Delhi Court August 2005 Judgments

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Kaveri Lime Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT285TriDel

1. In these appeals the Revenue has contested the correctness of the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has dropped the duty demand of Rs. 20,068/- with penalty of Rs. 20,000/- against the respondents as confirmed by the adjudicating authority, by reversing the order-in-original of that authority.2. The duty demand has been raised against the appellants who are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods, on the basis of simple information supplied by the Trade Tax Officer Incharge of Sahayata Kendra vide letter dated 23-12-1999, regarding the details of the invoices of the consignments passed through that Kendra, as on co-relation of that information with the invoices issued by the appellants, the value of the goods as well as the duty paid thereon, was found less. The Revenue presumed that duplicate invoices have been used by the appellants for clandestine removal of the goods without payment of duty. The adjudicating authority on the basis of the above...

Spread Coating Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT349TriDel

1. This appeal has been directed against the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the duty demand and denial of Modvat credit against the appellants.2. I have heard both the sides. The record shows that the credit of Rs. 28,800/- has been disallowed to the appellants on the inputs covered under the Invoice No. 265, dated 27-9-99 as the same was no in their name but in the name of M/s. Berger Paint India Ltd. This wrong availment of credit was not even disputed by the appellants before the authorities below and they have already reversed the credit of the above said amount. Therefore, the impugned order in this regard is affirmed.3. However duty demand of Rs. 36,755/- in respect of the paints samples and of Rs. 2042/- leviable on resin samples against the appellants, cannot be sustained. The demand of both these amounts have been confirmed against the appellants on the ground that they had disposed of the samples of the paints and resins in a cla...

Ramanand Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(1)SLJ367CAT

1. By virtue of this O.A. applicant has assailed respondents' order dated 6.9.2004, office order 8.10.2004 and order dated 2.2.2005, where the respondents had allotted 90 posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) (AE, for short) to the seniority quota to be filled by way of promotion and request of applicant for clarification of vacancies in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) quota for 2004-2005 has been rejected on the ground that vacancies for the year 2004-2005 bifurcated between seniority and LDCE quota has been on the basis of the shortfall/excess of posts in particular category.2. Applicant is holding the post of Junior Engineer (JE) since 6.8.1999. Recruitment Rules for the post of AE (Civil) were notified on 14.11.2003 and as per Clause 12,50% posts are to be filled by JEs (Civil) with six years' regular service in the grade and the remain 50% through LDCE from amongst JEs (Civil) with four years regular service in the grade.3. By an order dated 6.9.2004 respond...

Mrs. Bharti Gupta Vs. Rail India Technical and Economical Services Ltd ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 123(2005)DLT138; 2005(84)DRJ53

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The petitioner, a qualified Architect, was initially appointed by the respondents (hereafter called as 'RITES') and was offered contractual appointment for a period of six months on 8.10.1997. Her contract was renewed after expert of the six months period; she continued in the employment of RITES. By these proceedings, she is questioning the impugned order dated 13th December, 2000 which states that the contractual engagement ceased from 16.10.2000 and that she was no-longer in the rolls of the organisation after that date. The petitioner's request for release of maternity leave benefits was also declined.2. At the outset, Ms. Rachna Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner gave up the claim in prayer 'B' for reinstatement and consequential benefits. The claim in the petition was confined to the release of maternity benefits.3. The petitioner avers that her services were continued and she was working uninterruptedly till she applied for maternity leave on 1...

Children's Education Trust of India Vs. Union of India (UOi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 123(2005)DLT20; 2005(84)DRJ110

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The question that arises in these writ petitions is whether the Central Academy Senior Secondary School, Delhi, the Management of which was taken-over under Section 20 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `the DSE Act') by Orders dated 3.7.1996 passed by the Lt. Governor, NCT of Delhi must perforce now be handed back to the Body from which it was taken-over. The situation has been considerably complicated by the fact that there is a controversy as to who is truly representative of erstwhile Body which was managing the Central Academy Senior Secondary School.2. It is common ground that a Trust in the name and style of Children's Education Trust of India had been established by two brothers, namely, Shri S.N. Chaturvedi and Shri H.N. Chaturvedi, but these brothers have now fallen out and have initiated litigation against each other. Each of them asserts that he is the proper person to represent the Trust and the Management Committee of ...

