Delhi Court August 2006 Judgments

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jindal Photo Films Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)1113ITD624(Delhi)

1. The appeal has been directed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 28th Nov., 1997 pertaining to asst. yr. 1994-95.2. In the sole ground, the Revenue has challenged the direction of the CIT(A) to allow deduction under Section 80-I of the Act despite the fact that the product being manufactured by the assessee came under the XIth Schedule of the Act.2A. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the production and manufacture of photo colour films. When the assessee claimed deduction under Section 80-I/80-IA of the Act the same was denied by the AO on the ground that the product manufactured/produced by the assessee fell in XIth Schedule of the Act.On appeal the CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee by observing that in asst. yr. 1990-91 he has allowed the claim of the assessee.This finding of the CIT(A) has been challenged before us. While learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the AO the learned Counsel supported ...

Sidharth and Gautam Engineers Vs. Commr. of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC412

2. The appeal is directed against imposition of anti-dumping duty under Notification No. 78/2001-Cus. dated 17-7-2001.3. The facts of the case are that the appellant purchased a consignment of 'Carbon Steel Seamless Pipes' from M/s. Offshore Engineering and Marketing Ltd., UAE. The invoice stated the country of origin as Romania. Under Notification No. 78/01 such pipes of Romanian origin are liable to anti-dumping duty provided the landed value was below US $ 1001 per MT. The appellant's landed value fell below that amount.Accordingly, anti-dumping duty was imposed. This appeal is directed against that levy of anti-dumping duty.4. The contention of the appellant is that the goods in question were manufactured by M/s. Petrotub S.A., a Romanian manufacturer whose exports are excluded from the purview of Notification No. 78/01-Cus.During the hearing of the case, learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to "Mill Test Certificate" issued by the manufacturer S.C. Petrotub S...

Artistic Stone (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla whereby the goods imported by the appellant were confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and allowed release of the same on payment of redemption fine and personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The goods were confiscated and penalty was imposed on the ground that appellant misdeclared the description of the goods.3. Appellant is a 100% Export Oriented Unit and imported raw material without payment of duty. The appellant made import of the goods in question on the strength of procurement certificate issued by the proper officer. The appellant declared the description of the goods as white stone, travertine tiles classifiable under Chapter 25 of Customs Tariff. As per the Customs, the goods are classifiable under Chapter 68 of the Customs Tariff. The adjudicating authority held that goods are not liable for duty as they produced amended procurement certificate is...

Engineering Technico (India) Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC404

2. The grievance of the appellant is that the adjudicating proceedings took place ex parte, inasmuch as the copies of the relied upon documents were not given to the appellant and in the absence of those documents, the appellant was not in a position to understand Revenue's case and the evidence relied upon and offer any meaningful defence. The record also shows that even unrelied upon documents seized from the appellant remain unreturned.3. A perusal of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) makes it clear that merits of the case have not been dealt with at all.4. It is well settled that a noticee must be supplied copies of materials relied upon against it. This has not taken place in this case. Further, the Revenue authorities have no use for and right to the unrelied upon documents. Therefore, the continued retention of those documents is wholly unjustified. The assesee may also have use of those documents in preparing its defence. Clearly, the proceedings in the present ...

Bharati Hexacom Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)7STT242

1. The appellant has challenged the order of the Commissioner confirming the demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 85,83,237/- under Section 73 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1944 and imposing penalty of the like amount under Section 78 along with the other penalty imposed under Section 76 as well as ordering interest to be recovered under Section 75 of the said Act.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has strongly contended that the applicant had paid sales tax on the SIM cards and since the cards were goods, there was no question invoking the provisions of the said Act for imposition of service tax thereon. He relied on the decision of the Tribunal on Idea Mobile Communication Ltd. v. CCE rendered on 25-5-2006 by Final Order No. 978/2006, 2006 (4) S.T.R. 132 (Tribunal) in which in a case where the levy of sales tax was not challenged, the Tribunal held that since the sales tax was already paid, it follows that service tax is not leviable on the item on which sales t...

