Delhi Court September 1991 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1991 Page 5 of about 93 results (0.010 seconds)M.S. Jasra Vs. Governor, Reserve Bank of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: I(1992)BC416; 46(1992)DLT665; [1991(63)FLR902]
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The short question which arises for consideration in this case is with regard to the correct interpretation of Section 45(5)(i) and Proviso (ii) thereof of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). (2) Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner joined the Reserve Bank of India where he worked till 8th March, 1983. on which date he joined the Lakshmi Commercial Hank as an Assistant General Manager. On his appointment in the Lakshmi Commercial Bank, he resigned from the Reserve Bank of India. (3) On 27th April, 1985, the Central Government passed an order under Section 45(2) of the said Act, placing the Lakshmi Commercial Bank under moratorium. Thereafter the Reserve Bank of India prepared a scheme of amalgamation of Lakshmi Commercial Bank with Canara Bank. This scheme was prepared under Section 45(5) and on 23rd August, 1985 it was sanctioned by the Central Government under Section 45(7). As a result of the aforesaid scheme of ...
Tag this Judgment!Canara Bank Vs. Perpetual Beers and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: I(1992)BC64; 45(1991)DLT549
Mohd. Shamim, J.(1) This is a suit for recovery of a sum of Ri. 3,17,833.90 P. together with pendente life and future interest at the rate of 19% per annum. Brief facts which gave rise to the present suit are as under : that the plaintiff is a banking company duly constituted under the Banking Companies (Transfer Acquisition of Undertakings) Act of 1970 with Its bead office at Banglore in the State of Karnataka. It is as such entitled to acquire, bold and dispose of properties and to contract and sue and to be sued in Its own name. Sbri J. Ramani and Shri R. Ramchandran are Principal Officers and the Managers of the plaintiff bank situated at R.K. Puram, New Delhi. They are as such duly authorised to sign and verify the present plaint and to institute the present suit. The said power has also been given to them through a power of attorney duly executed in their favor. Defendant No. 1 Is a partnership firm consisting of Defendants Nos. 2 to 5. Defendant No. 1 b dealing with sale and tra...
Tag this Judgment!Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)(38)ECC45
1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of various kinds of paper, including news print. They imported a consignment of Venta Nip Press Felt and filed Bill of Entry No. AD 1349, which was assessed under Heading 59.16/17 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 @ 40% + 25% + CVD @ 10%. A demand was issued under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 alleging a short levy of Rs. 92,148/- on the grounds that the goods were assessable under Heading 59.01/15 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 @ 100% + 40% + CVD @ 10%. The Assistant Collector in his order dated 10-6-1985 confirmed the demand. In the appeal against the order passed by the Assistant Collector, the appellants claimed that the imported Press Felts were identifiable .textile articles of a kind commonly used in machinery and were therefore classifiable under Heading 59.16/17 Customs Tariff Act, 1975, in terms of Chapter Tote 4(a)(iv) of Chapter 59 of the Tariff. In the order dated 22-11-1985, the Collector of Customs (Appeals) refer...
Tag this Judgment!Kumudam Printers (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)LC192Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras deciding that ribbons and spare parts pack for laser comp imported in a consignment of Monotype system Phototype Setting Machine with Accessories should be assessed to duty separately on merits under the appropriate headings of the tarriff. Briefly stated, the facts are that the goods were assessed as "Phototype-setting and composing machines" under sub-heading 8442.10 of the Customs Tariff. The bill of entry does not show that a separate declaration was made either for ribbons or for the spare parts pack but the invoice does show that Five Boxes of Ribbons for Line Printer (12 per box) were imported. Their value is shown as 540 @ 108 per box.While the Assistant Collector of Customs accepted the declaration, the department filed an appeal against his order and Collector (Appeals) held that the boxes of ribbons and spare parts pack have to be assessed on merits because:- (b) separate prices have ...
Tag this Judgment!Manoj Enterprises Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)(58)ELT69TriDel
1. Aggrieved by the order of the Additional Collector of Customs levying differential customs duty (Countervailing duty) of Rs. 5,95,110/- on imported "brass ash/dross" by holding them to be "metallic waste and scrap of copper-zinc alloy" classifying the goods under Heading 74.04 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and Central Excise Tariff and imposing a penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- the appellants have preferred the above appeal.2. We have heard Shri A.S. Sunder Rajan, learned Consultant and Shri S.K. Roy, learned SDR and perused the records.3. The appellants had imported a consignment said to contain 43.500 tonnes of brass ash/dross and described the goods as such, classifiable under Heading 26.20 Customs Tariff and claimed total exemption from levy of CV duty in terms of Notification No. 92/86, dated 17-2-1986. At the time of examination of the consignment a sample was drawn and pending test results the importers executed a test bond on the basis of which the goods were assessed provision...
