Delhi Court September 1996 Judgments

Johnson and Johnson Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT465TriDel

1. The appellants manufacture inter alia, printed labels from numerous base materials such as cloth, aluminium foils, plastic films and paper.The appellants filed their classification lists on 9-3-1987 and 17-3-1987 classifying the said printed labels manufactured from the said base materials under sub-heading 4901.90. The process of manufacture involved is briefly as follows :- (a) Bonding of large-size sheets of paper and release paper with adhesive, or bonding of release paper and plastic film or aluminium foil or textile fabric as required. (b) Printing of material required on labels on the bonded sheets in the appellants' printing press and simultaneously cutting the printed labels. Prior to 1st March, 1987, Chapter 49 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 inter alia included products of the paper printing industry. By the Finance Act, 1987, with effect from 1-3-1987, the words 'products of the paper printing industry' were substituted by words 'products of the printing industry...

Shree Arun Packaging Corporation Vs. Collector of C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT417TriDel

1. By the captioned appeal, the appellants have assailed the order of Collector, Central Excise (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) had held : "3.1 have carefully gone through the appeal petition and the impugned order appealed against. The product 'Printed Wrappers' is used for packing of goods although on it may be printed names, trade marks, directions for use and other information above the products. These are merely incidental to the primary use. It therefore, cannot be classified under Chapter 49 as the products of printing industry. As regards appellants contention about S.H. 4818.19, it is observed that; Heading: 4818.19 covers cartons, boxes, containers and cases excluded from sub-headings 4818.12 and 4818.13. Printer wrappers do not fall under categories of cartons, boxes, containers, therefore, can not merit classification under 4818.19. Thus these are to be classified under residuary sub-heading 4818.90 only.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants filed ...

C.C.E. Vs. Chemical Process Equipments Pvt.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT157TriDel

1. By the present appeal the appellants have assailed the order of the Collector (Appeals) on the ground that the Collector (Appeals) had wrongly classified the products manufactured by the respondents and had erroneously denied them the benefit of Notification 132/86, dated 1-3-1986.2. The facts of the case in brief are. that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of various types of reinforced fibre glasses plastic articles. The respondents filed classification list in respect of following articles :- (A) Pipe and Fittings (Such as Elbows, Tees, Stubend/Flanges), (B) Ductings and fittings (Such as Elbows, Tees, Stubends/Damper Conpoy and Hood), (C) Chimney and Tower (D) Tanks, Vessels, Scrubbers and (E) Gratings. They claimed their classification under Chapter Headings 39.17 and 39.26. The respondents also claimed the benefit of Notification 132/86. However the Assistant Collector approved classification list under Heading 39.17 and under Chapter Heading 3926.90 in respect o...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Bengal Aromatics

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT423TriDel

1. The point for determination in this appeal shortly is whether the products described as Naphthol AS, Naphthol ASBS and Naphthol ASG are classifiable Under Sub-heading 2903.10 as claimed by the respondents herein or under sub-heading 3204.29 as held by the Department.2. The facts of the case are that the respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of products described by them as Naphthol AS, Naphthol ASBS and Naphthol ASG. The respondents filed classification list and claimed assessment of these products under sub-heading 2903.10. The Asstt. Collector approved the classification list classifying the products under 3204.29. The respondents herein being aggrieved by this order of the Id. Asstt. Collector filed an appeal before the Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) set aside the order of the Asstt.Collector and remanded the case to the A.C. for consideration afresh after observing the principles of natural justice. It was represented by the respondents herein that the...

Pearl Agencies Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)61ITD511(Delhi)

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned CIT(A) for asst. yr. 1986-87 confirming the addition of Rs. 11,46,432 being the amount claimed as bad debt written off during the year under consideration.2. The AO has observed that the assessee has debited in its P&L a/c, an amount of Rs. 11,46,432 as bad debt. He has observed that the assessee has not furnished any evidence to show that the debt became bad and irrecoverable during the financial year in question. He, therefore, disallowed the same.3. Before the CIT (A), it was contended on behalf of the assessee that the approval of the RBI for regularising write off from FERA angle was pending. The factum of irrecoverability of the debt was established from the evidence produced before the AO. The counsel further submitted before the AO that though the approval of the RBI regarding the said loss was still to be received, but the same was cleared by the High Power Committee of the Ministry of Fina...

