Delhi Court November 1994 Judgments

Prem G’s. International Vs. Central Bank of India

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. Briefly, the facts are that the complainant is a Private Trust and Shri T.S. Sawhney is its Managing Trustee (M.T.). The Trust is carrying on business of exporting Readymade Garments. They opened a current account with the opposite party (O.P.) in 1979. Mr. T.S. Sawhney had been operating the account since the day of the opening till 26th August, 1991 when the opposite party stopped its operation by him. An amount of Rs. 6,02,848.13Ps. was lying in the account of that time. It is pleaded that the amount has not been paid till date inspite of repeated requests and thus the complainant has been deprived of its use. Consequently, they prayed that they should be given interest @ 24% p.a. and damages. 2. The complaint has been contested by the O.P. They inter-alia pleaded that some formalities had not been completed at the time of opening of the account which came to their notice in 1991, when pointed out by the auditor of the Bank. They further pleaded that unles...

Brite Automotive and Plastics Vs. Collector of C. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)LC717Tri(Delhi)

1. M/s. Brite Automotive & Plastics Ltd. (Brite for short, hereinafter) have filed their appeal registered as E/2303/90-NRB against the order in appeal No. 210/CE/A APPL/ IND/89/1322, dated 2-3-1990 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi whereby he had rejected their appeal filed before him by upholding the decision of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Indore that they were not eligible for Modvat Credit in respect of inputs used by them in the manufacture of their final products which had not been mentioned by them in their declaration filed under Rule 57G(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. He had, however, allowed their appeal partly by setting aside "the demand for the period beyond six months from the date of credit". This latter finding has, in turn, been assailed before us by the Collector of Central Excise, Indore. That appeal is registered as E/2429/90-NRB. As both the appeals arise from the same order-in-appeal and as both the appeals were ...

Dimakusi Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)LC28Tri(Delhi)

1. These are appeals against the order of Collector (Appeals), Calcutta dated 30-4-1991.2. Ld. Counsel stated that the appellants cultivate, manufacture and export tea. The foreign buyers were insisting that conventional packing should be replaced by a modern packing which should be (i) moisture-proof, (ii) durable, (iii) able to withstand rough handling, (iv) enable maximum utilisation of space, (v) is easy for storage and transportation, and (vi) light in weight.3. M/s D.R. G. Sacks, U.S.A. developed a new type of sack with the trade name 'CADISAC'. These were made by using, inter alia, three plys of high strength craft paper and one ply of high strength craft paper with aluminium inside ply. These have a valve like mouth opening on the corner from which tea can be filled or taken out. They do not require closing by stitching or pasting.4. The appellant imported these 'CADISACS' under OGL in the light of clarification by DGTD.5. The Calcutta Customs had also given clarification to t...

Unitika Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)52ITD249(Delhi)

1. The appellant, M/s Unitika Limited, is a nonresident company incorporated in Japan. The assessment for the assessment year 1985-86 now under appeal, has been made through Modipon Limited, Modi Nagar, an Indian company with whom the foreign company entered into a collaboration agreement on 21-6-1983 to supply know how and basic engineering facilities stipulated in the agreement. The Indian company remitted a sum of Y 2,26,87,500 to Japan after deducting 56,81,875 as tax at source under the agreement between the two companies. The taxability of above amount is the issue involved in the present appeal.2. As per collaboration agreement dated 21 -6-1983, Unitika was to provide 'knowhow and basic engineering' to Modipon for manufacturing nylon tyres cord and industrial yarn and the process for commercial production. The aforesaid agreement is divided into ten articles which are made annexures of the collaboration agreement. The terms "knowhow", "know-how and basic engineering documents",...

Mukesh Alias Muki Vs. the State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IVAD(Delhi)990; 1995CriLJ1769; 1995(3)Crimes317; 57(1995)DLT203; 1995(32)DRJ74

P.K. Bahri, J.1. The appellant-Mukesh alias Muki has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated August 29, 1989 and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life vide order dated August 31, 1989 by an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. He has filed the present appeal against the said conviction and sentence. 2. Facts, as have been revealed in the prosecution case, are that deceased-Ram Sarup was living along with his unmarried daughter Rajni (P.W. 3) and son Bhim Singh (P.W. 7) in certain rooms located at the rear of the ground floor of house No. 4505, Pahari Dhiraj. The typography of the said house, as is evident from the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer Ex. P.W. 23/P shows that there is entrance to the said house from the east side. There exists a road in front of the house on the eastern side and after crossing the entrance there comes a gallery and on the northern side of the gallery, there are located ...

