumbari Sugar and Allied Ind. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(109)ECC56

1. Vide his impugned order authorities below had confirmed demand of duty of Rs. 10,86,800/- (Rupees ten lakhs eighty six thousand eighty hundred only) and has imposed personal penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs (Rupees ten lakhs only) upon the appellant on the findings of clearance of molasses without payment of duty.2. After hearing both the sides, it is seen that the appellant who is engaged in the manufacture of sugar started their factory in the year 1994 and the production started w.e.f. February 1996. Two steel tanks were approved by State Excise Department under their certificate dt.16.2.1996 for the purpose of storage of molasses and third tanks was under construction during the relevant period. The storage and removal of molasses is under physical control of the State Excise Department, whose officers always remain in the factory for necessary checks and control. The molasses are required to be cleared from the factory under supervision of State Excise Officer on the strength of M.F.4 ...

Malwa Cotton Spg. Mills Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 18.11.2004 which upheld the Order-in-Original which rejected the refund claim filed by the appellants.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants imported spare parts for textile machinery and filed Bill of Entry on 8.11.2002 for home consumption and paid the total duty as assessed by the proper officer. They did not challenge the assessment order of the bill of entry. Subsequently the appellants preferred refund claim on the ground that they are 100% E.O.U. and their Green card and RCMC were duly revalidated and when they cleared the goods on 8.11.2002 their RCMC book was validated hence eligible for benefit of 100% E.O.U. The adjudicating authority rejected refund claim on the ground that they have not filed any appeal against assessment of bill of entry. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) also came to the concurrent findings and rejected the appeal. Hence, this appeal.3. Considered the submiss...