Delhi Court July 1997 Judgments

Cpec Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT694TriDel

1. Appellant had filed price list in Part I for their supplies to their sole distributors, M/s. Voltas Limited and another price list for their supplies to their customers who were wholesale dealers. In the former price list, discount of 20% was claimed as deduction while in the latter price list the discount claimed was at the rate of 15%. During the period 5-12-1987 to 31-12-1987 appellant had cleared their goods to their wholesale dealers and paid duty after deducting the higher discount of 20%. This was objected to by the Department and after issue of show cause notice the Additional Collector of Central Excise passed the impugned order disallowing the discount claimed. The present appeal has been filed against the said order.2. Shri Gopal Prasad, learned Counsel for the appellant stated that the discount of 20% which have been claimed for their sales to their customers who are wholesale dealers had actually been passed on them.They subsequently filed price list covering such supp...

Biddle Swayer Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)LC286Tri(Delhi)

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Biddle Swayer (P) Limited is whether the benefit of Notification No. 122/86, dated 1-3-1986 would apply to their product Levamisole manufactured by them and cleared as "Dewermis Tablets containing Levamisole Hydrochloride".The benefit of exemption claimed by them was rejected by the authorities below on the ground that the exemption in question would apply only to the product Levamisole which figures in the Notification as such and not as its Hydrochloride which is sold in form of tablets.2. It was pleaded on behalf of the appellant by learned counsel, Ms.Ginny Bedi that the issue stands covered by certain Tribunal decisions in respect of the very same exemption Notification. She refers in this connection to the Tribunal's decision in Johnson & Johnson Limited v.Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-Ill 1994 (71) E.L.T. 438 (Tribunal) wherein it was held that Miconazole Nitrate was eligible for the benefit of the same exemption Noti...

Rajasthan Electronics Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)2STR231

1. Appellant was engaged in the manufacture of Television Set and during the period 1976-77 to 1981-82 recovering certain sums from their customers towards service charges by separate invoice which was not reflected in the relevant price list and in respect of which no deduction had been claimed therein. Show cause notice was issued on 20-5-1982 alleging that appellant had failed to disclose the correct assessable value and had evaded excise duty to the extent referable to such service charges. The show cause notice was resisted by the appellant containing that the said amounts were not recovered from all the customers but only from those who had exercised the option of availing warranty provided for such sets purchased by them. The defence plea was rejected by the Collector to confirm duty demand of Rs. 9,99,823.25 invoking the extended period under proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act. The order has been challenged in the present appeal.2. Arguing the case of the appe...

Ralson (India) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) raising for the consideration of the Tribunal numerous grounds, but by far the most contested was the issue pertaining to "loss on embezzlement" claimed at a figure of Rs. 1,44,47,500. This ground is now discussed and disposed off in the succeeding paras.2. The appellant is a closely held company engaged in manufacturing activities having two units i.e. "Carbon Black Unit" and "Cycle Unit".In the course of the assessment proceedings the AO came across a claim for deduction to the tune of Rs. 1,29,47,500 on account of embezzlement. The case made out was to the effect that the managing director of the company, Mr. Sanjeev Pahwa used to remain out of Ludhiana for long spells and in his absence it was necessary to ensure the smooth working of the company and with this in mind blank cheques/information copies signed by the managing director and his mother, Smt. Krishna Rani were handed over to Shri R. P. Mahajan, the financi...

Orissa Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd. Vs. Santosh Gupta

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(1997)ACC276; 1998ACJ757; 1997IVAD(Delhi)729; 68(1997)DLT204; 1998(44)DRJ230; (1997)117PLR32; 1997RLR502

S.K. Mahajan, J. (1) Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge holding the insurance company to be liable to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased, who was a gratuitous passenger in the car involved in the accident, the appellant has filed this Letters Patent Appeal mainly on the ground that the insurance company with which the car is comprehensively insured, is not liable to make payment of compensation in case of death of or bodily injury to a gratuitous passenger in the car. (2) Before we deal with the respective contentions of the parties, we may give some relevant facts which have given rise to this Appeal. (3) An Ambassador car bearing No.DLJ-3675 owned by respondent No.8 was comprehensively insured under a policy of insurance with the appellant company. On 5th May, 1971 at about 4.45 p.m. when the car was being driven in a reckless and negligent manner by respondent No.7, Kartar Singh, it met with an accident and dashed against a tree away from th...

Ralson (India) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1998)60TTJ(Del)451

ORDERR. M. MEHTA, A.M. :This appeal is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) raising for the consideration of the Tribunal numerous grounds, but by far the most contested was the issue pertaining to 'loss on embezzlement' claimed at a figure of Rs. 1,44,47,500. This ground is now discussed and disposed off in the succeeding paras.2. The appellant is a closely held company engaged in manufacturing activities having two units i.e. 'Carbon Black Unit' and 'Cycle Unit'. In the course of the assessment proceedings the AO came across a claim for deduction to the tune of Rs. 1,29,47,500 on account of embezzlement. The case made out was to the effect that the managing director of the company, Mr. Sanjeev Pahwa used to remain out of Ludhiana for long spells and in his absence it was necessary to ensure the smooth working of the company and with this in mind blank cheques/information copies signed by the managing director and his mother, Smt. Krishna Rani were handed over to Shri R. P....

Hukma Raj Badla Vs. Sumesh Kumar Suri

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. In this complaint filed by Mr. Hukma Raj Badla, complainant for short, it has been averred that Mr. Sumesh Kumar Suri, MD of Aristocrat Consultants Pvt. Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the OP, gave an advertisement in the Newspapers for filling vacancies for Sr. Project Manager (Civil) with Multi-National Companies on 27.8.96. The complainant contacted Mr. Suri and he was promised a job with Rs. 30,000/- per month salary in addition to perks. He was charged Rs. 15,000/- for the service promised to be tendered by the OP. He paid Rs. 5,000/- on 3.9.96, another cheque of equal amount on 24.10.1996 and balance in cash amounting to Rs. 5.000/- on 15.11.96. The OP called the complainant a number of times but every time postponed his meeting with the proposed employer on one pretext or the other. The complainant claimed compensation amounting Rs. 1,80,000/- with 24% interest and Rs. 2,000/- on account of expenses incurred on despatch, telephone, telegram etc. a to...

K.T. Zimik Vs. Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: ILR1999Delhi126

ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 6.3.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in revision petition No. 37/97 confirming the order dated 10.2.1995 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate for framing charges under Sections 279/338/304-A IPC against the petitioner. 2. Briefly stated, facts giving rise to the present petition are that on 14.1.1993, the complainant Surinder Malhotra along with his wife Smt. Kanchan, daughter Pooja and son Deepak were going on the scooter bearing registration No. DIV 1582. A Maruti Gypsy bearing registration No. DDV 8538 driven by the petitioner came from behind and hit the scooter causing the death of Pooja and injuries to Smt. Kanchan. According to the prosecution case, the alleged incident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the said Gypsy by the petitioner. The report of the alleged incident was lodged by Surinder Malhotra. Investigation thereafte...

Kamal Biri Factory Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT1197TriDel

1. The appellant filed these appeals against the order dated 24-4-1992 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut.2. The Collector of Central Excise, Meerut vide impugned order, ordered the confiscation of 57 Bags of biris containing 1163520 bins under Rule 209 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and gave option to the appellant to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/-.3. The Collector also ordered confiscation of 1299120 loose unlabelled biris under Rule 209 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and gave option to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/-.4. The Collector also demanded duty of Rs. 18,78,783.71 under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 from M/s. Kamal Biri Factory being Central Excise duty payable on 448129690 biris surreptitiously remanded during the period 17-2-86 to 16-11-86 in contravention of Rules 9(1), 52A, 44; 93 and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Collectgr also im...

Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd. Vs. Asstt. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT185TriDel

1. The point to be considered in this case is whether toughened and laminated glass in the shape of wind screen/side screen is to be classified as 'motor vehicle parts' under Chapter 87 and sub-heading 8708.00 as claimed by the party or under 7004.10 and 7004.20 respectively as per the department.2. When the matter was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellants. However, there was a request from them to decide the case on merits. Accordingly, we proceeded to pass this order after hearing Shri D.S. Negi, ld. SDR for the Revenue.3. The plea of the appellants is that under the present tariff only toughened and laminated glass is classifiable under Chapter 70 and sub-heading 7004.10 and 7004.20 and that toughened and laminated glass in the shape of wind screen/side screen is classifiable as motor vehicle parts under Chapter 87 and sub-heading 8708.00. It was also submitted by them that sheet glass which is cut to desired shape of the screen and then the process of toughening and la...