Delhi Court May 1984 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Girdhari Lal Govinddas Agrawal Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1321; 1985(1)Crimes307; 26(1984)DLT203; 1984(18)ELT198(Del)
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.(1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order of detention dated 23rd Sept., 1983 passed for and on behalf of the Government of Maharashtra State, respondent No. I 'under The Cofeposa Act 1974.' (2) The detention order No, SPL. 3A/PSA 0183/113-11 dated 23-9-83 was passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 3 of Cofeposa Act of 1974 with a view to prevent the petitioner from smuggling and abetting the smuggling of silver. The representations made by the petitioner to the Central Government and State Government were rejected and the detention was confirmed after the Advisory Board held that the cause for detention was sufficient. (3) We may here give a brief summary of the events that led to the investigation of the facts on the basis of which sponsoring authority and the detain- ing authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner was indulging in and abetting the smuggling of silver fro...
Assistant Collector of Customs Vs. Sudarshan Kumar Modi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-1984
Reported in: 26(1984)DLT49
Jagdish Chandra, J. (1) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code) has been brought by the petitioner Asstt, Collector of Customs, Palam Airport, New Delhi, for quashing of the order dated 17-9-1983 passed by Shri Mahesh Chandra, Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi discharging respondent No. 1 Sudershan Kumar Modi in respect of the offences under Ss. 132 and 135 of the Custom Act, 1962 and under S.5 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The aforesaid order of discharge by the Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi was passed in revision petition brought by respondent no. I Sudershan Kumar Modi feeling aggrieved from the order dated 8-9-1981 of the learned A.C.M.M., New Delhi framing the charge against him under the aforesaid provisions of law. (2) Mr. Watel representing respondent No. 1 has assailed the maintainability of the petition under S. 482 of the Code on the ground that the petitioner ha...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-1984
Reported in: (1984)43CTR(Del)291; ILR1984Delhi346; [1987]168ITR499(Delhi)
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) This petition under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure prays for condensation of delay in re-filing the Income-tax Case after it was returned by the registry for removing the objections stated in the note sheet attached to the case.(2) The petitioner filed a petition under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) praying for a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for short called the Tribunal (to state a case and to refer to this Court the proposed questions of law for its opinion. In the petition, facts, giving rise to it are narrated. A copy of the order of the Income-tax Officer is purported to be enclosed as Annexure P-l. A copy of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is purported to have been enclosed as Annexure P-2. A copy of the order of the Tribunal in second appeal is purported to have been enclosed as Annexure P-3. A copy of the order of the Tribunal declining to refer the ques lion ...
Union of India Vs. Yogender Pal Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-1984
Reported in: 26(1984)DLT263
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) This is an appeal under clause of the Letters Patent of Punjab High Court as applicable to this Court, by the Union of India challenging, the judgment of a learned Single Judge directing that 21 of 'the writ petitioners be appointed as constables in the Delhi Police Force.(2) The learned Singe Judge has held that the Punjab Police Rules, 193.4, framed under the Police Act, 1861, continue to remain in force in Delhi even after the promulgation of the Delhi Police (Appointment & recruitment) Rules, 1980 & thereforee relaxation made in favor of the wards of Delhi Policemen regarding age educational qualifications and physical standards by an order dated October 3, 1981, in accordance with Punjab Police Rule 12.15 read with Rule 12.14(3) entitles them to be recruited as constables in Delhi Police. The order relied upon by the writ petitioners reads as follows :' 'THE wards of Delhi Poh'cemen should be given the following concessions in age, educational qualification...
Collector of Central Excise and Vs. Vulcan Leval Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-14-1984
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC1704Tri(Delhi)
1. The questions for decision in this appeal originally a Show Cause Notice under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 by the Government of India to the respondents are : whether carrying on certain process on duty paid seamless steel tubes by the respondent to make them into drilling rods and casing tubes constitute manufacture and whether the products so obtained fall under T.I. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff or continue to fall under T.I. 26AA ibid, and the date from which the respondents should get relief in case the Order-in-Appeal is upheld by the Tribunal.2. Facts as found from the arguments and also from the record are that on 31-8-1977/2-9-1977, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Assessment Group 'D', Pune-2 Division communicated the decision of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise to the respondent. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise had decided that conversion of Steel Tubes into drilling rods and casing tubes would constitute manufacture un...
