Delhi Court September 1995 Judgments

R.N. Bose Vs. Basab Mukhejee

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)260; 1995(35)DRJ178

Usha Mehra, J. (1) Petitioner R.N.Bose wanted to get imploded in the eviction petition filed by Sh.Basab Mukherjee against his tenant M/s Auto Motors.(2) The impleadment has been sought, inter alia, on the grounds that petitioner was in fact the tenant. Because of his personal arrangement made with M/s Auto Motors, his employer, the rent was being paid by the said company, though it was he who in fact had been reimbursing the same to the Company. In his absence being the actual tenant any order passed would be adverse to his interest and ultimate decision would effect him.(3) This application has been contested by the respondent/ landlord on the ground that property was let out to the Company M/s Auto Motors and not to the petitoner. Petitioner was only an employee of M/s Auto Motors. In an earlier petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) and (k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the 'Act'), similar plea was taken by respondent No.2 before the Rent Controller. But the same...

Kumar Aerosoles (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1996)55TTJ(Del)385

ORDERB. S. SALUJA, J. M. :The assessed is in appeal against the order of CIT(A) XV, New Delhi dt. 18th Dec., 1989 on various grounds.2. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 urged by the assessed relate to addition of Rs. 95,000 in the trading account.2.1 The brief facts relating to this issue are that the assessed filed the return on 29th Nov., 1985 declaring income of Rs. 59,600. The assessed filed a revised return on 16th Dec., 1987 wherein the income was declared at Rs. 10,390 as the assessed had also claimed deduction under ss. 80HH and 80-I. The AO issued notices under s. 143(2) and 142(1). During the course of assessment proceedings he observed that the assessed company had carried out the activities of manufacture and sale of aerosoles valves and spray devices used in various types of perfumes and insecticides. He further observed that the assessee-company had also carried on with the job work relating to filling of spray devices and valve fittings on bottles and cans of different sizes. He furt...

Syndicate Bank Vs. U. Chem. Pharma (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995(35)DRJ167

Jaspal Singh, J.(1) The Syndicate Bank is seeking a decree for the recovery of Rs. 1,45,480.00 against the defendants on the basis of an overdraft limit of Rs. 1,00,000.00 granted to defendant No.1 for its business to which defendants 2 to 4 were allegedly the guarantors. It is claimed that in consideration of the said overdraft limit a Joint Demand Promissory Note and other bank documents were executed by defendant No.1 while defendants 2 to 4 had executed letters of Guarantee undertaking to pay and satisfy the plaintiff Bank on demand all sums of money that may be due to it from defendant No.1 together with interest. The grievance of the plaintiff bank is that though the facility was availed of, the defendants failed to discharge their liability with the result that a sum of Rs. 1,45,480.00 has become due to it. (2) Defendants 1 to 3 filed their written statement. As per them neither they applied for overdraft facility nor availed of it and that their signatures were obtained on cert...

Maharashtra Marble Co. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT659TriDel

1. These are 3 stay petitions numbered respectively C/Stay/820-821/95-A corresponding to Appeals C/477-478/95-A filed by M/s. Maharashtra Marble Company and C/Stay/ 884/95-A corresponding to C/476/95-A filed by M/s. NITCO Marbles and Granites. It was explained by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Nitin Kantawala that the first mentioned applications had effected two imports one at Bombay Port and the other at Nhavasheva and the second mentioned applicants M/s. NITCO Marbles and Granites had imported their goods at the Nhavasheva port.He further explained that the goods involved in all these imports were the same. The adjudication by the concerned Collectors proceeded on the same basis and the findings followed the same pattern. The defence taken by the respective parties before the concerned Collectors was of a common pattern. He stated that he would be submitting common arguments in respect of the 3 stay petitions. He made a further plea that as the goods are remaining de...

Collector of Customs Vs. Pfoston Colour Processing Lab

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)LC392Tri(Delhi)

1. This is a Revenue appeal against the order passed by the Collector (Appeals), Bombay, allowing the importer's claim for the benefit of assessment of imported item namely, Film Processor Model No. QSF-B50-3 under Heading 84.66 as "project import". The original authority had rejected the appellant's claim on the ground that the import consists of one film processor and not a complete minilab. The appellants have produced industrial licence to show that the items had been allowed for manufacture by the Director of Industries, Bombay. Industrial Licence is for manufacture of printing rolls, developing rolls, X-Ray lith films, developers etc. yet the Collector (Appeals) held that the item is required to be considered for the concessional rate of duty under the "Project Import" in view of the recommendatory letter dated 2-5-1985 issued by the said authorities. The Revenue is contending in this appeal that the assessment under Heading 84.66 of CTA, 1975 can be considered only in respect o...

