Delhi Court April 1998 Judgments

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S. Man Mohan Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1999)63TTJ(Del)491

ORDERMISS MOKSH MAHAJAN, AM.:These appeals for the concerned years have been filed by the Revenue as well as by the assessee.2. Taking up the appeals of the assessed first, in ITA No. 2207 for asst. yr. 1986-87, the first contention raised relates to confirmation of disallowance at Rs. 44,272 made out of reimbursement of medical expenses. Shri M.S. Syali who appeared on behalf of the assessed submitted that Sardar Man Mohan Singh was the managing director during the period relevant for asst. yr. 1986-87. He had gone abroad in connection with the collaboration agreement entered into with Mls Frick, USA which was for supply of technical know-how and expertise for manufacture of tailor-made refrigeration equipment. While abroad, the assessed suddenly developed cardiac problem and had to be operated upon immediately. Subsequently, the Board of Directors as a gesture of respect to its Chairman-cum-MD agreed to reimburse the expenditure incurred on medical treatment incurred in USA. The afor...

Millipore (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT148TriDel

1. This appeal arises against Order-in-Appeal No. 130/96, dated 12-9-1996 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals).2. Briefly the facts of the case are that vide Order-in-Original No.114/94, dated 15-1-1994, the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise denied the appellants Modvat credit on the ground that the original Bill of Entry and Proforma 'B' were not produced, instead photocopies were produced and in the Triplicate copy of the Bill of Entry, there was an endorsement by the Superintendent, Air Cargo Complex reading "Not for availing Modvat credit". It was held that these are not valid documents for taking Modvat credit. It was, however, not alleged that any fraudulent or misuse of these documents was involved. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the O-I-O rejecting the appeal on similar grounds.3. Heard Shri K. Parameswaran, ld. Advocate for the appellant. He submitted that the original Bill of Entry and the Proforma 'B' certificate had been submitted alo...

Transmatic Systems Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT121TriDel

The appellants herein received 251 cases from their supplier Supreme Cases for the manufacture of CTC-4000 Telexlink and Dotmatrix Printers with embossing of the brand name herein. The goods have been received by the appellants after clearances thereof under the benefit of exemption Notification 175/86-C.E. because Supreme Cases was enjoying the benefit of the said notification. The authorities below, however, felt that the benefit of the said notification would not be available to the said goods in view of para 7 of the said notification inasmuch as it contained the trade name or brand name of the appellants who are not eligible for the benefit Notification 175/86. The aforesaid goods were, therefore, seized by the Central Excise Officers and a show cause notice was issued to the manufacturers namely Supreme Cases as to why the duty on the said goods be not recovered from them. A show cause notice was also issued to the appellants herein as to why the goods be not confiscated and the...

S.M. Enterprises Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT85TriDel

1. Ld. Advocate Shri R. Parthasarthy for the appellants submits that the question involved herein is classification of plastic housing without media (magnetic tape) in it. The Revenue has assessed the same under Tariff Heading 85.23 which is described as follows : "Prepared unrecorded media for sound recording or similar recording of other phenomena, other than products of Chapter 37".On the other hand contention of the ld. Advocate for the appellants is that it should be classified as articles of plastics under Tariff Heading 39.26 read with benefit of Notification No. 132/86-C.E.. Ld.Advocate submits that the aforesaid question has since been decided by the Tribunal in its Order No. 25/96-C, dated 11-1-1996 in the matter of Polymould Plastics v. CCE, Bombay. He has given a copy of this order of the Tribunal across the Board. He also submits that there is a circular of C.B.E.&C. No. 33/9/94-CX, dated 29-7-1994 which has upheld the classification of the aforesaid order under Tarif...

Collector of Customs Vs. Francis Lesile and Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)LC118Tri(Delhi)

1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 10-9-1990 passed by the Collector, Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. The respondents M/s Francis Lesile & Co. imported a consignment of Compressed Air Breathing Apparatus, the Trellchem Suit. The respondents sought clearance under Heading No. 9020.00 of the Customs Tariff read with Notification No. 208/81-Cus. The Revenue agreed to the classification claimed by the respondents in respect of the compressed air breathing apparatus. However, the Trellchem Suit was not treated as accessory of air breathing apparatus and was assessed separately under Heading 6302.12 of the Customs Tariff and the benefit of Notification No. 208/81-Cus. was denied to the Trellchem Suit.3. The respondents filed the appeal and the Collector, Customs (Appeals) in the impugned order held that Trellchem Suits are an accessory of the breathing apparatus. Breathing Apparatus is entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 208/81-Cus. The Collector, C...

