Delhi Court June 2006 Judgments

General Manager, Kisan Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC204

1. This appeal is directed against order in appeal dated 12/07/04 which upheld the order of confiscation and penalty on the appellants.2. The relevant fact that arises for consideration are the appellant is manufacturer of sugar and molasses. Physical stock checking of the appellant's factory was conducted on 10/10/98 and which date the authorities found the excess stock of 4488.05 qtls. of molasses as compared to the book stock. Show cause notice was issued to the appellant for confiscation of the seized goods, which on adjudication was confiscated, and penalty imposed on the appellant. The appellant's appeal was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence this appeal.3. Learned Representative appearing for the appellant submits that the stock verification done by the authorities was by dip reading method and it was not a correct method. It is his submission, that right from the beginning they are submitting that the manufacturing and clearances of their product molasses are done b...

T.T.G. Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 10,94,130/-. The applicant filed a refund claim for this amount, which was deposited under the KVS Scheme under the declaration filed by the appellant, which was not accepted by the competent authority. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Central Excise vide letter dated 30th June, 1999 informed the applicant that the amount of Rs. 10,94,130/- deposited by the applicant is to be adjusted towards the outstanding arrears of demand and penalty. Thereafter, the applicant filed appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Supreme Court vide order dated 7-5-2004 [2004 (167) E.L.T. 501 (S.C.)] allowed the appeal filed by the applicant by holding that the appellant is not liable to pay excise duty on the goods in question. The applicant filed refund of the amount, which was deposited under the KVS Scheme. The proper officer allowed the refund thereafter. The order was reviewed and the Commissioner (Appeals) held aga...

Petrofac International Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)5STR68

1. This application for rectification of mistake is filed by department against the order dated 5.1.06. Learned Departmental Representative submits that the mistake is apparent on record in as much the interest which is granted to the appellant in the case is not according to the settled law or according to the Board's Circular. It is his submission that interest can be granted for delay, beyond three months from the date of Commissioner (Appeals) order but Tribunal in its order has granted the interest from the date of order of Commissioner (Appeals) till the date of refund.2. Learned advocate submits that there is no mistake apparent on record. He relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Tide Water Oil Co. (India) Ltd. v. CCE, Ghaziabad and Krishna Ukltramarine and Chem. Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai , for the proposition that rectification of mistake does not envisage rectification of an alleged error of judgment.3. Considered the submissions made by both the sides and p...

Jindal Stainless Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC126

1. This application No. 435/2006 is a miscellaneous application filed by M/s. Jindal Stainless Ltd. This application has been filed "for correction of errors and modification of Stay Order No. S/316-317/2006 dated 30.3.2006 under the inherent powers of the Tribunal". The stay order dated 30.3.2006 directs the applicants to pre-deposit 50% of the duty demanded from them within a period of 4 weeks from 30.03.2006.2. The learned Counsel for the applicants states that this Tribunal had come to the prima facie conclusion that the applicants had exported more quantity of electricity to the State Electricity Department and imported lesser quantity from them. It was thus, inferred that the applicants had received more quantity of electricity from the State Electricity Board than that exported, which is not correct. Further, the learned Advocate states that, it was a mistake totally on his part as he could not react correctly when the question was asked by this Bench.3 While going through the ...

Mrs. Kamlesh Bansal Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)109TTJ(Delhi)417

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dt. 31st March, 2004 of CIT(A)-XI, New Delhi for the asst. yr. 2001-02. Though the assessee has raised several grounds of appeal, the effective ground of appeal is only one i.e. on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT(A) was not justified in holding that the assessee was not entitled to exemption under Section 54F.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee during the relevant assessment year had earned a long-term capital gain of Rs. 20,05,113 on sale of shares which had been claimed exempt under Section 54F of the IT Act. The assessee claimed that it had invested the sale consideration in construction of residential house within the period of three years as required under Section 54F. The land on which the house was constructed belonged to the husband of the assessee. The assessee explained to the AO that as per collaboration agreement dt. 15th Dec, 2000, the assessee as a developer had agreed to...

