Delhi Court August 1986 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.
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Khaitan Fans (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-28-1986
Reported in: (1986)(26)ELT321TriDel
1. By the impugned order, the Collector (Appeals) allowed deduction of purchase tax from the sale price of electric fans manufactured by the respondents. On hearing both sides, we observe that the department wants this deduction to be disallowed on the ground that the said purchase tax is paid not on the electric fans which are the excisable goods required to be valued and assessed for the purpose of charge of Central Excise Duty but on the raw materials purchased by the respondents for the manufacture of electric fans. We agree with the department. Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 permits deduction of sales tax and other taxes, if any, payable on the excisable goods which are the subject of assessment. Such goods, in the present case, are electric fans. Deduction towards sales tax or purchase tax paid on raw materials, which go into the manufacture of the fans, is not permissible. Such tax on the raw materials becomes a part of the price paid for the raw ...
Jagat Prakash Sharma Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-28-1986
Reported in: (1987)ILLJ380Del
1. In this writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of respondent No. 2, India Tourism Development Corporation (for short I.T.D.C.), dated 11th December, 1982, terminating the services of the petitioner in pursuance of a directive of the Government under article 96 of the articles of association of India Tourism Development Corporation Limited. 2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. In 1947, the petitioner joined as a receptionist in Government of India Hotels under the Directorate of Estates, Ministry of Works, Mines and Power, and promoted as Assistant Manager, Hotel Janpath, in 1959. In 1964, Government of India created Janpath Hotels Limited and the petitioner's services were loaned to Janpath Hotels as manager. In 1969, he was appointed Deputy Manager, Ashoka Hotels Limited. In 1970, a decision was taken by the Government to merge Janpath Hotels Limited and Ashoka Hotels Limited and thus the petitioner be...
J.P. Sharma Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-28-1986
Reported in: ILR1986Delhi559
Sunanda Bhandare, J. (1) In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order of respondent No. 2 India Tourism. Development Corporation (for short I.T.D.C.) dated 11th December 1982 terminating the services of the petitioner in pursuance to a directive of the Government under Article 96 of the Articles of Association of India Tourisra Development Corporation Limited. (2) The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. In 1947 the petitioner joined as a Receptionist in Government of India holders under the Directorate of Estates. Ministry of Works, Mines and Power and promoted as Assistant Manager, Hotel Janpth in 1959. In 904 Government of India created Janpath Hotels Limited and. His petitioner's services were loaned to Janpath. Hotel as Manager. In 1969 he was appointed Deputy Manager Ashoka Hotels Limited. In 1970 a decision was taken by the Government to merge Janpath Hotels Limited and Ashoka. Hotels Limited and thus the...
Collector of Customs and Central Vs. Shri Satnam Singh
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-1986
Reported in: (1986)LC627Tri(Delhi)
1. Being dissatisfied with the impugned order, the appellant has filed the present appeal whereby the Collector of Customs (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the respondent after setting aside the order of Assistant Collector confiscating the seized goods with an option to redeem the same and also imposing a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the respondent.2. Brief facts of the case so far as relevant for the purpose of this appeal are that on 17-4-84, Preventive Staff of the Central Excise Collector, Chandigarh intercepted the respondent while carrying one suit-case in his right hand. On examination of the suit-case it was found that it contained a protable video cassette recorder with one A.C. Adopter alongwith two leads (Made in Japan), one coloured video camera Panasonic with one attachment (Made in Japan) duly wrapped in one blanket alongwith three operating instruction book-lets. Since the respondent on demand failed to produce any documentary evidence for legal possession/acquisition or i...
Harbans Lal Vs. M.L. Wadhwan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-1986
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT32
Jagdish Chandra J.(1) This criminal writ is directed against the order of detention dated 31-3-1986 passed by Shri M.L. Wadhawaa, Additional Secretary to the Government of India specially empowered under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities (COFEPOSA) Act, 1974 (As Amended) who felt satisfied about the passing of the same with respect to 0m Prakash S/o Harbans Lal r/o 5/23, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'detenu') with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods, engaging in keeping smuggled goods and dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in transporting and concealing smuggled goods and who further ordered that the detenu be detained and kept in custody in Central Jail Tihar, New Delhi. The petitioner Harbans Lal is the father of the detenu. (2) The allegations, as per the grounds of detention, are that a specific information was received from Deputy Commissioner of Police, South...