Tag this Judgment!Chemicals and Plastics India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)LC344Tri(Delhi)
1. When the case was called, none has appeared on behalf of the appellants, who have vide their letter dated 14th June 1991 requested for a decision on merits without personal hearing. The appellants herein were availing the Exemption Notification No. 198/76, dated 16-6-1976 with effect from 24-1-1978. The said Notification granted an exemption of 25% of the duty otherwise leviable on the products manufactured and removed by the appellants. The appellants continued, to remove the goods, even after availing of the benefit of the said Notification, on the same price to its customers as it was doing before availing of the said Notification prior to 24-1-1978. In other words, even though the duty being paid by the appellants to the Department was less after 24-1-1978, the appellant continued to charge the same cum-duty price as he was charging from his customers before 24-1-1978. Since the appellant .was now paying less duty to the Department in view of the Notification 198/76, dated 16-6...
Tag this Judgment!Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)(37)ECC132
1. The appellants, herein, imported a consignment of polystyrene moulding powder for which Bill of Entry was filed on 9-9-1987 and goods cleared on payment of basic and auxiliary customs duty and additional duty of customs (CVD) was also paid @ 40% under Heading 39.07 CETA'85.Subsequently, the appellants filed a refund claim dated 9-11-1987 claiming refund of CVD on the ground that classification should be under sub-heading 3903.10 CETA read with Notification 133/86 dated 1-3-1986 as amended by Notification 239/87 dated 26-10-1987 and covered by the Explanation to the Notification 133/86 added by the amendment Notification of 239/87. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Appraising Refund Section, Calcutta Customs House by his order dated 29-6-1990 rejected the claim holding that the goods are not covered by Explanation to Notification 133/86 added by amending Notification 239/87 dated 26-10-1987 which was issued subsequent to the clearance of the goods. The appeal against the Assistant...
Tag this Judgment!Trimurti Enterprises Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)(59)ELT139TriDel
1. The appellants filed Bill of Entry No. 035650 (I.G.M. No. 520/80-L.No. 4) for the clearance of 1.500 Tonnes of Selenium Metal Powder of 99.9% purity. The value of the goods was declared as Rs. 1,76,873/- on the basis of invoice price of U.S. $ 11250/- at the rate of US $ 7.50 per kg. CIF. The appellants were served with a Show Cause Notice alleging that the invoice price of the goods @ US $ 7.5 per kg. CIF appeared to be low since on examination of the computer printout in respect of imports of Selenium Metal Powder through Bombay Port during a period of 120 days, the CIF price of imported Selenium Metal Powder 99.9% purity was found to be ranging between US $ 17.16 per kg. and US $ 21 per kg. Import particulars in respect of 4 consignments of Selenium Metal Powder, extracted from the Computer print-out relating to imports during the past 120 days were annexed to the Show Cause Notice and it was alleged that the invoice price of US $7.5 per kg. CIF Madras did not represent the tran...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Nath Monga and Sons Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)39ITD425(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee for assessment year 1984-85, is directed against the order dated 3-3-1988, passed by CIT (Appeals)-XII, New Delhi.2. The assessee firm is a wholesale dealer of M/s Godfrey Philips India Ltd., the manufacturer of cigarettes. Before we come to the main issue raised in this appeal, it may be proper to dispose of the other grounds of appeal. Ground No. 2 challenges the action of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) in holding that sampling expenses of Rs. 95,623 had correctly been considered for the purposes of Section 37(3 A) of the IT Act, 1961. At the time of hearing, Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Ld. Counsel for the assessee, submitted that there was no merit in the assessee's ground and accordingly this ground was not pressed and is, therefore, treated as dismissed.3. Ground No. 3 challenges the disallowance of vehicle maintenance expenses and depreciation of car to the extent of l/4th. It was submitted that the disallowance was excessive. In our opinion, when there are 5 partn...
Tag this Judgment!Ansal Properties and Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Anand Nath and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1992Delhi540
R.L. Gupta, J. (1) Plaintiff has filed (his suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 6-7-1977 against the defendants and also for a declaration that the plaintiff is the lawful tenant of property bearing No. 27, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi (hereinafter described as 27 KGM). The allegations are that Dr. Raghunath s/o R. B. Moolraj was the owner of lessee rights of a plot of land measuring 4795.2 sq. meters (1.185 acres or 5735 so. yards) commonly known as 27 KGM. These rights had been granted by the Secretary of State for India in Council in his favor by lease deed dated 8-2-1933 registered on 19th June, 1933. On 18th March, 1971 the plaintiff (then known as Ansal and Sehgal Properties P. Ltd.) entered into an agreement with Dr. Raghunath regarding 27 Kgm for construction of a cinema cum multi-storeyed super-structure thereon. A power of attorney and partnership agreement were also executed. Under the aforesaid agreement the plaintiff paid Rs. 1,46.0001- to Dr. Raghunath ...
Tag this Judgment!