Chowgule and Co. (Hind) P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)LC24Tri(Delhi)

1. M/s. Chowgule & Co. (Hind) P. Ltd., being aggrieved with the order-in-appeal No. AMP-991/B-III-502/87, dated 28-3-1988, passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, have filed the present appeal which was received in the Registry on 28-6-1988 and has been listed as Appeal No. E/1617/88-C.2. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture and marketing of a product which they named as 'Hindol'. On chemical examination it was found to be a blend of estergum and modified phenolic resins, in which para formaldehyde bisphenol resin had been used. The Deputy Chief Chemist opined that the goods in question were 'resin modified phenolic resins'. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Thane, classified the product as 'Phenol formaldehyde resin' appearing at S. No. 1 of the Schedule appended to Notification No. 190/82-C.E., dated 3-6-1982 and Notification No. 241/82-C.E., dated 1-11-1982, and attracting Central Excise duty at the concessional rate of 15% ad valorem. Th...

Railtech Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT267TriDel

1. Arguing on the application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the duty demand of Rs. 22,59,879.16 confirmed by the adjudicating authority for the period 1-8-1993 to 1-1-1994 on aluminium windows, doors and frames thereof which are solely designed for use in railway coaches on the ground that the items merit classification as parts of railway under sub-heading 8607.00 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985, the learned Counsel Smt. Archana Wadhwa submits that the items fall under sub-heading 7610.10 which specifically covers aluminium "doors, windows and their frames and thresholds for doors". She contends that as per Rule 3 (a) of the Rules for the interpretation of the Schedule to the Tariff, the heading which provides the more specific description is to be preferred to the heading providing a more general description. Her next contention is that, even if the classification as held by the Department is accepted, still the demand even for the period of 6 months prior to t...

Unnati Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)LC227Tri(Delhi)

1. These appeals have been filed against the orders passed by the Collector, Central Excise, Ahmedabad. Since the issues arising for consideration in these cases are identical, they are disposed of by this common order.2. The appellant firms are engaged in the manufacture of Fibre Glass Fabrics, Poly-tetrafloro Ethylene (PTFE) coated Fibre Glass Fabrics and PTFE coated Fibre Glass Tapes falling under sub-headings 7014.00 and 3910.00 respectively of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 'PTFE' used for coating of Fibre Glass Fabrics and Tapes is imported from M/s. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Co., U.S.A. who market it under the trade name 'Teflon'. The appellants held a Central Excise licence and were availing the SSI exemption in terms of Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986 as amended. During their visit to the appellants' factories on 17-9-1990 the Central Excise officers verified of their records and also recorded the statement of Shri Balkrishna A.Sharma, Commercia...

Collector of Customs Vs. Lalit Stainless Steel (i) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT617TriDel

1. The above appeals arise out of the order of the Collector (Appeals) extending the benefit of Notification No. 16/83-C.E., dated 11-2-1983 to the respondents herein, following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Customs, Kandla v. Presto Industries (Final Order No. 590-591/91-C, dated 12-9-1991) holding that since Central Excise duty on the goods in question was exempt under Notification No.16/83, additional duty charged under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act is not leviable upon the goods which have brone the incidence of basic customs duty.2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein established a unit in the Kandla Free Trade Zone for manufacture and export of stainless steel utensils. They imported stainless steel sheets and cleared the same without payment of duty under Notification No. 77/80, dated 17-4-1980. In terms of para 2-A(ii) of the said Notification, they cleared various consignments of scrap generated during the course .of pr...

Collector of C. Excise Vs. Motley Industries (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)LC381Tri(Delhi)

1. The above reference application by the Revenue (respondent in Appeal No. E/615/94-NRB) has been filed for reference of the following questions of law purporting to have arisen out of Final Order No. A/421 /94-NRB, dated 25-4-1994 of the Tribunal: (i) Whether confiscation and penalty under Central Excises and Salt Act and Central Excise rules can be sustained where it is clear that the contravention of the provision of law in respect of levy and collection of additional duties of excise under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957? (ii) Whehter M/s. Motley Industries (P) Ltd. Faridabad are entitled to any consequential relief? 2. The facts leading up to the filing of the reference application are that the respondents herein are processors of cotton fabrics and man-made fabrics. Certain quantity of man-made fabrics seized from the premises of the respondents on 24-7-1992 were confiscated with option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 1 lak...