Delhi Court July 2005 Judgments

D.K. JaIn and anr. Vs. Delhi Jal Board and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 121(2005)DLT401; 2005(85)DRJ456

Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. At the fulcrum of the present dispute is a seniority wrangle between graduate and diploma-holder engineers in the Delhi Jal Board. The Petitioners maintain that they are senior to those graduate officers who, in terms of the Order dated 19.9.1988, have been allowed to hold the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) on current duty charge basis with immediate effect. Their appointment on current duty charge basis as Assistant Engineers (Civil) is stated not confer any title or claim to the post being purely a stop-gap arrangement. These petitions also bring to the surface two important and intriguing facets of service law which have become extremely critical and the fountainhead of bludgeoning litigation.2. Firstly, failure to constitute a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) and complete the promotion process is no longer the exception and has become the rule. The effect of not dealing with promotions, the incidence and occurrence of which are known years in advance...

Sheela Devi Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 121(2005)DLT443

ORDERR.C. Chopra, J.1. Respondent No. 4, who is present in person, has agreed that the petitioner may live in two rooms on the ground floor. He has also agreed that he would be paying a maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the petitioner till further orders of this Court.2. Let the petitioner go to the property in question tomorrow at 11.00 a.m. and start living in the two rooms on the ground floor. The payment of Rs. 5,000/- for the month of July, 2005, will also be made by respondent No. 4 to her tomorrow in the presence of her Counsel. Further payments would be made on/or before 10th of every succeeding month.List this matter again on 15th September, 2005.Copy dusty....

Vijay Kumar Vs. State of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 122(2005)DLT561

ORDERR.C. Chopra, J.WP (Crl.) No. 819/20051. Status report has been filed.FIR No. 952/2001 was registered on the basis of the report filed by the petitioner in regard to the kidnapping of his younger brother. The status report reveals that the D.I.U. (North-West) has not succeeded in making much headway in tracing out Gyanesh Kumar, the younger brother of petitioner, who was aged about 16 years at the time of the incident.2. Considering the averments made in the petition, status report and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the investigations in FIR No. 952/2001 registered at Police Station Sultan Puri under Section 363, IPC should be transferred to Anti-kidnapping Cell of the Crime Branch, Delhi, so that some better efforts are made to trace the missing child and apprehend the culprits.3. Accordingly, the investigations in FIR No. 952/2001 registered at Police Station Sultan Puri under Section 363, IPC are ordered to be transferred to th...

Vipen Parwanda Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This order of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange is delivered by O.P. Nahar, Chairperson. This is an appeal challenging adjudication order No. SDE-III/Adj./54/2004/AO(PKM) dated 17-2-2004 passed by Adjudicating Officer, Enforcement Directorate imposing penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs against the appellant for contravention of provisions of section 18(2) read with section 18(3) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 because of failure to take reasonable steps for repatriation of the export proceeds. This Tribunal took up and disposed of application for dispensation of pre-deposit of the penalty and allowed the appellant to make pre-deposit of 20 per cent of the amount of penalty by order dated 5-7-2004 stating therein that outstanding amount involved in repatriation is US$ 622734 when there is no proof as on record of bad financial condition. This order dated 5-7-2004 was passed when the appellant was represented by learned counsel Shri P. Ojha. 2. Against order dated 5-7-2004 ask...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Purushottam Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)STR82

1. The Revenue has filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned Order held that the Respondents had not done any of the activities covered by C & F Agent. The Commissioner (Appeals) held as under :- It is observed that the services rendered by the appellants i.e. procuring orders and passing on the same to the principal for execution is not directly or indirectly connected with clearing and forwarding operation. There is no proof that they had handled in any manner the goods for which they had received remunerations. They had not done any of the activities covered by "C&F Agency Service", as such the services rendered by them to the principals cannot be termed as Clearing & Forwarding Agency service, accordingly the same cannot be said taxable service at the relevant service. I, therefore, find that the services rendered by the appellants were not covered by the definition of "C&F Agency Serv...

