Delhi Court May 2006 Judgments

Bhagwati Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These three miscellaneous applications have been filed for modification of the Stay Order No. S/106/06-Ex dated 25.1.2006.2. In the miscellaneous application No. 75 dated 23.1.2006, it is mentioned that the stay application came up for hearing on 20.1.2006 and the bench was pleased to adjourn the matter to 25.1.2006 to enable the appellant to place certain records and documents for consideration as mentioned therein. However, we find that no such order was passed on 20.1.2006, the only order passed was that the matter was adjourned to 25.1.2006 at the request of the counsel. On 25.1.2006, however, the stay application was disposed of taking into consideration all the issues raised by the applicants. Therefore, miscellaneous application No. 75 of 2006 also stood disposed of along with the main stay application.3. In the miscellaneous application No. 349 of 2006, the applicants have prayed to modify the Stay Order dated 25.1.2006 after setting aside the impugned order by granting tot...

J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant M/s J.K. Synthetics Ltd. claimed central excise classification for flanged bobbins manufactured by them under Tariff Heading 3326.90. This was approved and they cleared the said bobbins on payment of duty.2. Subsequently, show cause notice dated 19.9.90 was issued proposing to change the approved classification to heading 7616.90 and recover short-levy amount of over Rs. 3 lakhs. The appellant resisted the proposed change of classification by contending that the correct classification is as originally approved under heading 3326.90. In adjudication, the Assistant Collector confirmed the changed classification and the demand.3. This order was taken up in appeal before the Collector (Appeals).The assessee failed in that forum also. Thereupon, an appeal was filed before this Tribunal and the Tribunal allowed the appeal by holding that since the original payment of duty was in terms of an approved classification, there could be no short levy to be recovered. In the passin...

Hero Honda Motors Limited Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant M/s Hero Honda Motors Ltd. started manufacturing motor cycles in 1985. The said motor cycles were liable to central excise duty on ad valorem basis. Accordingly, they filed price lists from time to time before the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities. The prices declared were the sale prices of the motor cycles. The declared prices were approved and the appellant removed motor cycles from their factory after assessing them to duty based on the approved prices.2. In July, 1991, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant by the Collector, Central Excise, New Delhi alleging that the appellant had not declared the true and correct value of motor cycles in the price lists and that evasion of duty had taken place. The period covered by the notice was 1985-86 to 1990-91.3. The ground for alleging short-levy was that the appellant was taking a deposit of Rs. 500 per motor cycle at the time customers booked motor cycles and this deposit was an additional (to the sale...

Addl. Cit^*, Spl. Range-4, New Vs. Li and Fung India (P) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

This appeal by the revenue for assessment year 1997-98 is directed against order of Commissioner (Appeals) allowing deduction of Rs. 1,40,50,080 claimed under section 80-O of the Income Tax Act.The facts of the case in brief are that appellant claimed to have rendered technical services out of India as buying agent and thus claimed to be eligible for deduction of Rs. 3,20,81,836 under section 80-O of the Income Tax Act. However, as positive income was shown at Rs. 1,40,50,080, the deduction under the above provision was restricted to the income shown. The assessing officer was, however, of the view that assessee merely rendered managerial services not of technical nature and thus requirement of section 80-O of Income Tax Act were not satisfied. The deduction claimed by the assessee was accordingly denied. The assessing officer for his view relied upon the decision of Honble Delhi High Court in the case of J.K. (Bombay) Ltd. v. CBDT (1979) 118 ITR 312 (Del).On appeal, the Commissioner ...

Additional Commissioner of Vs. Li and Fung India (P.) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)104ITD75(Delhi)

1. This appeal by the revenue for assessment year 1997-98 is directed against order of CIT (Appeals) allowing deduction of Rs. 1,40,50,080 claimed under Section 80-O of the Income-tax Act.2. The facts of the case in brief are that appellant claimed to have rendered technical services out of India as buying agent and thus claimed to be eligible for deduction of Rs. 3,20,81,836 under Section 80-O of the Income-tax Act. However, as positive income was shown at Rs. 1,40,50,080, the deduction under the above provision was restricted to the income shown. The Assessing Officer was, however, of the view that assessee merely rendered managerial services not of technical nature and thus requirement of Section 80-O of Income-tax Act were not satisfied. The deduction claimed by the assessee was accordingly denied. The Assessing Officer for his view relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of J.K. (Bombay) Ltd. v. CBDT 1979 118 ITR 312 1 Taxman 537.3. On appeal, the CIT (Ap...