Automatic Electric Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-14-1984
Reported in: (1985)(22)ELT125TriDel
1. The Revision dated 21-3-1978 against Order-in-Appeal No. 682/77R, dated 26-11-77 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay has been transferred to the Tribunal for disposal in terms of Section 131B (2) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. A consignment of "Porcelain Bushings/Insulators for 220 KV" was imported and assessment was claimed under Heading 85.18/27(7) but it was assessed under sub-item (1) of this Heading vide Bill of Entry No.4390, dated 27-10-76. Aggrieved by this classification, the appellants contended before the Appellate Collector that the insulators were "designed for use in an electrical transmission system of 400 volts or above", and these bushings are used with voltage current type of transformers, which are in fact part of transmission system and without which it cannot be considered as complete. Catalogues and drawings were also produced. The Appellate Collector observed that in transmission lines suspended type of insulators are used and not bushing type i...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-iii Vs. Bhoora Mal Dau Dayal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-1984
Reported in: [1985]154ITR588(Delhi)
Kapur J.1. The point referred to us for assessment year 1972-73 is concerned with is to occur when an assessed partnership firm which is registered is dissolved and, consequently, a new firm takes over the business. The question referred to us is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally right in holding that it was not a case of a change in constitution under the proviso to section 187(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and in directing that separate assessments be made on the two firms instead of one consolidated assessment ?' 2. As it happens, this question has been decided by a Bench decision of this court in CIT v. San Lal Arvind Kumar : [1982]136ITR379(Delhi) . It was there held that s. 187 of the I.T. Act, 1961, was not applicable to a case where a firm was dissolved by law under the Partnership Act. We have had occasion to follow the said judgment in other cases. In the present case, both the learned counsel for the assessed...
installment Supply P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-1984
Reported in: ILR1984Delhi189; [1984]149ITR457(Delhi)
Wadhwa, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', has referred to this court, under s. 256(1) of the I.T. ACT, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following question of law is respect the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances and on a true interpretation of section 40(a)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, reimbursement of the medical expenses to the managing director has been correctly restricted by the Tribunal to Rs. 12,000 for each of the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71 ?' 2. The facts of the case may be stated briefly. Mr. Raj Bans Bahadur, managing director of the assesee-company, was taken ill in July, 1967. He suffered partial paralysis and was admitted to a nursing home. He remained in the nursing home for some time, but even after his discharge he required medical treatment which included the services of a qualified nurse who was attending on him day and night. In August, 1967, the board of director...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Fine Marble and Minerals Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-11-1984
Reported in: (1985)(22)ELT128TriDel
1. The Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Jaipur, has preferred this Appeal to set aside the order of the Appellate Collector who in Appeal No. 46/JPR/83, dated 21-2-83 has set aside the order of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Ajmer dated 14-7-83. The Respondents are engaged in the manufacture of marble slabs and were licensed for the purpose under the Central Excise Rules. The marble blocks belong to third parties and are brought to the cutting unit of the Respondents for being sawn into slabs. The sawing is a delicate and technical process carried out by power-operated machines. The slabs so manufactured out of the marble blocks are returned to the parties. The Respondents made a representation on 22-6-1982 and applied for cancellation of their L-4 licence. They inter alia urged that the marble slabs cut by them would not fall under Item 68 of the Tariff. They were collecting only the job-charges and their activity cannot be construed as "manufacture1.". They also ...
Cosmic Dye Chem. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-11-1984
Reported in: (1984)(18)ELT6TriDel
(a) the Appellant manufactures two types of dyes, Rapidogens and Naphthol A.S.G. (b) while Rapidogens were wholly exempted from duty pursuant to Notification No. 180/61/C.E., dated 23-11-1961, the Appellant was paying duty at the appropriate rates in respect of Naphthdl A.S.G. till the end of February 1978, after availing of proforma credit under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules 1944, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules); (c) in a classification list filed on or about 9-3-1978, exemption from payment of Central Excise duty under Notification No. 71/78, dated 1-3-1978 in respect of the first clearances of Naphthol A.S.GL upto a value of Rs. 5 lakhs was claimed by the Appellant. Information relating to value of clearance of Naphthol only during the preceding financial year was also furnished along with the necessary declaration ; (d) the said classification list was approved on 26-5-1978 by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise ; (e) between 1-4-1978 and 19-11-1981, on several o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »