Delhi Court July 2007 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Deepak Kumar JaIn and Deepak Kumar

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(122)ECC340

1. The Revenue has challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) made on 9.6.2005 partially allowing the two appeals of the respondents.2. The respondent No. 1 is the sole proprietary concern of the respondent No. 2. The respondent was engaged in the manufacture of gutka (pan masala containing tobacco). On 14.3.2001, the Central Excise Officers seized Deepak brand gutka weighing 6.995 kgs. involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 1434/-. In a follow up action, quantity of 10.50 kgs. of gutka was seized as it was lying unaccounted in the factory of the respondent. Gutka packets (paper pudiyas) weighing 17.860 kgs. were also seized. The sole proprietor of the respondent No.1 admitted the sale of gutka packets and deposited Rs. 25,875/- on 19.3.2001. He admitted that he had not paid any duty in respect of gutka in paper pudiyas and that no record was maintained in respect thereof. According to the Revenue, manufacture and clearance of sweet supari and clearance of raw tobacco from the p...

Wires and Fabriks (Sa) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)12STJ215CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of amount of Service Tax of Rs. 1,17,113/- and penalties. The demand is confirmed after denying credit in respect of Goods Transport Service as it relates to outward service. The demand is also confirmed after denying credit in respect of courier and CIIA services. The credit was denied on the ground that the service in question are post manufacturing services, therefore, applicants are not entitled for credit. The contention of the applicant is that courier service and CIIA are used for the purpose of clearance of goods for export and are used for business purposes.2. I find that as per the Cenvat Credit Rules credit can be availed in respect of any service used by a manufacturing unit which is in or in relation to the manufacturing activity.3. As the services in question are post manufacturing service, therefore, prima facie, it is not a case for total waiver of amount of Service Tax. The applicants are directed to de...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tosha International Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)116TTJ(Delhi)941

1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A) dt. 6th Aug., 2004 for the asst. yr. 2001-02, in the matter of orders passed under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 wherein following grounds of appeal have been raised: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,47,93,857 made on account of gains arising on account of cessation of liabilities as the assessee has gained from the waiver of principal amount.2. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that the assessee was engaged in manufacturing of black and while picture tube. Due to depression in the market and colour picture tube taking over the black and white picture tube demand was considerably reduced. Accordingly, the assessee company was running in huge losses and was also having accumulated losses exceeding its capital and reserve. It has become a sick company and was registered with BIFR. The assess...

Orissa Concrete and Allied Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)10STR16

1. The appellants have challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the orders-in-original by which it was held that the Cenvat credit availed by the appellants on the service tax paid on outward transportation was not admissible. Recovery was, therefore, directed for the Cenvat credit wrongly availed and penalties of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 3,000/- imposed on the appellants.2. The issue involved is covered by the decision of this Board (sic) (Bench) in CCE, Indore v. NHK Springs Ltd. reported in 2007 (7) S.T.R.63 (Tribunal-Delhi) : 2007 (215) E.L.T. 354 (Tri. - Del.), in which it was held that transport services credit, cannot go beyond transport service upto the place of removal. (See paragraphs 8 and 8.1 of the judgment), 3. The appellants have, therefore, not made any case for waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts payable under the impugned order. All the applications are, therefore, rejected. It will be open for the applicants to deposit the amounts payable by them un...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Indian Sugar and Gen. Ind. Ex.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]303ITR155(Delhi)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 3rd January, 2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'G' in ITA No. 2336/Del/2001 relevant for the Assessment Year 1990-91.2. The assessed had filed its return of income and the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 27th May, 1992. The Assessing Officer allowed a deduction to the Assesee under Section 80HHC of the Act.3. On 27th March, 1997, the Assessing Officer issued a notice to the assessed under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with a view to reopen the completed assessment.4. The reasons for reopening the assessment are not placed before us but it has been mentioned in the order of the Tribunal that the reasons were merely to the effect that the Assessing Officer while framing the original assessment was not right in allowing deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act in relation to the income of service charges/commission realised.5. On a consideratio...

Sunil Pandey Vs. Customs

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(218)ELT512(Del)

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In this revision an order of the learned Additional Metropolitan Magistrate dated 21.03.03 charging the present petitioner for committing the offence punishable under Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, has been assailed.2. According to the complainant/Customs Department, on 18.07.97, a passenger disembarking from a Singapore flight was carrying a black zipper bag. His name was Satpal Singh. He was a Malaysian passport holder. He allegedly entered the customs area and proceeded to the green channel. Upon being questioned about whether he had any dutiable items like gold etc. he responded in the negative. The X-ray screening of his hand bag did not indicate anything but the metal detector indicated presence of some objects on his person. After giving notice, he was searched in the presence of two witnesses. He was found wearing a specially designed bag of velvet cloth underneath his clothes. These contained seven gold bars of foreign origin of one kg. each. The ...

Mrs. Geeta Bhargava Vs. Pur Polyurethane Products Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(97)DRJ346

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Vide impugned order dated 5.3.2007 an application filed by the defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking impleadment of Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as DSIDC) has been allowed.2. Plaintiff is aggrieved by the said order. Hence, the instant petition invoking remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.3. Shorn of unnecessary details, relevant for the purposes of adjudication of the matter in issue within the confines of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, relevant facts are that the plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment, mesne profits/damages alleging that she had inducted the defendant as a licensee to use a portion of Shed No. 22, DSIDC Complex, Okhla Phase II, Scheme II, New Delhi. That the license was for a period of 3 years effective from 1.9.1990. That the license fee was Rs. 19,000/- per month. That terms of license were to be found in a written deed dated 27.8.1990. That contrary to the ter...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Himalaya International Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Del)437

V.B. Gupta, J.1. AdmitAfter hearing learned Counsel for the parties, the following substantial question of law is framed for consideration:Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,87,27,000 made by the AO under Section 68 of the IT Act, 1961 ?2. Revenue has challenged the order dt. 17th March, 2006 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short as 'Tribunal') in the case of assessed in miscellaneous application No. 734/Del/2005 in ITA No. 5087/Del/2004 for the asst. yr. 2000-01 vide which the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 5,87,27,000 made by the AO on account of share capital holding that the assessed had duly identified and established the existence of share applicants in question and no material has been brought on record by the AO to doubt the genuineness of the assessed's shares issue.3. The assessed is engaged in the business of growing mushrooms and ') manufacturing calcium carbonate. During the assessment proceedings, the AO found ...

Cit Vs. Gates (India) (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)103CTR(Del)218

ORDER1. The revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 29-9-2006 passed by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B' in ITA No. 3625/DeI/2003 relevant for the assessment year 1998-99.2. The only issue that arises in this case is whether the assessed had used its assets for the purposes of its business as required by Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the purposes of claiming depreciation.3. The assessing officer was of the view that even though the assessed had carried out a trial run on 16-2-1998 and had started its manufacturing process on 28-3-1998, it had not used its assets for the purposes of its business.4. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) disagreed with the view taken by the assessing officer and noted the various facts and documentary evidence furnished by the appellant including the production records. Reliance was placed upon the certificate of the engineer along with the detailed production process to indicate that even though the production process has commenced on 28-3-1998,...

Punjab Metal Works (P) Ltd. Vs. Pareekh Marine Agencies Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP on account of which the complainant had to pay detention charges to the Container Corporation of India, the complainant has claimed compensation of Rs. 5,75,999.00 paid as detention charges and Rs. 50,000 for damages with interest. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that the complainant had entered into a contract with M/s. PWT Australasia Pty. Limited, Sydney, Australia for the purchase of 320 MT clean soft lead scrap, in October 1996 on CIF basis upto Kandla/Nhava Sheva port, with ultimate delivery at Inland Container Depot, Tughlaqabad, Delhi with Inland Haulage Charges from Indian port to Inland Container Depot, Delhi to be borne by the complainant. The material was to be supplied to the complainant at New Delhi. 3. After the shipment of the material from the destination, the xerox copy of the shipping documents was received by the complainant including the copy of invoice, packing list, certificate o...