Delhi Court July 1998 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Integrated Caps (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT969TriDel

1. This appeal from the Revenue was argued by Shri Y.R. Kilania, ld.DR. Shri D.S. Malik, ld. Advocate represented the respondents.2. These proceedings are confined to the demand-cum-show cause notice dated 30-9-1994 issued to the respondents whereby Modvat credit taken to the extent of Rs. 1,22,197.38 was sought to be denied on the observation that the credit was taken on the strength of gate passes issued on or before 31-3-1994, but endorsed thereafter thereby making the documents not admissible in terms of Notification No. 16/94-C.E.(N.T.), dated 30-3-1994. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand. The Commissioner (Appeals) Meld that the assessee's contention that the endorsed gate passes were only a secondary evidence and that the main evidence consisted of invoices, issued by the dealers in terms of Notification 15/94-C.E. (N.T.), which were admissible documents, was correct. On allowing the appeal, the present appeal has arisen.3. In the appeal memorandum, it is claimed t...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Novaluxe International (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT160TriDel

1. Question involved in the present matter is whether the decorative tops of a refrigerator is to be treated as a part of refrigerator under Tariff Heading 84.18 or under Tariff Heading 94.03 as "other furniture and part thereof". The lower authority has held the aforesaid product as not falling under Heading 84.18. In this connection we reproduce para 17 of the impugned order in order to appreciate the findings of the lower appellate authority : 17. After the careful perusal of the nature and design of these table tops it is evident that the same is utilised as an optional feature, or an accessory in the Refrigerator, both for the purposes of decorating the refrigerator top as well as providing additional protection perhaps against rusting. This item by its features does not appear to be a compulsory part or accessory of a refrigerator, but acquired by the Customers at their own option as an optional item. I am, therefore, in agreement with the appellants claims that the said decorat...

Collector of Customs Vs. A.K. Dhawan

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(62)ECC410

1. Matter called. No one for the appellant. There is however a letter dated 18-5-1998 praying for decision on the Revenue's appeal on merits in the absence of respondents. Hence we have heard ld. SDR Shri A.K.Agarwal in support of the Revenue's appeal. "One parcel containing spare parts of Cone penetrometer which were despatched by M/s. A.P.V.D. Berg, Netherlands through DHL courier services vide AWB No. 5794362696, dated 16-10-1994 have been detained at IGI Airport vide Detention Receipt No. 27258, dated 15-12-1994 for payment of customs duty amounting to Rs. 8,000/-. The above mentioned spare parts have been sent to them under the UNDP Project but due to lack of communication the vendor had sent these spare parts through courier direct to the Central Soil and Materials Research Station, New Delhi instead of to the Resident Representative of UNDP. As the consignment had come through courier they were asked to pay duty on the same and they had cleared the consignment on payment of dut...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Chamundi Machine Tools Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT987TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the Order-in-Appeal No. 33/90, dated 25-1-1990 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (A), Madras.2. When the matter was called, Shri R.S. Sanghia, ld. JDR appeared on behalf of the appellants and while reiterating the grounds submitted that the Collector of Central Excise (A) while passing the impugned order in respect of Items 1-9 of the classification list in question classified them under Heading 84.66 of the Central Excise Tariff in favour of the party has failed to consider the provisions of Note 2(a) of Section 5 read with Note 1(g) to Section 16 of CET, 1985 which clarifies that the impugned goods which are parts of general use are correctly covered under Heading 73.18 (earlier 83.18) of CET. Further, he said that Notification 168/88, dated 13-5-1988 lays clear support in the matter to the effect that the impugned goods namely screws, nuts and bolts even if used as parts of power-driven pumps are not covered by Chapter 84...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Om Inter Services (P.) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1999]235ITR429(Delhi)

1. Learned counsel for the Revenue has made available a copy of letter dated May 8, 1986, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes granting approval under Section 80-O of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the agreement dated November 2, 1983, which is in question. Clause 2 of the approval reads as under :'2. The income allowable as a deduction for the assessment year 1981-82 and onwards would be the income computed after accounting for expenses incurred in earning such income, i.e., net income.'2. The document is taken on record.3. The Income-tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) recorded a finding of fact that the assessed had failed to disclose the expenses incurred in earning the income relevant to Section 80-O of the Act for the assessment year 1986-87 and, thereforee, the net income could not be worked out and benefit of Section 80-O could not be allowed to the assessee. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has without reversing the finding of fact recorded by the tw...

Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 74(1998)DLT639; 1998(46)DRJ599; (1998)120PLR15

M.K. Sharma, J. 1. In pursuance of disputes between the parties to the contract dated 25.9.1976 the same were referred to the sole arbitration of Shri Ram Bahadur, Additional Legal Adviser to the Government of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs. The arbitrator so appointed entered into the reference and thereafter upon hearing the parties has passed an award on 28.7.1992. The said arbitrator filed the award Along with the records of arbitration proceedings in this court, on receipt of which notices were issued to the parties. In pursuance thereof the respondent/Union of India tiled objections against the award on which I heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent at length.2. The objection against the award is on the ground that the arbitrator committed an error apparent on the face of the record by not considering the letter dated 24.10.1979 of Registrar, Restrictive Trade Agreements, and also in holding that that the 'Fall Clause' is not attracted in the ...

Mahender Kumar JaIn Vs. Registrar Cooperative Societies and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998(46)DRJ842

Vijender Jain, J. 1. By this writ petition the petitioner challenges quashing of the impugned order dated 19.8.1982, whereby the order passed by the Joint Registrar interalia stating that the membership of the petitioner could not be cleared as the petitioner was dealing in the business of purchase and sale of immovable property in the Union Territory of Delhi. Further prayer has been made to issue appropriate direction to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner by respondent No.2 society. Vide order dated . 4.12.1982 a plot of 200 sq. yards was reserved for the petitioner. The petitioner died during the pendency of the writ petition on 20.11.1985. The legal heirs of the petitioners were brought on record vide order dated 3.4.1986. Affidavits have been filed by the L.Rs. to the effect that son of the petitioner Pradip Jain was entitled for the plot in question, if ultimately, the petitioner succeeds in the writ petition. Affidavits to that effect have been filed by Smt.Sh...

Vijaya Bank Vs. Gold Foot Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 74(1998)DLT696; 1998(46)DRJ788; (1998)120PLR20

K. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The plaintiff bank has instituted the suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs.1,32,962/- against defendants 1 to 3 with interest @ 19.5% p.a. from 16.1.1986 onwards. The suit was instituted on the 31st of January, 1986. Defendants 2 & 3 had been set ex parte. The allegations in the plaint could he abridged in the followingterms:2. The second defendant, M/s.Dhanarjan Enterprises, was borrowing money from the plaintiff. The stocks at the defendant No.2 factory premises were hypothecated with the plaintiff bank. The first defendant was permitted to take delivery of stocks of 3,000 pairs of ladies white shoes from the factory of the second defendant vide letter dated the 25th of February, 1983. The first defendant undertook that the stocks would continue to be under the charge of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 was taking delivery of those shoes for reprocessing. The first defendant undertook that at the time when the goods were handed over to the clearing agents for exp...

Worldlink Finance Ltd. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. The only question arising in this appeal is as to the liability of the Insurance Company when the insured vehicle was being driven by a person who was not holding a valid driving licence Mitsubishi bus belonging to M/s. World link Finance Ltd. was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. for the period 9.3.1990 to 8.3.1991. The bus was given by the complainant under hire-purchase to one Paul Singh. The bus met with an accident on 12.8.1990 and according to the complainant, the loss suffered amounting to Rs; 1,96,000/-. Claim made to the Insurance Company was repudiated on the ground that the insured had committed a breach of the terms of the policy inasmuch as the vehicle was allowed to be driven by a person whose driving licence upon verification was found to be fake. The matter was entrusted by the Insurance Company to M/s. Associate Surveyors and Consultants who, on enquiry from the Licencing Authority, Sagar, reported vide their communication da...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. thermo Plast

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT173TriDel

1. The respondents herein filed a classification list for their product "polyurethene insulation in rigid form" claiming classification under GET sub-heading 3926.10 attracting 15% BED + 5% SED under Notification 54/88 dated 1-3-1988 as amended, and also claiming Modvat credit of duty paid on the inputs. The classification list was approved by the Assistant Collector on 2-7-1990, on the basis that the product in question was not to be considered as excisable goods, as held by the Tribunal in the case of Milton Plastics v. Collector of Central Excise (Final Order No. 655/90-C, dated 27-6-1990), and there being no duty on the final product, Modvat credit on inputs could not be allowed.Accordingly, the Assistant Collector filed an application in Form EA2 in July 1991 to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) who decided the appeal holding that since the goods are not excisable and not liable to duty, the assessees could not claim Modvat credit of duty paid on inputs.2. We have heard S...