Madho Ram Vs. P.K. Jain

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1997(75)FLR643]; (1997)IILLJ1062Del

1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment of the learned single Judge in C.W.P. No. 1202/96 dated March 23, 1996, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant workman and refusing to interfere with the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal on January 2, 1996. 2. The writ petitioner Shri Madho Ram claimed, in his statement before the Tribunal that he was employed with M/s. Sandu Traders (employers) as Machine-man for 1 year and was drawing a salary of Rs. 600 p.m. He claimed that his service were terminated on August 24, 1981 when he demanded compensation and wages during the period when he was injured in his left hand and that no prior notice was given. He also claimed that he had sent a registered notice on September 16, 1981 to the employers. 3. In their written statement, the employers alleged that the workman was not in their employment and that there was no relationship of employer and workman and that, in fact, the workman did not receive any injury. Order alle...

Price Waterhouse and anr. Vs. the Institute of Chartered Accountants o ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: ILR1997Delhi219

Y.K. Sabharwal, J. (1) M/S. Price Waterhouse--Petitioner No. I is a firm of Chartered Accountants. Petitioner No. 2 is one of the partners of the said firm. The respondent-The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (for short 'the Institute') has been established under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The 'Council' constituted under Chapter Iii of the Act initiated disciplinary action for professional misconduct against the petitioner firm and on receipt of the report from the disciplinary committee that the member is not guilty of any professional misconduct, the Council instead of accepting the report has directed the Disciplinary committee to conduct a turner enquiry, which action is under challenge in this petition. Briefly the facts which lie in a narrow compass are :-- (2) The Export-Import Bank (for shirt 'EXIM BANK') commissioned the services of petitioner firm to assist the bank in the preparation of a booklet entitled 'India-You...

Pearl Agencies Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1998)60TTJ(Del)412

ORDERB. M. KOTHARI, A.M. :This appeal by the assessed is directed against the order passed by the learned CIT(A) for asst. yr. 1986-87 confirming the addition of Rs. 11,46,432 being the amount claimed as bad debt written off during the year under consideration.2. The AO has observed that the assessed has debited in its P&L; a/c, an amount of Rs. 11,46,432 as bad debt. He has observed that the assessed has not furnished any evidence to show that the debt became bad and irrecoverable during the financial year in question. He, thereforee, disallowed the same.3. Before the CIT (A), it was contended on behalf of the assessed that the approval of the RBI for regularising write off from FERA angle was pending. The factum of recoverability of the debt was established from the evidence produced before the AO. The counsel further submitted before the AO that though the approval of the RBI regarding the said loss was still to be received, but the same was cleared by the High Power Committee of th...

Dheklapara Tea Co. Ltd Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This common appeal together with a common dispensation application has been filed against adjudication order No. 182/95/DD, dated 28-11-1995 (despatched on 8-1-1996) under which a penalty of Rs. 2,50,000 has been imposed on M/s Dheklapara Tea Co. Ltd. for contravention of section 18(2) read with section 18(3)of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (the Act) for their failure to realise the amount of US $11,476.80 outstanding against the export made under the cover of CRI No. AC 050334. A penalty of Rs. 50,000 has been imposed on the then director Shri Shameem Ahmed by invoking the provisions of section 68(1)of the Act. The other director Shri Jainul Ahmed has been exonerated of the charge. 2. I had heard this case on 12-8-1996 on dispensation application when Shri Asharfi appeared for Dheklapara Tea Company Ltd. as well as for Shri Shameem Ahmed. Shri Asharfi sought leave to file and to refer to the entire correspondence made by the company to show the efforts made by them towa...

Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT540TriDel

1. These two stay applications have been filed alongwith appeals against two adjudication orders passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi both dated 15-12-1993 against applicants, M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. (MUL) and applicants, M/s. Bharat Seats Ltd. (BSL). In the order against applicants, M/s. MUL, there is a demand of Rs. 39,95,72,061.00 and a penalty of Rs. 10 crore and against the applicants BSL, the duty is Rs. 25,45,78,948.00. The penalty on them is Rs. 6.5 crore. These duties have been demanded by way of recovery of wrongly availed Modvat credit. The applicants, MUL manufacture motor vehicles for which seat is one of the inputs. Applicants, BSL is a joint venture with M/s. MUL, manufacture seats for motor vehicles exclusively for supply to MUL. The seat assembly consists of three parts. These three parts are first manufactured by BSL and thereafter sold to MUL. The parts, thereafter, are re-issued by M/s. MUL to BSL for manufacture of seats on job work basis, after ...