Delhi Court June 2006 Judgments

income-tax Officer Vs. Smt. Gurinder Kaur

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)102ITD189(Delhi)

1. This appeal by the Department pertains to the assessment year 1993-94 and the only ground taken is as follows : Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) has erred in annulling the assessment order dated 28-3-2000 on the ground that the same is ab initio null and void although there were sufficient reasons to believe as recorded by the Assessing Officer that income has escaped assessment before issuing notice under Section 148 of Income-Tax Act.2. The brief facts leading up to the appeal are these. The assessee is an individual. She filed her return of income declaring income of Rs. 5,25,050 on 30-6-1993 which was processed under Section 143(1)(a). The case was reopened on the ground that there was information that the assessee had made some payments for the purchase of a farm house which were not declared in the accounts. Notice was issued under Section 148 on 28-12-1995 but the proceedings were subsequently dropped on 24-10-1997.3. Thereafter the assessment was...

Microsoft Corporation Vs. Deepak Raval

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2007(1)72

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The plaintiff, Microsoft Corporation, is a company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washington, USA. It has, however, its presence all over the world. In New Delhi it has marketing subsidiary Microsoft India Pvt. Ltd. The plaintiff is a world famous for its business software such as Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Office etc. which are installed and used on millions of computers all over the world, including India. It also manufactures a large range of computer peripherals (hardware). The hardware group was established in 1982 and during this period, the plaintiff has built its reputation for technological expertise in hardware by developing and launching a series of successful devices including the ergonomically designed 'Mouse' and Keyboard. It is stated that software developed and marketed by the plaintiff is 'computer programme' within the meaning of Section 2(ffc) of the Copyright Act, 1959 and included in the definition of a literary work as per...

Gwalior Polypipe Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This stay application is directed against recovery of the demand of duty of Rs. 34,521 /- (Rupees Thirty-four Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty-one only) and equivalent amount of penalty.2. The authorized representative appearing for the applicant submits that the factory is closed and he produces the documents moved for attachment of properties. It is also his submission that the factory is closed from 2003 and is not functioning as on date.3. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused records. I find from the balance sheet, (as produced by the representative) for the year ended 31st March 2005, there is a loss of Rs. 11.34 crores (Rupees Eleven Crores and Thirty Four Lakhs only). Further, I also find that the bankers who granted loan to the applicants, have already moved the debt recovery tribunal for attachment of properties. I find that the appellants are facing a great financial hardship and it would be difficult for them to deposit the amount of duty as well as ...

Dina Iron and Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicant has paid a sum of Rs. 33,76,000/-, as stated by the learned Counsel. The appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35-F by order dated 10-10-2005. According to the learned Authorized Representative for the Department, the amount deposited does not include the penalty imposed @ Rs. 100/- per day under the provisions of Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that, the amount has not been worked out by the Department. In any event, it was payable and if the applicant wants restoration on the ground of payment of the entire amount payable under the impugned order, the request for restoration can be considered only on the making of such pre-deposit. Furthermore, the matter is sub judice with the Hon'ble High Court since the order dismissing the appeal has already been challenged in the Writ Petition by the applicant, as stated by the learned Counsel. In view of these circumstances, the learned Counsel f...

Cce Vs. Hindustan Lever Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. 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 various edible products and were availing the modvat facility, as provided under Rule 57A and 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. The respondents received certain inputs cleared by 100% EOU. The respondents availed credit in respect of duty paid inputs cleared by 100% EOU. A show cause notice was issued for denial of credit and for imposition of penalty as the respondents are not entitled for credit in respect of inputs received from 100% EOU, in view of the provisions of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules provides that irrespective of the goods cleared by 100% EOU, the credit shall be restricted to the extent which is equal to the additional duty leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 paid on such goods. The case of the Revenue is that during the pe...

Asil Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC322

1. This appeal is directed against order in appeal dated 16-11-2005 in appeal No. ST/42/06 and against order in appeal dated 9-9-2005 in appeal No. ST/213/06. Since the issue involved in both the appeals is identical, they are disposed by a common order.2. The issue involved in this case is regarding the rejection of refund claim filed by the appellant, by the lower authority in respect of service tax amount paid by them on the receipt of the services from goods transport operators during the period 16-11-1997 to 2-5-1998. The learned consultant appearing for the appellant submits that they are not required to pay the service tax demanded from them in respect of the services received from goods transport operators as the Provisions of Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 are not invokable against them. It is his submission that they paid the service tax under the coercion of the departmental officers.3. Learned DR submits that there is no coercion but only a request letter from the Superin...

Shree Mahesh Granites (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)7STT182

1. All these three appeals are arising out of common order in appeal dated 15/07/05 which upheld the order in original continuing the service tax amount.2. Learned Company Secretary appearing for the appellants submits that issue involved in this case is regarding the demand of the service tax, for the services received by the appellant from GTO. He also submitted that, appeals arising out of the same order in appeal have been allowed by this Tribunal on 31^st May, 06.3. Learned DR submits that the issue involved in this ease is regarding the confirmation of demand subsequent to the retrospective amendment which were made and corrigendum to the show cause notice has already been issued.4. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused records. I find that in these cases the show cause notices were issued to the appellants in July, 02 demanding the amount of service tax under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 94. The issue has now been very well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme C...

Escorts Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard learned SDR, has none appeared on behalf of the appellant.Appellant filed appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of railway equipments and removed inputs for further processing to their job work under Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules 1944. The goods were removed under 4 Challans after reversing the duty at the rate of 10% under Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules. The certain goods were received back after processing within 180 days and the appellant availed the credit.Certain inputs were not received within 180 days. Regarding these inputs, the appellant reversed the whole of the credit. Show cause notice was issued to the appellant for denial of the credit in respect of the inputs, which were removed for job work under 4 Challans on the ground that all the inputs were not received back in full in the factory. The Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed the penalty.3. Commis...

NitIn Spinners Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)10STT127

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant against order in appeal dated 5-10-2005.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are the appellants had availed the services of goods transport operators during the period 16-11-97 to 1-6-98. Show cause notice was issued to them demanding the service tax. The appellants subsequently on their own filed ST 3B returns on 13-11-03 and also deposited a sum of Rs. 99,615/- (Rupees Ninety Nine Thousand Six Hundred and Fifteen only) towards the service tax on GTO services availed by them during the period. Subsequently the appellants filed the refund claim of the said amount on the ground that the show cause notice issued to them is not proper and no demand can be made against them. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim. On an appeal the Commissioner's (Appeals) also held the original and rejected the file by the appellant. Hence this appeal.3. The learned consultant appearing for the appellant submits that the amount of servic...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Anto Mal Jain

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)14STT104

1. This appeal is directed against order in appeal dated 31-8-05 which reduced the penalty imposed on the appellants.2. The relevant facts that arise are consideration the appellant was providing services of consulting engineering and applied for registration on 3-3-02. The appellant discharged the tax liability and the interest thereon between 18-5-02 and 27-1-03. Department issue show cause notice to the appellant on 20th May, 2004 which was adjudicated on 30th June, 2004 and amount paid towards Service Tax and interest was appropriated and equivalent amount of penalty was imposed. On an appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty imposed on the appellant to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only). Department is in appeal against such reduction of penalty.3. Learned DR submits that Commissioner (Appeal) could not have reduced the amount of penalty imposed on appellant Under Section 76. It is the submission that the minimum penalty imposable Under Section 76 is the minimum and...