Arw Filter Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)LC534Tri(Delhi)

1. Matter called. None for the appellant. There is, however, a request for deciding the case on merits on the basis of available records.2. We have heard ld. JDR Shri S. Nunthuk. Short question involved in this matter is classification of the filters for air and liquids used for different machineries such as I.C. Engine, Textile, powerloom and some individual machines falling under Tariff Heading 84.79. The revenue has assessed the aforesaid filters under Tariff Heading 84.21 which reads as follows : "84.21 - Centrifuges, including centrifugal dryers; filtering or purifying machinery and apparatus, for liquids or gases".The Revenue has relied on Section Note 2(a) of Section XVI which provides that where parts are specifically mentioned under any specific heading of Chapter 84 or 85, they would be classified as such. It has also relied upon Rule 3(a) of the Rules of Interpretation to Central Excise Tariff. Consequently, in view of the tariff description in Tariff Heading 8421.00 as men...

Videocon International Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Prakash Kaur and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Briefly stated the material facts of the case are that Mrs. Prakash Kaur and Mrs. Harbir Kaur, complainants applied for 100 shares each of M/s. Videocon International Ltd., opp. party-1 in 1992. They submitted application forms alongwith a cheque of Rs. 6,000/- each. They received allotment letter dated 17.2.1993 asking them to send call money amounting to Rs. 6,000/- each on or before 25.3.1993. It was made clear that late payment with interest @ 18% w.e.f. 26.3.1993 was acceptable. The complainant, who had been made firm allotment sent two cheques dated 24.3.1993 of Rs. 6,000/- each drawn on Bank of Rajasthan. Towards the end of April, 1997 the complainants came to know that the said cheques had been returned on the ground of insufficient funds. Without waiting for any further letter from the opposite party, the complainants sent two Bank drafts on account of the call money as well as Rs. 130/- as interest. Admittedly, the said Bank drafts were encashed b...

Lasanto Laboratories Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT212TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Lasanto Laboratories, the Order-in-Appeal dated 27-9-1991 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay is under challenge. In the Order-in Appeal, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay had come to a finding that there had been mis-statement and suppression of the relevant information relating to the fixation of the trade name of another manufacturer on the patent or proprietory medicines and as such the extended period of limitation was invokable. He had set aside the Order-in-Original passed by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Division-9, Bombay-II and had directed that the relevant papers be transferred to the jurisdictional Collector for being decided by him.2. The appellants had challenged that part of the Order-in-Appeal which relates to the invokation of the extended period of limitation. They had also challenged the order on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice as no personal hearing was g...

Collector of Customs Vs. Versa Publications Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT86TriDel

1. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the respondents, M/s. Versa Publications Ltd. in spite of notice.Therefore, the appeal is being taken up for final disposal in the absence of the respondents.2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 24-9-1985 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay and in the impugned order, the Collector of Customs held that the Plate Processor Machine, the Automatic Plate Processor is classifiable under Heading No. 84.34 of the Customs Tariff and is not classifiable under Heading No. 90.10 of the Customs Tariff.3. Shri R.S. Sangia, JDR appeared on behalf of the appellants/Revenue submits that the Automatic Plate Processor imported by the appellants is classifiable under Heading No. 90.10 of the Customs Tariff as it is a similar to Photographic Processor. He submits that the Automatic Plate Processor is working on the principal features of photographic method. He also submits that the machine imported is a ...

Shree Vallabh Glas Works Ltd. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT173TriDel

1. The appellants, M/s. Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. had prayed for decision on merits.2. The matter relates to the classification of the wired glass under the new Central Excise Tariff in force from 28-2-1996 (sic). The appellants had claimed that the wired glass was not excisable. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad after discussing the relevant Tariff Entries had held that the wired glass was covered by the Heading No. 70.02 of the Central Excise Tariff.3. We have carefully considered the matter and have gone through the submissions made by Shri Satnam Singh, SDR, who is present for the respondent/Revenue.4. The wired glass is a type of glass. Under Chapter Note 5 under Chapter 70 of the Tariff, it had been explained that the expression 'glass' includes fused quartz and other fused silica. In Chapter Note 2, it had been explained that for the purposes of Heading No. 70.02. "(a) Glass is not regarded as 'Worked' by reason of any process it has undergone before ann...