Delhi Court March 1996 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.
Anil Kumar Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1996
Reported in: 1996(37)DRJ474; (1996)IILLJ1543Del
J.K. Mehra, J.(1) The present Writ Petition has arisen out of dispute raised by the petitioner, who is employed in the canteen and the flight kitchen run by respondents No.4 and 5 for respondents No.2 and 3. They raised the dispute against respondents 2 to 5 against the decision of respondent No.1, i.e., the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), refusing to refer the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner against respondents No.2 to 5 on the ground that the Labour Commissioner, Delhi Administration and not respondent No.1 has jurisdiction to entertain the same.(2) For the purpose of the present Writ Petition, it is not necessary to go into the nature of the dispute wherein the petitioner is claiming to be employee of respondent No.2, Air India Limited, who according to him, is the real employer. It is not necessary for me to go into the merits of the dispute at this stage.(3) Apparently, the impugned decision was rendered on account of some confusion as to whether the Central Go...
Harpal Singh Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1996
Reported in: 1996(37)DRJ390
J.K. Mehra, J.(1) The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking an order of this Court for issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or mandamus, order or direction quashing the order of confirming authority passed as a revision order on 14.10.1986, the judgment and order of the General Court Martial (GCM) in pursuance of the directions given, the aforesaid order of the confirming authority.(2) The petitioner is stated to have been commissioned in the army Corps of Signals' on 24.12.1970 with two years ante-date seniority fixed as on 24.12.1970. In 1983, the petitioner was posted to 85 Infantory Brigade Signal Company, which was a sub-unit of 11th Infantory Division Signal Regiment. The petitioner's unit was participating in exercises between December, 1983 and February, 1984. The petitioner having the command consisting of four Junior Commissioned Officers (JCOs), i.e., Subedars and Senior Subedars etc. a...
Amit Rubber Agencies Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-1996
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT381TriDel
3. The appellant had declared in the modvat declaration in Rule 57G rubber accelerator and antioxidant Credit was taken on goods described as vulkacit markepto/C, Vulkanox HS, Vulkacit DM/C, antioxidant that these goods were not accelerator or antioxidants; notice was issued proposing denial of credit. The Assistant Collector [whose order has been confirmed by Collector (Appeals)] held that goods had not been specified; hence this appeal.4. The appellant had produced before a copy of the gate pass No. 855/93 in which the goods figured by name. They are described generally as prepared rubber accelerators and antioxidising preparation. The Assistant Collector has not accepted this gate pass on the ground that it is not possible to say whether the inputs fall under Heading 3812.00 or 3823.00. There is no reference in the gate pass of Heading 3829.00.Rubber accelerators and antioxidising preparation are classifiable under Heading 3812.00. The gate pass in fact mentions just below the addr...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Associated Traders
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT746TriDel
1. Assessee received back from the buyers a consignment each of pine tar and rosin oil compound. Pine tar was returned because of strike in the buyer's factory and the other commodity because it was rejected by the buyer. Both consignments were accompanied by the gate pass issued on clearance from the assessee factory. On receipt of the consignment the assessee took credit of the duty paid as reflected in the gate passes. It cleared pine tar [as such] and the other commodity after reprocessing. The department objected to credit being taken on the ground that the goods were not inputs and had not been declared as such. Notice was issued proposing recovery of such credit and again on the ground that this credit had been used towards payment of duty on various other consignments which was not permissible. Duty was demanded on the consignment which had been cleared by applying this credit for payment.2. The Assistant Collector, in his order held that assessee was not entitled to take cred...
Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-1996
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT363TriDel
1. Appellant manufactures electric supply meters, most of which are purchased by various State Electricity Boards which call for tenders from manufacturers and finalise the same issuing specific purchase orders. Various Boards desired the meters to be delivered at various destinations, freight and insurance being pre-paid by the manufacturer.Instead of the Boards paying the actual freight and actual insurance charges to the manufacturers, they were invariably agreeing for equalised charges to be paid by the Boards irrespective of the destination. Price lists were being filed under Part II. The proper officer modified the price lists by adding to the assessable value, the difference between the equalised charges realised by the manufacturers from the Boards and the actual cost incurred by the manufacturers; The differential duty was paid by the manufacturer who filed appeals against such orders before the Collector (Appeals). Against the dismissal of those appeals, the present-appeals ...
Neelkanth Enterprises Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-1996
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT216TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay upholding the order of the Assistant Collector enhancing the value for assessment from 14,000/- (C&F) to 22,163/- (C&F) for one used 4" Horizontal Upset Forging Machine.2. In his order the original authority held that the value as declared by the importers was only twice as much as the value of scrap of the material from which the machine was manufactured. He on examination of the Chartered Engineers' certificate found that the depreciation had been calculated at the rate of 22%. He thought it proper to limit the depreciation to 15%. The loading is mainly on this account.3. In his order, the appellate authority upheld the loading of the value of the machine. In doing so he found that the judgment cited by him had application towards facts of the case.4. When the appeal was called for hearing, the appellant was not represented. The Learned DR appearing for the Revenue reiterated the various obs...
Eicher Tractors Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT252TriDel
1. This appeal arises from the order-in-appeai, dtd. 12-1.0-1993 which is confirmed, the order by the Assistant Collector denying the Modvat Credit in respect of 4 items confirming the demands of Rs. 99,245.86.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of parts and accessories of tractors, lubrication system for infantory cambat vehicles, M.V. Parts etc. falling under Chapter 87.08, 87.10 and 84.83 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and are availing the facility of Modvat Scheme. They received the goods namely, DC Electric Motor, Connecting Rod and Mandral and claimed Modvat Credit. The department's case is that the appellants had declared these inputs in their declaration which had not been filed under Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules, 1944. These goods had been received by G.P.Is No.6 dated 22-3-1991 No. 18 dated 6-1-1992, No. 159 dated 23-6-1992, No.187 dated 11-7-1992 and availed Modvat Credit amounting to Rs. 81,400 and Rs. 12,338.49 respectiv...
Control Switch Gear Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT491TriDel
1. The appellant received a consignment of electric conductors, an input used by appellant which were sent to him by manufacturer. It appears that the original gate pass was lost and when the goods reached to the appellant there was no gate pass. It further appears that the appellant did not take the goods into its factory but obtained a certified copy of the gate pass on the basis of which it took credit.On 1-2-1990 Sub-rule (iv) of Rule 57G was amended. The result of the amendment was to provide that the manufacturer must submit to the department the original documents evidencing payment of duty while submitting monthly return. The appellant had taken credit on the basis of the copy of the gate pass claiming that it was permitted to do so in terms of Circular No. 44/86, dated 29-10-1986. The Assistant Collector was of the view that consequent to the amendment of the rule the circular would no longer have validity and passed orders (which have been confirmed by Collector Appeals) den...
Devender Singh (Huf) Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-1996
Reported in: (1982)1ITD350(Delhi)
1. The IT Appeal No. 335 (Delhi) of 1981 filed by the assessee is against the order of the ITO under section 273(c) and IT Appeal No. 336 (Delhi) of 1981 is filed against the order under section 271(1) (c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). The facts on the basis of which the penalties were levied being identical, they are disposed of in a consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. Shri Devender Singh, HUF, was having a share income in the firm of Kirpal Singh Devender Singh and Devender Singh & Co. The original return for the assessment year 1976-77 was filed on 20-6-1976 declaring an income of Rs. 28,270. A revised return was filed on 15-1-1977 in which certain unexplained investment in household furniture for Rs. 7,700 were surrendered. The ITO completed the assessment and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1) (c). As no compliance was stated to have been made to the notices, the ITO imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000 for concealment under section 271(1) (...
Rakesh Aggarwal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-1996
Reported in: (1997)142CTR(Del)272; [1997]225ITR496(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J. 1. Two of the writ petitions, taken up herein, involve the provisions of the IT Act, 1961, and the other two involve the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (for short, 'the WT Act'). All the four writ petitions raise common questions of law and even the relief sought in all, in substance being the same, these are dealt with under a common judgment. To appreciate the controversy, we shall treat the facts in CWP No. 3796 of 1992 as illustrative. The petitions pertain to the asst. yrs. 1989-90 and 1990-91. 2. The petitioner, who was assessed to income-tax and wealth-tax in his capacity as the legal heir of the late Shri R. S. Agarwal, submitted the return of income for the asst. yr. 1989-90 on 30th October, 1989, which was accompanied by a statement of taxable income, showing income from various sources including income from house property. The return was accepted and an intimation under s. 143(1)(a) of the IT Act was sent. Subsequently, on 2nd August, 1991, the AO issue...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »