Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1997)62ITD204(Delhi)
1. The following common ground has been raised in all these appeals filed by the revenue and directed against the separate orders passed by the DCIT(A) : "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the DCIT(A) has erred in law in annulling the order under section 154 dated 12-1-1994 giving effect to the findings of the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi Benches contained in their order dated 18-1-1993." 2. The facts noted by the tax authorities in their respective orders are not in dispute before and the solitary issue which is to be decided is whether the DCIT(A) was right in law in annulling the orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 154/155 on the ground that these were barred by limitation as provided in sub-section (7) of section 154 of the Income-tax Act.3. No doubt the basic facts are stated in the orders of the tax authorities as also by the Tribunal if its order dated 18-1-1993 in the case of Smt. Kapoori Devi & Smt. Reshma Devi (the present respondent) for assessme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1997)(95)ELT98TriDel
1. The Collector (Appeals), Indore, in his order had held that Modvat credit of duty taken on grinding media and explosives is admissible to the assessee. Being aggrieved by this order, the Commissioner, Central Excise has filed the present appeal. The respondents have filed cross-objections. The respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of cement. They filed a declaration in respect of explosives and grinding media balls. The Asstt. Collector held that Modvat credit would not be available to the respondents as the nature of grinding media balls is akin to that of an appliance equipment and tools. The Department also alleged that since explosives are used in mines and not in the licensed premises of the factory under the Central Excise law, Modvat credit was not admissible. The Assistant Collector as the adjudicating authority decided the issue against the assessee whereas in appeal, the ld. Collector (Appeals) upheld the contention of the assessee and allowed their appeal.2. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1997)(95)ELT96Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant imported a consignment of magnetic tapes. On examination of the goods, and subsequent enquiry, the department was of the view that the goods were in the nature of rejects. Notice was therefore issued to the importer proposing confiscation of the goods as imported unauthorisedly, on the view that the goods being disposal goods, could not be imported in terms of the Open General Licence (OGL). The importer resisted the notice, contending that the goods were not disposal goods. The Additional Collector did not accept this contention, and held that the goods were disposal goods and hence not entitled clearance under OGL. Hence this appeal.2. Advocate for the appellant contends that the goods are new and therefore, even if they are defective, sub-standard or rejects, they are not disposal goods. He relies on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Abdul Husein Mohammedally Master v. Union of India and Ors. - 1981 (8) E.L.T. 936 (Bom.) and subsequent decision of this Tribu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(98)ELT558TriDel
1. The captioned appeals pertain to the taking of Modvat credit of Rs. 13,58,554/- for the period October, 1990 to March, 1993 and Rs. 1,60,105/- on 29-5-1993.2. The facts of the case are that the Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Aluminium Conductors. They filed a declaration declaring the inputs as well as the final product. The department alleged that the appellants had not declared all aluminium alloys conductors and since the final product was not declared by the appellants, they were not entitled to utilize the Modvat credit taken on the inputs. The lower authorities have considered the various submissions made before them and disallowed the Modvat credit and ordered recovery thereof.3. Shri R. Nambirajan, ld. Advocate, appearing for the appellants submits that as per note 3(a) of Section XV, alloy of any metal is specified and is understood as that of base metal, which predominates by weight. He submits that in the instant case, the predominence is that in terms of n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1997)(96)ELT696TriDel
1. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original dated 26-2-1987 of the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, the present appellants have filed this appeal. By the impugned order a duty of Rs. 38,25,113.25 was demanded from the appellants and a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs imposed.2. Appellants are manufacturers of knitting machines and chemical and dairy equipments with the aid of power for manufacturing items under T.I. 68 of the erstwhile Tariff. On the basis of the visits of the Preventive Officers of the Department and the investigations made by them, notice was issued to the present appellants, namely, M/s. Raj Mechanical Industries, Ludhiana charging them with contravention of Section 6 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the various Rules for having cleared excisable goods without obtaining Central Excise Licence, for non-payment of duty and for other procedural and substantive violation of the Act and the Rules and for suppressing relevant information with intention to evade payment of dut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)(110)ELT581TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Industrial Laundry and Dry Cleaning Equipment Co. Pvt. Ltd., the matter relates to the classification of carriage trolleys. The appellants had sought classification of their trolleys under Heading No. 87.16 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Tariff). Heading No.87.16 of the Tariff covered trailers and semi-trailers, other vehicles not mechanically propelled; parts thereof. The Revenue had classified these trolleys under Heading No. 94.03 as items of furniture. Heading No. 94.03 cohered "other furniture and parts thereof". There is no dispute that prior to the introduction of the new Central Excise Tariff effective from 1-3-1986 the trolleys in question were classifiable as items of furniture under Item No. 40 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, who adjudicated the matter observed that in common parlance these trolleys were not understood as vehicles, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1997)(96)ELT668TriDel
1. The appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Original No.55/Commissioner/95, dated 15-9-1995 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut.2. The Commissioner, Central Excise in the impugned order held that the product engine treatment and manual gear box and differential treatment oils manufactured by the appellant merit classification under sub-heading No. 3811.00 of the Central Excise Tariff as prepared additives for mineral oils and these products are not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 120/84-C.E., dated 11-5-1984. The Commissioner confirmed the demand for the period of six months from the issue of show cause notice.3. In respect of product engine coolant, the Commissioner held that this product merit classification under sub-heading 3820.00 of the Central Excise Tariff as anti-freezing preparations and also held that this product is not eligible for the benefit of Small Scale Industries Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 28-2-1986 and 1/93-C.E., d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1997)(95)ELT398TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the appellant M/s. Orissa Construction Corpn. Ltd. a Govt. of Orissa Undertaking the matter relates to the excisability and dutiability of the steel fabricated items for erecting structurals. The appellants were a contractor. They were engaged by M/s. National Aluminium Co. (NALCO) for fabricating and erecting structural steel work. They received all the raw material like angles, channels, tin plates etc. from M/s. NALCO. The raw materials were subjected to the process of cutting into proper sizes, drilling holes where necessary, and all this works was done in the premises of M/s.NALCO. The show cause notice was issued to them on 16-3-1988 alleging that they had manufactured/fabricated steel structural items. The works was for electrical sub-stations and for the storage of materials. In reply the appellants submitted that the work was done in the licenced factory premises of NALCO and that the structural work was immovable and the fabrication of so-called go...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna
Reported in : (1997)63ITD63(Pat.)
1. The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal is that the Appellate Commissioner ought not to have confirmed the addition of Rs. 39,000 under section 68 of the Act and the sum of Rs. 12,545 being interest on the cash credits.2. The Assessing Officer (AO) found that loans/cash credits in the names of below given three persons were not genuine and the assessee as well as the loan creditors failed to establish the validity of the source of the creditworthiness :-Gokul Prasad Sahu Rs. 13,000Govind Prasad Sahu Rs. 11,000Preveen Kumar Jain Sahu Rs. 15,000 3. The assessee's case was that the loans were obtained from those three persons through account payee cheques and all the three creditors were income-tax assessees. As such, the identity and the creditworthiness of those three lenders remained established. The assessee also submitted before the Appellate Commissioner in first appeal that the two out of three creditors were summoned by the Assessing Officer and their oath statements...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (1997)59TTJ(Ahd.)377
A short but important issue raised in this appeal by the assessee is whether refund amount of excise duty is taxable as revenue receipt in the hands of the assessee.2. The assessee, a private limited company, carries on business in processing of dyeing and printing of art silk cloth on job work basis.It maintains accounts on mercantile basis and its previous year, relevant to the assessment year in appeal was S.Y. 2040, corresponding to the period from 5th November, 1983 to 24th October, 1984.3. A dispute arose with the Central Excise Department in regard to payment of the excise duty. The assessees case was that no duty was payable on the processed cloth. As the Central Excise Department did not accept the assessees contention, it moved a writ petition in Gujarat High Court which was registered as Special C.A. No. 417 of 1979. There were similar petitions from several other processors and the Honble Gujarat High Court, by its common order dt. 13th March, 1979, directed that the Centr...
Tag this Judgment!