Delhi Court July 2004 Judgments

Poona Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC314

1. In this Appeal filed by M/s. Poona Rolling Mills, remanded by the Supreme Court [2003 (158) E.L.T. 558 (S.C.)], the issue involved is whether the M.S. Round bars manufactured by them are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 208/83-C.E., dated 1-8-1983.2. Ms. Nisha Bagchi, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture M.S. Round Bars out of used and old re-rollable cut pieces of bars, plates, angles, etc. purchased by them from open market or directly from the manufacturers or ship breakers; that the said materials have always been deemed to be duty paid and avail exemption from payment of duty on their final products under Notification No.208/83-C.E.; that a show cause notice dated 12-7-85 was issued to them for imposing penalty alleging that they had not obtained Central Excise Licence and had cleared the goods without payment of duty during the period from 1-8-1983 to 8-7-1985; that thereafter a corrigendum dated 9-10-1985 was issued to the show cause notic...

Sh. Chander Vijay Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 112(2004)DLT437; 2004(75)DRJ451

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner appeared and qualified for the Central Civil Service Examination 2002, conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). Petitioner being a `Jat' by caste and a resident of Rajasthan had applied for issuance of the Other Backward Class Certificate (OBC) Category. This certificate had been denied. Petitioner qualified even in the general category with a rank of 127. Petitioner's case is that he is entitled to the OBC Certificate and upon the same being granted, his ranking would go up and he would get a better posting.2. Petitioner by this writ petition seeks a writ of certiorari, quashing notification dated 8.9.1993, 28.9.1993 and Circular dated 2.2.2001, based on which the petitioner is sought to be excluded from the benefit of the OBC category as part of the 'Creamy layer'. Petitioner also seeks a mandamus, directing the respondents to issue forthwith a OBC certificate for the year 2002 for the Civil Services Examination, conducted by UPSC.3. By...

Smt. Shanta Chopra Vs. Income Tax Officer and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Del)452

B.C. Patel, C.J. 1. The following question framed on 10th Sept., 2003, is to be determined by this Court :'Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that litigation expenses amounting to Rs. 55,100 claimed by the assessed under Section 57 of IT Act could be disallowed by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 143(1)(a) of IT Act, 1961 ?'2. Reading the question, it is very clear that the issue is not that she could claim the deduction, but whether it could be disallowed by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 143(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The appellant filed a statement of income along with the return. In the statement, the appellant submitted a computation of salary income as well as income from other sources comprising of interest of NSC, FDRs, savings bank account, Rural Electrification Bonds and NTPC Bonds. The appellant submitted details of legal expenses to the extent of Rs. 55,100 along with a note stating that the ap...

Engineering Development Corpn. and anr. Vs. Municipal Corpn. of Delhi ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 116(2005)DLT309

B.C. Patel, C.J.1. By filing these petitions, a grievance is made by the petitioners that conditions 2 and 3 in the pre-qualification bid documents for contractors/firms are bad in law inasmuch as the petitioners were already registered as Class-I Contractors with respondents and, thereforee, no such condition could be attracted in case of the petitioners.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in case of Subash Chander Gupta and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors. decided on 7.3.1996, : 62(1996)DLT510 , it is not open for the respondent to insert conditions. According to the petitioners, in view of this decision, once the Contractor is enlisted for unlimited amount, then he is entitled to get the tender papers and no conditions can be put in. The decision was rendered in 1996 keeping in mind the policy which was in existence at the relevant time framed by the CPWD, which was applicable to the MCD. However,...

B.S.E.S. Yamuna Power Limited Vs. Lovely Narula

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal has been filed assailling the order of the District Forum, Nand Nagari, Delhi dated 3.9.2003, passed in Complaint Case No. 452/2002, entitled Smt. Lovely Narula v. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal are, that the respondent was not receiving regular bills for consumption of electricity for quite some time. However, thereafter in August, 2002 the appellant finally raised a bill for Rs. 63,250/- dated 27.8.2002 which included misuse charges. The respondent represented against the said bill on the ground that she had never misused the supply and had never received any show-cause notice prior to the levy of misuse charges. Since the representations of the appellant were not heeded, the appellant approached the District Forum praying for the revision of the bill after removal of misuse charges on the basis of minimum consumption charges. It was also prayed that the excess charges paid by the ...