Udaipur Cement Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT465TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against order-in-original No. 5/85 (Central Excise), dated 4-10-1985 of Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur.2. The appellants have Cement factory at Udaipur and also limestone quarries located about 5 kms. away from their factory, from where limestones are brought as raw materials for the manufacture of cement.A ropeway was installed in 1984 to bring the limestones mechanically to the factory. The appellants had entered into a contract with M/s. Usha Brecko Ltd., Calcutta for construction including design, manufacture, supply, transportation, civil engineering, erection, testing and commissioning of the said ropeway. M/s. Usha Brecko Ltd. had brought various component parts into the factory of the appellants and assembled/fabricated certain goods in the factory. These goods were meant for installation at site for construction of ropeway. It was alleged that the appellants brought constructed ropeway through their contractor M/s. Usha Brecko Ltd. as well as s...

Malnad College of Engineering Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)LC517Tri(Delhi)

1. This is an appeal against order dated 8-12-1992 passed by the Collector Central Excise (Appeals) Bangalore. The appellants filed Bill of Entry No. 003838, dated 19-2-1991 for the clearance of one Emco Compact 5-CNC Computer Numerically Controlled Universal Machine Tool and one CNC Milling Machine with Electrical Equipment along with accessories totally valued at Rs. 5,91,298/-. The goods were classified under sub-heading 8459.31 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1985. The importers claimed the clearance of the imported CNC-5 Universal Machine valued at Rs. 2,16,561 and CNC Milling Machine with electrical equipment valued at Rs. 3,14,782 along with accessories for the machines valued at Rs. 1,57,852 in terms of Notification No. 229/88, dated 1-8-1988 against the Pass Book issued to them for the import of Scientific and technical instruments, apparatus and equipments. The Assistant Collector vide his order dated 24-8-1992 denied the exemption under Notification 229/88 in respect of the good...

Collector of Customs Vs. Tata Hydro Electric Power Supply

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT642TriDel

1. The issue for determination in this appeal by the Collector of Customs, Bombay is whether the machinery imported by the respondent M/s. Tata Hydro Electric Power Supply Co. Ltd. is to be classified under Heading 84.17(1) of the Customs Tariff, as claimed by the respondent and confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) or as air conditioning equipment under Heading 84.15.2. Shri K.K. Jha, SDR argued that it was evident from the technical literature that the goods function on the principle of refrigeration with the machinery performing functions covering the complete refrigeration cycle. The catalogue and technical literature show that the compressed air enters the heat exchanger in which heat is removed by the refrigeration system. The elements of the refrigeration system such as compressor, condenser and cooling tool are all present. That in this process the air also dehumidified did not detract from the fact that primary function of the machine was to lower the temperature of the treate...

Prayag Polymers (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT80TriDel

1. After hearing the preliminary submissions made by Shri J.S. Agarwal, Advocate for the petitioner, the Bench felt that this was a fit case for disposing of the appeal itself straightaway. Accordingly, the views of the learned JDR, Shri Mohan Lal were ascertained regarding the feasibility of remanding the case to the original authority for de novo decision. Subject to his consent and that of Shri Agarwal, Ld. Counsel, we are taking the appeal itself for disposal after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit of the impugned amount of duty and penalty.Shri J.S. Agarwal, the learned Counsel stated that initially the goods in question had been classified as articles of plastics under Chapter 39 and in view of that position they had not availed modvat benefit as the said Chapter was outside the purview of the modvat scheme.Subsequently, the Department has sought to re-classify the goods under Chapter 84. This Chapter being covered under the modvat scheme, they should be granted the benefit...

S.D. Fine Chem (Pvt.) Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This matter has come up before me as a result of Hon'ble Supreme Court's directions dated 30-3-1995 in Civil Appeal No. 2532 (NM) of 1992 reported in [1995 (77) E.L.T. 49 (SC)].2. The appellants, who are a Central Excise licensee, filed a classification list under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 effective from 1-4-1983. In this classification list, they declared as items manufactured by them, laboratory and fine chemicals (list of items as per Annexure A) under Tariff Item 68 of the erstwhile First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The present case does not relate to these manufactured items. The appellants also undertake repacking of bought out chemicals from bulk back to small retail packs. The appellants call this activity of repacking as direct pack. There is also no dispute in the present case as far as this activity of the appellants is concerned. Apart from the above, the appellants also undertake purification of bought out chemicals by way of d...