Delhi Court May 2001 Judgments

Smt. Pushpa Arya Vs. the Director, A.i.i.M.S. and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT60

ORDERDr. Mukundakam sharam, J.1. The question that falls for consideration in the present writ petition is for determination of the actual seniority position of the petitioner, who is working as a Nursing Sister in All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS).2. The petitioner was appointed as staff nurse at Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences on ad hoc basis on 9th July, 1975. The petitioner was given a regular appointment as Staff Nurse in the same Centre on 10th May, 1976. The next promotion which the petitioner could earn being a Staff Nurse is the post of Nursing Sister as is laid down under the Recruitment Rules governing the recruitment and appointment of the Nursing Staff in the respondent/Institute. According to the service Rules/Regulations, a Staff Nurse could be promoted to the post of Nursing Sister upon her completion of three years of service when she becomes eligible to be so promoted. However, there was shortage of vacancies in the cadre of Nursing Si...

Satya NaraIn Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)955; 91(2001)DLT468; 2001(59)DRJ125

R.S. Sodhi, J.Admit.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 45/99 whereby the learned Judge dismissed the appeal of the appellant against the order dated 24.3.1994 of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi holding the appellant guilty under Section 16(1) read with Section 7, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for violation of provisions of Section 2(1)(a)(a)(j)(m) of the Act also against the order sentencing the appellant to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for six months. Further on appeal while upholding the order of conviction the learned Appellate Court modified the sentence for one year S.I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- instead of Rs. 5,000/-.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has confined his submission only to the question of sentence. He has drawn my attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Nortan Mal v. State of Rajastha...

M/S. Jindal Photo Films Ltd. Vs. Cce, Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Ms. Reena Khair, Learned Counsel submits that the Final Order in the above case was passed on 17.5.99 wherein the Tribunal remanded the case for passing fresh orders by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner as early as possible, preferably within a period of 3 months, from the date of receipt of the final order of the Tribunal. She submits that in spite of protracted correspondence, no order has been passed even though the applicants have waived their right to personal hearing. She prays that in accordance with the Tribunal's direction, order may be passed immediately.2. Learned D.R. Shri Sumit K.Das seeks time to call for the report from the concerned authorities.3. We note that the matter has been pending for the past 2 years. In spite of the Tribunals Direction's for time bound disposal, no action appears to have bene taken. We, therefore, direct the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner to pass orders in accordance with the Tribunal's remand order within 4 weeks from today ...

S/Shri Sunil Gulati and J.P. Singh Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These appeals are filed by S/Shri Sunil Gulati and Joginder Pal Singh (J.P. Singh) against the Order-in-Original dt.31.3.2000/10.4.2000 passed by Commissioner of Customs (General), New Customs House, New Delhi, in which inter alia a penalty of Rs.5 lakhs each on these two appellants has been imposed under Section 112 and Section 114 (i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The brief facts of the case are that the DRI Officers, Delhi Zone intercepted two persons at New Delhi Railway Station on 27.4.97. On enquiry, it was learnt that their names were Sunil Gulati and Chaman Lal. It was further learnt that Shri Sunil Gulati was the son-in-law of Shri Chaman Lal and he had come to the Station to leave his father-in-law who was going to Calcutta. These two persons were also carrying a brief case. On search of the brief case, it revealed that the foreign currency of different denominations collectively valued at Indian Rs. 41,22,050/- was concealed in the false bottom of it. On search of Shri Sunil...

M/S Arti Strips (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Shri K.K. Anand, advocate, refers to the revised order under Rule 3(4) read with Rule 4(2) of Hot re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 dated 9.6.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh, under which the annual capacity of the assessee has been determined as 7302.007 MT per annum w.e.f.02.08.1999. The learned advocate submits that before re-determination of the capacity at the above level, the principles of natural justice were not followed. The appellants were not heard and the order is not a speaking order. He prays for remand of the matter.2. Shri Mewa Singh, SDR, submits that the matter has been decided by the Commissioner on the basis of the revised declaration dated 2.8.1999 given by the assessee and the chartered engineers certificate also dated 2.8.1999 and that the verification has been done on the basis of these documents. He submits that as the furnace had been separately held to be of pusher type in the light of all these ...

C. E., Delhi-iii. Vs. M/S. Haryana Sheet Glass Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is a Revenue appeal against the order dated 26.10.1999 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi in which the respondents have been allowed modvat credit of Rs. 15,302/- on PVC insulators and wires as Capital goods under Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. I have heard Shri A.K. Jain, SDR and Shri J.S. Agarwal, Advocate for the respondents. It is contended in the Revenue appeal that a reference application in the case of CCE., Meerut Vs. M/s Nova Udyog Limited - 1996 (88) ELT-532 (T) already stands allowed by the Tribunal on the same subject vide their order Reference No. 4/97/NB dated 9.1.97. It is, therefore, stated that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) should be set aside and their appeal allowed. I have considered these submissions. The fact that a reference petition is under consideration of the Hon'ble High Court in itself can not be the ground sufficient enough to not to follow the ratio of a decided case. Besides, the Madras High Court in Siva ...

C.C.E., Jaipur-ii Vs. M/S. Durga Industries.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT447TriDel

1. In this case, the respondents have availed modvat credit amounting to Rs. 6,349.42 on furnace oil on the strength of Invoice No. 029103 dated 25.3.94 issued by M/s IOC Ltd., Mathura. The proceedings were initiated against them on the ground that the invoice is not prescribed document by the CBEC as a valid duty paying document for the purpose of availing modvat credit thereon. Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Jodhpur Division vide his order dated 13.10.95 disallowed the modvat credit of the aforesaid amount to the respondents.2. The party filed an appeal and the Commissioner (appeals), Jaipur vide his order dated 3.2.2000 allowed the appeal of the party relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE Vs. Jupiter Chemicals vide Final Order No. A/1076/98-NB (SM) dated 14.10.98.3. The Revenue are in appeal against the aforesaid order of the Commissioner (Appeals). I have heard Shri A.K. Jain, SDR for the Revenue. The respondents are not present des...

M/S. Kothari Pouches Vs. Cce Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT725TriDel

1.This appeal has been a directed by the appellants against the impugned order in appeal dated 3.3.2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) viae which he had reversed two orders in original No.40- 41/98 dated 29.7.98 and 26/98 dated 22.5.98 of the Assistant Commissioners who allowed modvat credit on the pet jars plastic containers to the appellants being essential packing material for packing of laminated puches of pan masala.2. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture pan prag branded pan masala and had been availing modvat credit on inputs which included packing material adhesive tapes, polythene bags etc. They were producing pan masala in pouches of 1.75 gms. 4.00 gms. and tin containers of 100 gms., 250 gms and 1000 gms. Earlier to 28.2.97 they had been paying Cental Excise duty at the rate of 40% ad Notification No. 5/97-CE (NT) dated 1.3.97 under which tariff values were fixed they started paying the Central Excise duty on so fixed tariff values. They had been also filing...

M/S. Onida Saka Ltd., M/S. Adonis Vs. Cce, Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC87

1. All these stay applications are directed against the same order i.e.. Order-in-Original No.48/COMMR/CE/IND/2000 dated 22.12.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Indore.2. When the application came up for hearing, ld. Counsel representing the applicant submitted that the Adjudication Order is required to be set aside as the same has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. He pointed out that the order has been passed without service of notice on applicants i.e. Ashok Chawla and Lokesh Khanna.They had left the service of the appellant manufacturer and despite their new addresses being made available to the Central Excise Authorities by the manufacturer/appellant, copies of notices had not been served on them, their reply obtained and hearing granted before passing of the adjudication order. In respect of the manufacturer also, the order has been passed without giving them effective opportunity to represent their case. The appellant had...

M/S. Capital Traders, M/S. Mayur Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC97

1. All these applications are directed against Order-in-Original No.35/2000 dated 1.11.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur. of Central Excise, Jaipur. Penalties have been imposed on the appellants under the r order.These applications seek stay of recovery of the penalties.2. The learned Counsel representing the applicants has submitted that the applicants are mere Traders of automobile parts. They are not concerned with or responsible for payment of Central Excise Duty.Penalties have been imposed on these Traders under Rule 209 A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. On the basis that they had paid part of the price for the automobile parts purchased by them in cash, over and above the amount paid in Cheque. It has been submitted that the applicants paid the read/negotiated price for the goods they purchased.They were not aware t hat such payment rendered the goods liable to confiscation, a requirement under Rule 209 A for imposition of penalty.The learned Counsel also ...