J.N. Enterprises Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC450

2. Appellants filed this appeal against the Adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Customs whereby the value of old and used goods used enhanced. The goods were imported without licence and, therefore, were ordered to be confiscated and the Commissioner of Customs imposed redemption fine of Rs. 10,00,000 and personal penalty of Rs. 2,50,000.3. The appellants are challenging the enhancement of the value of the goods in question. In respect of the licence, the appellants submitted that these are second-hand goods and, therefore, they are not challenging the Adjudication order in this regard.4. The contention of the appellants in respect of the value is that the goods in question are old and used main frames and the customs authorities considered these goods as complete photocopiers and enhanced the value. The customs authority got the goods inspected by one Chartered Engineer and Chartered Engineer in his report dated 19.1.2004 specifically mentioned that the vital components ...

ivrcl Infrastructures and Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC772

2. Appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of Notification No.17/2001-Cus. was denied in respect of cone crusher.3. The benefit was denied on the ground that as per condition No. 38 of the Notification, the import should have been made by the Ministry of Surface Transport or a person who has been awarded a contract or a person who has been named as a sub-contractor in the contract and the appellant is a partner in the joint venture company to whom the contract was awarded by the National Highways Authority of India and the bill of entry was filed by the appellant and not by the joint venture company.4. We find that whether partner of the joint venture company is entitled to import the goods on behalf of the joint venture company claiming exemption under Notification No. 17/2001-Cus. came before the Tribunal in the appellant's own, reported in, 2004 (62) RLT 714. The Tribunal held as under:- "We find that, in the...

Jagat Singh Vs. the Asst. Commissioner and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(2)SLJ1CAT

1. Applicant impugns respondents' order dated 24.1.2001, imposing upon him a penalty of removal from service and also an order dated 27.8.2001 passed in appeal, upholding the punishment. Re-instatement with all benefits has been sought.2. Before adverting to the legal contentions and their adjudication a brief factual matrix leading to the filing of the O.A. is relevant to be highlighted.3. Applicant is a Physical Education Teacher (PET) and is General Secretary of the Rastriya Kendriya Vidyalaya Adhyapak Sangh (Jagat Singh) (hereinafter referred to as RKVAS (J)).4. The aforesaid association voices the demands and other ancillary problems faced by the teachers before the respondents. By letter dated 10.3.1998 Central Executive Committee of the RKVAS(J) which has met on 22.2.1998 raised demands pertaining to amendment in the pay scale of Primary Teachers, revision of the pay scale of PET of KVS at par with NDSI, grant of same pay scale to the Music Teachers as of TGT scale and grant of...

Mr. B.D. Luthra Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, Punjab National Ba ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 112(2004)DLT822; 2004(76)DRJ90; (2005)ILLJ279Del; 2005(1)SLJ451(Delhi)

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. By order dated 24.4.1998 penalty of removal from service not being a disqualification for future employment was passed by the Disciplinary Authority against the petitioner. Appeal filed against the said order was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 12.1.1999. The said two orders are in challenge in the present petition. Petition also prays that Regulation 20(3)(iii) of Punjab National Bank Officers Service Regulations 1979 be quashed as being unconstitutional. However, during arguments said prayer was given up by counsel for the petitioner.2. Petitioner last served as Chief Manager in the branch office of the respondent bank at Jangpura Extension. He was to superannuate on 31.3.1996. On 25.3.1996 a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner which was received by him through post on 2.4.1996. As per the charge sheet, charges related to the period 1991-95 when petitioner was working as Manager of Minto Road Branch. Four articles of charge were lis...

Bernard D'Mello Vs. Industrial Finance Corporation Limited and Ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 112(2004)DLT500; 2004(75)DRJ713; 2005(3)SLJ231(Delhi)

Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Petitioner, employed as an Associate Professor at Management Development Institute (MDI) seeks quashing of the letter dated 23.9.2003. By and under the said letter, decision of the Board of Governors of the Management Development Institute (Respondent No. 2) taken in the Board meeting held on 7.3.03 was communicated to the petitioner. Decision being that the Board of Governors has accepted the recommendation of the Special Review Committee dated 20.02.03 to retire the petitioner from service under Regulation 33 of 'MDI Staff Regulations, 1986'. 2. Regulation 33 aforesaid under which the petitioner stands retired reads as under:-' Superannuation and RetirementAn employee other than an employee appointed on contract basis, shall retire on the last day of the month in which he completes 60 years of age. The Institute shall, however, have absolute right to retire an employee, if it considers necessary to do so in the interest of the institute, by giving him notice ...