TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (7) TMI 551
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... manufacturing and marketing of BOPP films, etc. It is the case of the petitioner that the company has been doing business with the respondent-company and it supplied to the respondent various quantities of BOPP films pursuant to its orders. The details of the supplies made under various invoices are as under: Sl. No. Invoice No. Date Amount due Rs. P. 1. 1/10620 4-2-1992 1,51,115.77 2. 1/10621 4-2-1992 1,09,346.69 3. 1/10662 13-2-1992 1,43,775.49 4. 1/10744 20-3-1992 2,65,943.00 5. 1/10773 26-3-1992 1,41,386.08 6. 1/20006 15-04-1992 1,29,529.17 7. 1/20260 30-9-1992 42,504.00 8. 1/20284 20-10-1992 1,08,262.00 10,91,862.20 The petitioner allowed discount on the invoice price and af....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aterial, but it failed to do so. It has also been submitted that the respondent-company pointed out the discrepancy of weight and the rate which had been charged in respect of bill dated September 23, 1991, but no credit note for the difference in the bill was sent. In regard to dishonouring of the cheques by the bank, it has been submitted by the respondent that the petitioner-company had obtained post-dated cheques for the material to be supplied to the respondent-company and those cheques could not have been sent for encashment as the material supplied against the said cheques stood rejected. The respondent-company has submitted that the petitioner company with mala fide intention presented these cheques without intimating to the respond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... R-6. It is pertinent to mention here that in letter dated June 14, 1992 (annexure R-7), the respondent-company itself has admitted that goods weighing 620.6 Kgs. were rejected, and credit of the defective goods was given to the respondent-company. Similarly, in letter dated July 24, 1992, the petitioner-company offered to take back all the unused film but the respondent-company had not agreed to the said offer. The respondent-company had also been informed by this letter that the petitioner-company would not accept any rejections due to printing treatment or cutting distortions. The other annexures produced by the respondent-company pertain to rejection of films on the grounds other than the manufacturing defects. In case the respondent-co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eversed for non-encashment of the cheques. The statement of account further shows that the petitioner-company had given a credit note of Rs. 25,101.13 to the respondent regarding damage to goods and a special discount was given for Rs. 1,80,433.62 on March 31, 1992, as according to the petitioner-company the prices had dropped in the market. Subsequent payments were made on May 1, 1992, June 1, 1992, June 4, 1992, July 2, 1992, and September 10, 1992, totalling Rs. 3 lakhs. Thereafter, the goods were sent on September 30, 1992 (annexure P-7), and October 30, 1992 (annexure P-8). Two cheques were issued for Rs. 18,031 and Rs. 1,27,920 but both the cheques were dishonoured. In case there was any dispute with regard to quality of goods, the re....