Delhi Court June 2007 Judgments

Hutchison Essar South Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)8STR555

1. This is a stay application filed along with an appeal challenging the order of the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Meerut-I dated 31.1.2007. In the impugned order, the Commissioner has confirmed the demand of cenvat credit against the appellant a la foi dropping the demand of cenvat credit made under the show cause notice for the various reasons, detailed thereunder.2. The appellants are registered with the Service Tax authorities at Meerut for providing telephone services and admittedly have been filing ST-3 returns with the department. The dispute is with regard to availment of cenvat credit which has culminated into the total demand of Rs. 2,60,27,342/- besides and imposition of a penalty on the appellants to the tune of Rs. 50,10,000/-.3. For convenience sake the demand raised could be covered under the following three categories: (1) Demand raised on the ground that the capital goods were received prior to 10.9.2004-Rs. 70,50,003/-; (2) Demand raised on the ground ...

Gopal Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(121)ECC173

1. The issue involved in this case is whether outgoing partners are liable to pay excise duty assessed against a registered partnership firm, which was dissolved. Having regard to the importance and wide repercussions of the question involved the appeal has been placed for disposal before this Larger Bench.2. The Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh had earlier, by order made in Writ Petition No. 2239/2002 dated 20.2.2002, remanded the matter, after quashing the order passed by the Commissioner on 6.5.2002, with a direction to the petitioners to appear before the Commissioner and file their reply to the show cause notice dated 24.3.2003. Thereafter, fresh adjudication order was made by the Commissioner on 31.1.2004, confirming central excise duty demand of Rs. 46,053,866/- and ordering its recovery from the original notice No. (1), which is the present appellant No. (1). Penalty of like amount was imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, on the said assessees and in...

Kanha Vanaspati Ltd. Vs. Additional Cit, Range-50

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These appeals by the assessee for assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02 arise out of common order of Commissioner (Appeals)-XXX, New Delhi. These appeals were heard together and for sake of convenience, the same are disposed of by this consolidated order.2. The only issue for consideration which is common in both the appeals relates to confirming of penalty under Section 271C of the Act for failure to deduct tax at source on discounting charges incurred. The facts of the case stated in brief are that a survey under Section 133A was conducted in the business premises of the assessee on 24-2-2003.During the course of survey it was found that the assessee had been debiting, "financial charges" under the head "Discounting charges". For financial year 1999- 2000 the assessee debited the account by Rs. 45,96,349 and for financial year 2000-01 by Rs. 49,40,715. On verification it was found that the financiers were maintaining regular accounts with the assessee and funds were lent to the as...

idea Mobile Communications Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)8STR551

1. This stay application filed along with the appeal challenges the order of the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise dated 31.1.2007. In the impugned order, the Commissioner has confirmed demand of Rs. 1,74,64,509/- wrongly taken/availed/utilized Cenvat credit on the inputs service received on the basis of documents issued prior to 20.9.2004 or without having date of issue. He has also confirmed the demand of interest oh this amount besides imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellant. According to the ld. Counsel for the appellants, the only ground for rejecting their Cenvat entitlement is based on the misunderstanding that the input services were not the same category as that of the output services rendered by them. This ratio of the ld. Commissioner was vociferously challenged more particularly in view of the amendment, which has come to occupy in Service Tax Credit Rules 2002, w.e.f. 14.5.03. The grievance is that these changes were not taken into account by the ld. ...

Makson Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(218)ELT286TriDel

1. The issue involved in these appeals is the valuation of Vicks Cough Drops manufactured on job work basis by the appellants and supplied to M/s Procter and Gamble India Ltd i.e. PGIL. It may be noted here that the appellants are also engaged in the manufacture of other goods on job work basis for M/s Dabur India Ltd. (Hajmola, Funtoo, Honeytex), M/s Cadbury India Ltd (Halls, Eclairs) and Nestle India (Polo).2. The appellant entered into an agreement with PGIL wherein PGIL shall supply the raw materials, manufacturing technology, packing materials etc. to the appellant on job work basis. It has been alleged that the transaction is not on principal to principal basis and the appellant is not an independent job worker and therefore, the appellant is liable to pay duty on the price charged by the depots of PGIL. The Commissioner confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty along with interest.3. The learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant, submits that the appellant is a job wor...

income Tax Officer Vs. Director, Delhi Public School and

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)112ITD188(Delhi)

1. The first set of appeals of the Revenue and cross-objection of the assessee, Delhi Public School involves a common point relating to interpretation of Rule 3(5) of IT Rules.The second set of appeals relating to M/s Cambridge Foundation School also involves interpretation of above rule and, therefore, these were heard together and are being disposed of through this common consolidated order.2. The assessees are running public schools and are liable to deduct tax at source from salary and remuneration paid to its teaching staff.On perusal of Form No. 12BA, annexed with Form No. 16, providing information on TDS in the case of Delhi Public School, the AO found that the assessee, while calculating amount of perquisites assessable in the hands of teachers, staff in respect of free/concessional educational facility provided to the wards, a deduction at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per month per child has been claimed. The AO accordingly raised a query. In reply thereto, the assessee claimed that...

Ambattur Petrochem Ltd., Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The issue raised in all these appeals is the same. When the admission application came up, I have perused the record and heard both sides at length. It is seen that the appeals themselves can be disposed of. Accordingly, after granting admission, I proceed with the appeals.2. All the appellants are manufacturers of Chlorine parafide. They are required to pay service tax in regard to goods transport service, involved in the transport of materials to their factories. They are also entitled to taking credit of the service tax so paid in regard to transport of materials to their factory.3. The only question raised is whether the service tax paid can be utilized for payment of service tax in relation to tax payable on subsequent transport. The impugned order has held that since the appellant is a manufacturer of products, they are not entitled to using service tax credit for payment of service tax on transport services.4. The submission of the learned representative is that this issue h...

Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal of the revenue arises out of the order of the CIT(Appeals)-XIII, New Delhi, passed on 14.10.2005. The corresponding assessment order was framed by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-10, New Delhi, under the provisions of Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on 07.03.2005. The revenue has taken five grounds in the appeal, which are reproduced below for the sake of ready reference: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in: 1. deleting addition of Rs. 23,86401/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of payment of remuneration paid to field/sales staff for organizing sales of non-levy cement without appreciating the fact that the orders relied upon by him have not been accepted by the revenue and same are pending before the Hon'ble High Court. 2. Deleting the addition of Rs. 30,25,135/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 40A(9) of the Act on account of employees welfare including payments made...

Ms. Shyam Lata Kaushik Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)114TTJ(Delhi)940

1. These are appeals by the assessee against three different orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, (Appeals)-I, Ludhiana, all dated 18/10/2006, relating to the assessment years 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 respectively.2.1 First we shall take up for consideration I. T. Appeal No. 4343 (Del) of 2006. The first ground of appeal of the assessee is general in nature and challenges the order of the CIT (Appeals) as bad in law. The assesse is an Individual. He derives income from the business of carrying out job work of Buffing and Polishing of Gas Stoves under the name & style of M/s. B. M. Associates. There was a search and seizure operation carried out by the Department under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the Act] on 27/02/2004 at the residential premises of the assessee. Consequent to the search so conducted, notice under Section 153-A of the Act was issued on 4/08/2005. The provisions of Section 153-A of the Act had been introduced ...

Cce Vs. Liberty Shoes Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(121)ECC104

1. The respondent is a known manufacturer of different varieties of foot wear that including many varieties of shoes. The subject of dispute in the present appeals of the revenue is the valuation of shoes sold to institutional buyers.2. Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is the main provision relating to the valuation of excisable goods which are subject to advalorem rates of duty. The criterion for valuation under that section is the transaction value between the manufacturer and the buyer. An exception to this scheme is Section 4A of the same Act which provides that goods specified by the Central Govt. and which are required under the Weights and Measures Act and rules to print MRP on retail package shall be valued for duty purposes based on the printed MRP, minus abatement notified for a particular product by the Govt.3. Foot wear is an item specified under Section 4A, Therefore, the respondent cleared the shoes sold by them to all buyers, including institutional buyers, aft...