Bhilai Cement Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appealing filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of coal tar fuel was denied on the ground that the appellant in their declaration dated 2.9.1994 have not declared coal tar fuel as inputs.3. The contention of the appellant as that the appellant had filed a declaration dated 2.9.1994 declaring the inputs such as medium hard pitch, soft medium pitch, extra hard pitch and spillage pitch classifiable under Heading No. 2708.11 of Central Excise Tariff. The contention is that coal tar fuel is also classifiable under Heading No.2708.11 as inputs and in the impugned order the benefit of credit in respect of coal tar fuel was allowed after 9.6.1997. The appellant relied upon the Larger Bench decision in the case of Kamakhya Steels (P) Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2000 (40) RLT 575. The contention is that Rule 57G and Rule 57T has been amended by Notification No. 7/99 to the effect that credit shall no...

Standard Pencils Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. All these appeals arise from and are directed against a common order (Order-in-Original No. 34/97 dated 31-12-97). Accordingly, they were taken up for hearing together and are disposed of under this common order.2. The impugned order was passed pursuant to an order of remand (Final Order No. 263 to 268/96-C dated 12-4-96) passed by the Tribunal. The main direction in the order of the Tribunal was to determine the quantity of eyebrow pencils removed without payment of duty on the basis of quantity of the four essential raw materials used exclusively in the manufacture of eyebrow pencils. In terms of this direction, the Commissioner has determined the duty liability on goods removed without payment of duty at about Rs. 22.07 lakhs. He has also imposed penalties and confiscated eyebrow pencils valued around Rs. 4.5 lakhs.3. We may take up the appeal of the manufacturer namely M/s. Standard Pencils Pvt. Ltd., first. The main grievance is that the quantification of production has been d...

Aswm Spinning Mills Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal whereby the credit was denied to the appellant on the ground that it was taken on the strength of original copy of invoice as the appellant had not followed the due procedure.3. The contention of the appellant is that they received the inputs on 27.3.1999 and they were informed that duplicate copy for transporter was lost by the driver on 30.3.1999. The appellant wrote the letter on 30.3.1999 to the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Amritsar, where they informed that they had received a Cone Winding Machine from M/s. Jaya Kumar, Coimbatore and driver of the vehicle lost duplicate copy of the invoice in transit and they requested to allow them to take credit on the original copy of invoice. A copy of statement of Driver was also enclosed with the application. The contention is that no action was taken by the Revenue on this application, thereafter on 23.4.1999 the credit was taken.4. The contention is that during the ...

Saroj Metal Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT435TriDel

"I have carefully gone through the records of the case and submission made by the appellant. It is clearly evident that the respondent had paid duty twice i.e. once through Cenvat credit wrongly at the time of discharging of duty liability and once through PLA, after pointing out the discrepancies. First time there was no sufficient balance in the Cenvat account at the time of discharging duty liability, therefore, they should have been paid duty amount through PLA. Hence duty paid by the respondent second time through PLA is correct and refund of duty sanctioned in cash by the adjudicating authority is not correct. In this circumstances, I am inclined to amend the impugned order in as much as the refund be given to the respondent in Cenvat account and cash refund be recovered if any given to the respondent." 3. The contention of the appellant in the appeal memo is that they are entitled for cash refund as the duty paid twice once through Cenvat credit and second time through PLA.4. F...

Shri Ajay Appan and ors. Vs. Indraprastha Power Generation Corporation ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 123(2005)DLT110; 2005(84)DRJ228; [2005(107)FLR383]

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The petitioners, in these proceedings, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claim an appropriate writ or direction to the respondent to appoint them to the post of Technical Helper (later re-designated as Technical Assistant, Grade III. The petitioners had competed that post, being a candidate sponsored by the Employment Exchange.2. The erstwhile Delhi Electricity Undertaking, (DESU, predecessor of Delhi Vidyut Board, in respect of which the respondent has been imp leaded as a successor in interest), had, in the year, 1994 notified vacancies in the post of Technical Helper. It sought requisitions from the Employment Exchange from amongst eligible and suitable candidates. The petitioners' names were sponsored along with several others. The candidates were interviewed by the Selection Board in June and December,1993. The petitioners too attended the interview.3. The DESU prepared a panel, on the basis of recommendations of the Selection Board, on 13-1-19...