Chemico Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT369TriDel

1. In this appeal the appellants have challenged the correctness of the impugned order-in-appeal confirming the confiscation of the finished goods/inputs, duty on the short found finished goods/inputs and imposing penalty on them.2. I have heard both the sides and gone through the record. The perusal of the record shows that the appellants during the period in dispute were engaged in the manufacture of Antimony concentrate and Antimony metal. They were also availing the facility of Modvat credit on the duty paid inputs. On 10-10-2000, the Central Excise officers verified the stock of the finished goods and inputs. Thereafter SCN was issued to them and the adjudicating authority confirmed the duty and confiscation of the goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed that order.3. Duty of Rs. 3,520/- has been confirmed against the appellants on the shortage of finished goods i.e. Antimony oxide and Trichloride. The appellants no doubt through their letters dated 14-10-2000 and 9-11-20...

Cce Vs. Devta Steel Rolling Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(102)ECC373

1. In this appeal which has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the issue relates to the denial of the Modvat credit of Rs. 41316 to the respondents.2. I have heard both the sides. The Modvat credit has been sought to be denied to the respondents by the revenue on the ground that the manufacture of goods did not discharge the duty liability while clearing the goods from the factory premises to the dealer. Ld. Counsel has contended that the respondents have purchased the goods from the registered dealer and dealer gave the reference to the invoice of the manufacturer, also at the time when he sold the goods to the respondents. Therefore, respondents have not violated any provision of the law and as such credit cannot be denied to them. This contention of the Counsel is wholly misconceived and cannot be accepted. When the manufacturer of the goods did not discharge the duty at the time of clearances, the question of the dealer passing on modvatable invoices t...

Khatema Fibres Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus., Icd

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT79TriDel

1. The appellant challenges the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) made on 28-2-2001 dismissing the appeal and confirming the order of the Additional Commissioner (Imports) by which the goods imported under the bill of entry 112430, dated 11-10-2000 were confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the said Act. The Additional Commissioner also directed that the goods will be assessed to duty under sub-heading 4819.20 and CIF value be taken corresponding to US$ 1000 PMT and duty charged accordingly.2. The appellant had filed bill of entry no. 112430, dated 11-10-2000 for clearance of Waste Paper and White Sulphate carton declaring value of the goods at Rs. 2,45,1537-. Show Cause Notice dated 17-11-2000 came to be issued on the ground that on examination, the goods were found to be folding cartons/boxes (printed) of non-corrugated paperboard. In response to the show cause notice,...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Binadal Fibres (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT351TriDel

1. Heard both sides. The appellants filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the demand is confirmed after denying the benefit of Notification No. 5/98-C.E. in respect of cotton yarn cleared by them.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) also held that the sale price of the cotton yarn realized by the appellants is treated to be cum duty price and in arriving at the excisable value of the goods, the element of duty which is payable, has to be excluded. The Commissioner (Appeals) also held the penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act is to be imposed on the assessee for the period after 28-9-96.3. The Revenue filed the appeal against the impugned Order whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) held that sale price would be treated as cum duty price. The Revenue has also challenged the impugned Order whereby no penalty is imposed in respect of Additional Excise duty.4. The contention of the Appellants is that Notification No. 5/98-C.E.provides exemp...

Cce Vs. Garg Polypacks Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both Sides. The Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Laminated Fabric falling under Tariff Heading 3926.90 of Central Excise Tarrif and were availing the benefit of Notification No. 4/97-CE dated 1.3.97. The Respondent were procuring duty paid granules on which they are availing the benefit of notification. They...the granules into HDPE tape, which is an intermediate product. The Respondents are clearing some portion of tape on payment of duty and some consuming captively.2. The contention of the Revenue is that the Respondents are captively consuming tape in the manufacture of laminated fabric. Therefore, such tapes are not liable to pay duty under Section 67/95 and the Respondents are liable to pay duty on fabric. We find that the Respondents are availing the benefit of Notification No. 4/92 dated 1.3.1997. When an assessee has option to avail benefit of any notification...