In Re : Bokiyu Tanneries Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(89)DRJ513

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. M/s. Bokiyu Tanneries Ltd. was ordered to be wound up vide Order dated 17th August, 1999 on the recommendation of BIFR.2. By another Order dated 17th February, 2005, this Court appointed a Committee to scrutinise the claims of the secured creditors and the workers. After verifying the claims, the Committee has accepted the following claims:(a) Workmen : Rs. 1,07,01,546/-.(b) Secured creditors:IFCI - Rs. 22,83,000/-Indian Bank (first charge) - Rs. 1,74,84,486/-Indian Bank (Second charge) - Rs. 7,17,88,954/-.3. The total amount available for disbursement is Rs. 4,42,53,718/-. This is after deducting of expenses and after keeping aside Rs. 10 lacs for meeting liability of 52 workers who have not yet filed their claims.4. The committee has recommended full payment of Rs. 1,07,01,546/- to the workmen and Rs. 22,83,000/- to IFCI (including Rs. 7,50,000/- already paid).5. The Committee held that the payment of Rs. 2,92,50,000/- has already been made to Indian Bank against ...

Suntech Glass Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the stay application came up for hearing 1 have heard both sides at length and am proceeding to dispose of the appeal itself.2. The dispute is about CENVAT credit. A part of the duty paid on the inputs has been denied for the purpose of credit with the following observation: In the instant case the party has not borne the incidence of duty on special packaging and supplier himself has made endorsement to the effect on the invoices. Therefore, I find that buyer of the inputs is entitled for Cenvat credit of duty paid by the buyer himself. The case laws cited by the party are different from the facts of the case and are not applicable in this case. I also find that the party have not made payment on the concerned part of duty element, suppressed the facts from the department and utilized such inadmissible credit in contravention of the aforesaid Rules. Thus, the party is liable to penal action also.3. There is nothing in Cenvat Rules which supports a view that credit will be ava...

India International Centre Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of demand of Service Tax of Rs. 60.38 lakhs and penalties. The applicant is registered under the Registration of Societies Act as a society.They are providing services to their members. The demand is raised treating the applicant as "Mandap Keeper" and providing service to their clients for consideration. The adjudicating authority held that even providing service to their own members is providing service to the clients, therefore, are liable to pay the Service Tax as "Mandap Keeper".3. The applicant relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court decision in the case of Saturday Club Ltd. v. Asstt. Commr Service Tax Cell whereby it is held that when the services by the club to its members it is not covered under the scope of Service Tax liable as Mandap Keeper. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in another case of Dalhousie Institute v. Assistant Commissioner also taken the same view. In view of the above decision...

A.K. Bhardwaj and ors. Vs. Icici and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: III(2006)BC187

1. This appeal is against an order made in LA. 534/2001 by the DRT-I, Delhi on 16.9.2002.2. When this appeal was taken up for consideration, Registry pointed out that as required under Rule 8 of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRAT Rules'), the requisite Court-fees has not been paid by the appellant, and, therefore, the appeal cannot be entertained without payment of requisite Court-fees. It is noticed that the appellant has paid a Court-fees of Rs. 10/- only. It is also noticed that prior to the amendment to the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT Rules'), which came into effect from 21.1.2003, when an appeal is filed before this Tribunal under Section 20 against an order passed by the Tribunal below in a Miscellaneous Application, a Court-fees of Rs. 10/- used to be collected by the Registry of this Tribunal. However, pursuant to the amendment, as indicated above, the Regi...

income Tax Officer Vs. Ashalok Nursing Home (P) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)103TTJ(Delhi)820

1. This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dt. 17th Feb., 2003 of CIT(A)-XXVII, New Delhi, relating to the asst. yr. 1999-2000.2. The assessee is a private limited company. In the order of assessment it is mentioned that the assessee is engaged in the business of running a nursing home. In the course of assessment proceedings the assessee submitted that it does not maintain a daily case register. The AO has referred to the fact that maintaining a 'daily case register' in Form 3C is a statutory requirement under Section 44AA of the Act, r/w Rule 6F(3) of the IT Rules. The AO was of the view that the gross receipt of the assessee cannot be verified in the absence of daily case register in Form 3C. The AO has made the following observations in the order of assessment: I am, therefore, not satisfied with the correctness and completeness of the accounts of the assessee. I, therefore, make an addition of Rs. 13,30,000 being approximately five per cent of the declared gross receip...