Raunaq International Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant company Raunaq International Ltd. are challenging the order of Commissioner (Appeals) made on 31.1.2006. In this matter, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant and also to their subcontractors (Varshney Engineers and Erectors) on 24.9.03. They were required to show cause as to why they should not be jointly and severely considered as manufacturers of pipes rolled at the premises of NTPC Unchahar and why the Central Excise duty not paid on the said goods manufactured by them should not be demanded. Penal and interest clauses were also invoked by the issuing authority. In the order-in-original issued on 18.11.04, the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise had concluded that the appellant are the real manufacturers of the pipes with the following observations: ...In MOM dt. 19.8.96 it was agreed upon that RIL will supply the MS Plates required for making pipes for LPP system. RIL shall give four MG sets to M/s. Varshney Engineers and Erectors free of charge. ...

Coolwels Automobile Engineers Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These two appeals are filed against the order-in-appeal dt. 25-3-04 which upheld the order-in-original confirming the demand of duty and imposition of penalties and also confiscation of goods and truck.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are the Preventive Officers of Central Excise intercepted a vehicle on 22-11-2000 and on demand, driver could not produce any duty paying documents for 92 boxes loaded in the said vehicle. After recording the statement of driver and Panchnama, in a follow-up action on 22-11-2000, the officers visited the factory premises of the appellant and conducted further investigation. On conclusion of such investigation, the revenue issued SCN to the appellants directing them to show cause as to why duty should not be demanded on the goods seized and also why the penalties should be imposed on them in addition to confiscation of the said seized goods. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, imposed penalties and also confiscated the go...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Saraya Industries Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)104TTJ(Delhi)213

1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A), dt. 13th Jan., 2003 for the asst. yr. 1990-91 in the matter of imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.2. The only grievance of the Revenue relates to the action of the CIT(A) for deleting the penalty of Rs. 88,40,715 imposed by the AO under Section 271(1)(c).3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. In respect of assessee's claim for depreciation, which was not found to be allowable, the AO imposed penalty of Rs. 80,37,014 under Section 271(1)(c) which was enhanced to Rs. 88,40,715 by passing order under Section 154. The facts in brief are that the assessee claimed 100 per cent depreciation amounting to Rs. 1,48,83,369 on the biogas plant, which was disallowed by the AO on the ground that this plant has not started giving the end product, i.e., biogas during the year. Since the plant started giving biogas only from the subsequent year, i.e., 1991-92, 100 per cent depreciation wa...

Ajit Singh Vs. the Director of Education and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 133(2006)DLT285

Manju Goel, J. 1. This writ petition seeks an order or direction in the nature of declaration declaring that the action of the respondent/school in withholding the pensionary benefit of the petitioner is in violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights under Article 14 of the Constitution and in violation of Section 10(1) of the Delhi School Education Act and Rule 177(2)(a) of the Rules and for a direction for granting the petitioner the pensionary benefits as has been given to one Mr.B.Das, an ex employee of the school. The petitioner is a retired TGT Physical Education teacher of Delhi Public School, Mathura Road. He joined the school after coming into effect of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act') and claims that his service is regulated by Section 10(1) of the Act which envisages parity of pay, pension, gratuity and other prescribed benefits between the employees of recognized private unaided schools with employees of corresponding status i...

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Tejvir Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 132(2006)DLT104

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. By this common order, we are disposing of the above writ petitions. WP(C)7283-85/2005 7283-85/2005 is filed by the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Director General of Health Services and the Medical Superintendent, Dr. Ram Manohar Lal Hospital (RR Cell) against the judgment and order dated 24th December, 2004 in OA 462/2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. The said OA had been filed by respondent-Tejvir Singh by which he challenged the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing a punishment of removal from service. The Tribunal partly allowed the OA. Respondent Tejvir Singh along with one Dayanand (respondent in WP(C) 7849-51/2005 7849-51/2005 ), Om Prakash, Vinod Bist and Rishipal were proceeded in a joint inquiry for allegedly entering upon and disturbing the proceeding of a Selection Committee. The Inquiry Officer held the charges to be fully proved. Tejvir Singh and Da...