Dy. Cit Vs. Coastal Power Co.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These five appeals filed by the revenue pertain to the financial years 1994-95 to 1998-99. They are directed against the consolidated order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 7-2-2001.2. The brief facts giving rise to the appeals may be noticed. The assessee is a non-resident company. In December, 1997, it set up a liaison office in India. Prior to the setting up of the liaison office, the assessee had no presence in India. On 18-1-2000, a survey was conducted by the income-tax authorities under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act in the assessee's premises. In the course of the survey, the authorities verified the position in relation to the tax deducted at source by the assessee from the payments made to 6 persons who were appointed as "consultants". On the basis of the material gathered in the course of the survey, the assessing officer came to the conclusion that the assessee committed a default in not deducting the tax at source as required by Section 192 of the Act. Accor...

Northern Minerals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal dated 5.7.04 which upheld the order in original rejecting the refund claim of the appellants on the ground that appellants are not eligible for refund under Section 11AB and that he has paid the duty and interest correctly.2. Relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants had sought provisional assessment of goods for the financial year 2001-2002. The said provisional assessment were finalized by the authorities and that the appellant paid the differential duty to the authorities on 26.06.2002. While making the differential duty payment, the appellants calculated the interest payable at the rate of 24% on such differential duty and deposited the interest. Subsequently, the appellants filed the refund claim for an amount of Rs. 3,26,0571/- During the proceedings before the lower authorities the appellants conceded that they are liable to pay the interest at the rate of 24% upto 13.5.02, but from 13.5.02 to 13.6.200...

Singla Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(208)ELT513TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal dated 19.7.04 which, on the second round of litigation dismissed the appeal of the appellant against rejection of refund claim of Rs. 68,247/-.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant's factory was visited by the Preventive staff on 14.12.98 and they directed the appellant to reverse the amount of Rs. 3,48,685/- on an allegation that the modvat credit taken was illegal. The appellant did so. Subsequently, show cause notices were issued to the appellant demanding amount of ineligible credit which was availed by the appellant. The said show cause notices were contested by the appellants and on an appeal, it was decided in favour of the appellant. On the strength of such order in their favour, the appellant filed a refund claim of Rs. 3,48,685/- with the lower authorities. The lower authorities sanctioned the refund claim of Rs. 2,80,573/- and rejected the claim of Rs. 68,247/- on the ground that these am...

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. S.K. Dynamics (P) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)110TTJ(Delhi)607

1. These are the appeals filed by the Revenue against the order of learned CIT(A), Dehradun, dt. 29th Sept., 2005 for asst. yrs.1999-2000, 2002-03 and 2001-02.The assessee has also filed cross-objection in the asst. yr. 1999-2000. Following grounds of appeal have been taken by the Revenue: (1) That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the deductions under Section 80-O of the IT Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 51,25,370 to the assessee company without appreciating the fact that the patents were in the name of Shri Rakesh Goel and not in the name of the company i.e. M/s S.K. Dynamics (P) Ltd. (2) The, order of learned CIT(A) be set aside and that of the AO be restored. (1) That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the deductions under Section 80-O of the IT Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 52,85,620 to the assessee company without appreciating the fact that the patents were in the name of Shri Rakesh Goel and not in the name of the company i.e. M/s ...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Sham Udyog Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC541

1. These appeals are filed by the department against order in appeal dated 13-7-04 which reduced the penalty imposed on the respondents under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The learned DR submits that the provisions of Rule 96ZO(3) of Central Excise Rules 1944 would on plain reading, indicate that the amount of penalty that has to be imposed under the said rules is the penalty and is not the maximum penalty. Hence, Commissioner (Appeal) does not have the power to reduce the penalty imposed under Rule 96ZO(3). He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the case of Pee Aar Steels (P) Ltd. v.Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut as reported as .3. On the other hand, the learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the appellants own case in an identical issue has held that the Commissioner (Appeal) has got powers to reduce the penalty imposed on the appellants under Rule 96ZO...