Delhi Court June 2006 Judgments

S. Ramanand Aiyar and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In this case the appellants are liable to pay service tax. However, the part of service tax was not paid on the due dates. There was delay ranging from 95 days to 187 days in deposit of the tax. There is also delay in filing the half yearly return.2. The adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 100/- per day under Section 76 of the Finance Act. For late filing of returns also penalty of Rs. 2000/- was imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act.3. The only contention of the appellant is that as per the provisions of Section 76 during the relevant period only penalty of Rs. 100/- is to be imposed and relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of R.B. Bahutule v. CCE, Mumbai 4. Ld. DR pointed out that in view of the conflicting decision regarding interpretation of Section 76 of Finance Act, the matter was referred to Larger Bench in the case of ETA Engi...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Rakesh Singhal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC568

1. Heard both sides. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby penalty on the present respondent was set aside.2. The respondent is the Director of M/s. P.J. Steels (P) Ltd. The premises of M/s. P.J. Steels was visited by the revenue officer and it was found that there was certain shortage in their final product. Duty was demand from M/s. P.J. Steels (P) Ltd. and penalty of the equal amount was imposed on the firm and penalty of one lakh was imposed on the present respondent by the adjudicating authority on the ground that everything was in the knowledge of the present respondent, therefore, liable for penal action.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty on the ground that there is nothing on record to prove that present respondent physically dealt with the goods found short. There is also no finding in the adjudication order that present respondent had dealt with excisable goods in any manner specifically contemplat...

Cce Vs. Bharat Steel Rolling Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(114)ECC224

2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of MS girder, angles etc, With effect from 1.9.97, the respondents were working under the Compounded Levy Scheme and were paying duty as determined by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The production was stopped on 30^th September 1998 and the respondent surrendered the excise licence registration on 30.10.98. The respondent obtained a fresh registration on 31.10.02 and started production. The Revenue demanded duty on the ground that the appellant should have paid duty as determined by the Commissioner of Central Excise under the compounded Lew Scheme during the period of closure. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals), on appeal filed by the appellant, set aside the demand on the ground that during this period the appellant surrendered the lice...

Mohan Generators and Pumps Pvt. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC498

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 the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of DG sets. The business as well as residence premises of the appellants were searched by the Revenue officers and during investigation it was found that the appellants were clearing the excisable goods without payment of duty by maintaining parallel set of invoices. Show-cause notice was issued for demand of duty and imposition of penalty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 25,110/-, penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules and penalty equal to the duty demand was imposed under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, penalty of Rs. one lakh was imposed on Shri Mohan Singh, Director under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules.4. The contention of the appellant is that there is no evidence on record to show that the goods were cleared without payment of dut...

Wild Expeditions Tour and Travels Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)7STT56

1. This stay application is directed against computation of service tax amount and penalty imposed on the applicants.2. It is the submission of the appellants that the service tax amount which has been demanded and confirmed has not been correctly worked out by the authorities. They have already deposited Rs. 14,975/- with the authorities during the pendency of the proceedings.3. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. I find that the demand of service tax is against the service provided by the applicants as Rent-a-Cab operator and the applicants have not deposited the amount, on the ground that they have not collected the amount from their clients, but this itself does not mean that they are not liable to pay the service tax. Since the applicants have not made out prima facie case for full waiver of pre-deposit of service tax, the applicant is directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 35,000/- within 4 weeks from today and report compliance on 24th July, 2006...

Fertichem India Vs. C.C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC663

1. This stay application is directed against demand of duty on imports made by the applicant against DEPB scrips.2. The issue involved in this case is covered by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal. Hence, waiver of pre-deposit of duty is granted and appeal itself is taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides.3. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. I find that the appellants have purchased DEPB Scrips from M/s.ATM International. Later on investigation it was found that M/s. ATM International have obtained/procured these DEPB Scrips fraudulently i.e. by submitting forged bank realization certificate. The appellant imported consignment against these DEPB Scrips on 3.2.2000 and they were issued show cause notice in June, 2002. I find that the issue involved in this case is regarding demand of duty foregone by the Revenue in respect of DEPB Scrips produced by the appellants. The transferee was not aware that DEPB Scrip which is purch...

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Amtek Auto Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)112TTJ(Delhi)455

1. This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A), dt. 21st Dec., 2001 pertaining to asst. yr. 1998-99. (i) The CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the entire addition made to the trading account without showing as to how the AO was not justified in making addition of Rs. 7,37,750. (ii) The CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,09,37,000 made on account of unexplained public deposit accepted under Section 68 of the Companies Act, especially when the assessee had failed to file corroborative evidence despite of specific requirements as per IT Act, 1961. (iii) The CIT(A) has erred in law in allowing a relief of Rs. 10,52,231 disallowed by the AO out of foreign travelling expenses without giving any reason whatsoever and without even discussing AO's order in his order. (iv) The CIT(A) has erred in law in giving relief of Rs. 6,64,500 disallowed by the AO out of entertainment expenses ignoring the real factual proposition that in absence of evidence p...

Shivalika Co-operative Group Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)101ITD391(Delhi)

1. These two appeals have been filed by assessee on 20-2-2006 against the order of the learned CIT(Appeals)-XXVI, New Delhi, dated 8-11-2005 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 for assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99.2. In these two appeals the assessee has taken identically worded grounds of appeal. Grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are directed against initiation of proceedings under Section 147. The case of the assessee in this respect is that the view taken by the learned Assessing Officer was contrary to the Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in DIT v. All India Oriental Bank of Commerce Welfare Society [2003] 184 CTR (Delhi) 274 : 130 Taxman 575 and certain decisions of the Tribunal. Facts of the case leading to these grounds of appeal are that the assessee filed return of income for assessment year 1997-98 on 8-1-1998 and for assessment year 1998-99 on 25-1-1999 declaring nil income. The Assessing Officer issued...

John Lewis Banner Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)105TTJ(Delhi)298

1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A), dt. 18th Dec., 2001 pertaining to the asst. yr. 1998-99.2. The assessee has preferred two effective grounds of appeal. The first ground is with respect to the denial of exemption under Section 10(5B) of the IT Act 1961 (in short "the Act"). The second ground is with respect to the levy of interest under Section 234B of the Act.3. The facts relevant to the first ground are that the assessee is an individual who has been employed as a managing director with Caltex Lubricants India Ltd (hereinafter referred as the "company"). The assessee is a foreign national, and was hitherto employed with the Caltex Group outside India also. The tax on the salaries received by the assessee from the company was borne by the said Company. The assessee claimed exemption from including such amount in his income in terms of the provisions of Section 10(5B) of the Act. The claim of the assessee was that he was a technician and was employe...

Marubeni India (P.) Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)101ITD437(Delhi)

1. The assessee-company, a 100 percent subsidiary company of Marubeni Corporation of Japan, was incorporated as a private limited company on 21.5.1996. With effect from 1.6.1996, the assessee commenced business after taking over the assets and liabilities of the liaison office of Marubeni Corporation, the Japanese company. The main business of the assessee is international trading in various items such as textiles, chemicals, energy, metal etc. It took over eighteen employees of the Japanese company who were working in the liaison office, on deputation basis. These employees were to continue to be also employees of the Japanese company and thus, there was a kind of a dual employment. The salaries and perquisites which these employees were receiving from the Japanese company were continued to be received by them. These salaries and perquisites were paid by the Japanese company not in India but outside. For their services to the assessee, they were paid a comparatively small amount of s...