Gursharan Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)Crimes257; 30(1986)DLT422; 1989(41)ELT44(Del)
Jagdish Chandra, J.(1) This criminal writ of the petitioner Gursharan Singh son of late Jagat Singh resident of 2/32 A, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, at present lodged in Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi, is directed against the order of detention dated 19th March, 1986 passed by respondent No. 2 Shri M. L. Wadhawan, Additional Secretary to the Government of India, in legard to the petitioner under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities (COFEPOSA) Act, 1974 (as amended up to date) with a view to preventing him from abetting the smuggling of goods, engaging in transporting, concealing and keeping and dealing in smuggled goods) and the petitioner was ordered to be detained and kept in custody in the Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi. (2) The grounds of detention against the petitioner allege that there was an information that a notorious smuggler Rajpal @ Brbu resident of 36,Shastri Park, Chander Nagar,' Delhi, was a prominent member of an inter...
Mahender Kumar Agarwal Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-1986
Reported in: (1986)19ITD474(Delhi)
1. The short controversy in these appeals is whether the assessee is entitled to the relief under Section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), in respect of the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84.The facts are in a very narrow compass and may be noted.2. The assessee is an individual. He purchases yarn from the market and gives the same to the weavers to weave cloth as per his design. The cloth is then dyed and calendered. The assessee gets this work done on job basis from others. He has neither a factory nor any machinery of his own. The assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80-I was rejected by the ITO by observing, inter alia, as follows : The assessee has claimed a deduction under Section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 12,356. The assessee has got no factory building nor has installed any plant or machinery whatsoever. He purchases yarn from the market and gets it weaved in factories on job work basis. He does not employ any labour or uses any ...
S.C. Singhal Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-1986
Reported in: [1987]61CompCas282(Delhi); [1987(54)FLR175]; (1987)ILLJ371Del
1. On 10th March, 1977, the petitioner joined Oriental Bank of Commerce of (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank') as a confirmed officer and was posted as Assistant General Manager on the terms and conditions of service as laid down in the letter of appointment dated 20th December, 1976. Before he joined the bank the petitioner who claims to be holding Master's Degree in Commerce with professional qualifications of C.A.I.I.B., in Banking had served for two years as lecturer in commerce at Shri Ram College of Commerce, Delhi and for about 12 years in State Bank of India. The petitioner was promoted as a Deputy General Manager with effect from 11th September, 1978, and was working as such at the head office of the Bank at New Delhi. A department called the International Banking Division was brought into being on 1st January, 1979, because in October, 1978, the Reserve bank of India authorised the Bank to transact foreign exchange business for the first time in 1978. The overall supervis...
Lamps, Caps and Filament Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-1986
Reported in: (1986)(10)ECC55
1. By his consolidated order-in-appeal impugned in Appeal No.C-160/78-B2, the Appellate Collector had disposed of 12 appeals of the appellants. The appellants had filed only one revision application against it before the Central Government as per the practice then in force. However, on the learned representative of the department pointing out the need to file 11 supplementary appeals and our direction to the appellants to do so, the appellants have since done the needful. We have condoned the delay in filing the supplementary appeals. Appeal No. C-833/78-B2 appears to be a duplicate of Appeal No.C-160/78-B2. However, Appeal No. C-265/80-B2 is a separate one and arises out of a different order-in-appeal.2. The 14 appeals now under consideration involve a common point at issue and relate to the same appellants. They are, therefore, being disposed of by this common order.3. The appellants imported Tungsten Filament Wire, as per the description given in the import invoices and the bills o...
Suirnder Kumar Yadav and ors. Vs. Suvidya Yadav and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-1986
Reported in: ILR1987Delhi537
Jagdish Chardra, J. (1) This petition is directed against the order dated 6th December, 1985 passed by Shri P K Jain, Addl Sessions Judge. Delhi, in Criminal Revision No. 35 of 1984 which had in turn set aside the order dated 3rd February, 1984 passed by Shri R.S. Mahra, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, whereby the accused-petioles had been discharged in case F I R No. 437/82 of Police Station Karol Bagh, New Delhi in respect of offences u/ss 448/442/323/120-D/34 IPC. (2) The Fir was lodged by respondent No. I Smt. Suvidya Yadav and according to the same she along with her husband and children had been residing in Flat No. J-16, Mig, Dda Flats, Prasad Nagar. Karol Bagh. New Delhi, which had been taken by them from petitioner No. 2. Suresh Yadav in March, 1980. She further alleged that they had paid a sum of Rs. 61.000.00 in foreign exchange and another '.sum of Rs. 36.000.00 to Suresh Yadav on account of the price in respect of this flat but on account of relationship no deed was execut...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »