Delhi Court September 2005 Judgments

Ex-ct. Satbir Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 123(2005)DLT681; 2005(84)DRJ57

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the penalty of 'removal from service meted out to him on 25.08.2000 as also the appellate order dated 05.12.2000 whereby his appeal against the order of removal from service was rejected.2. The petitioner has been removed from service as he allegedly produced false/bogus caste and domicile certificates. The case of the petitioner is that although the caste and domicile certificates which were produced by him in 1997 as a result of which he was enlisted in The CRPF (Central Reserve Police Force) in July, 1997 against vacancies exclusively reserved for OBC and for residents of Delhi State, were fake, he had produced the same believing them to be genuine. It was further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he had produced a genuine caste certificate as well as a genuine domicile certificate of 2000. It is also submitted that it is not in dispute that the petitioner, in fact, belonged to the caste of Ahir which is a recognised ...

Amrit Varsha Ispat (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The stay petition is in regard to demand of service tax and penalty.The said demand has been made treating the appellant as a clearing and forwarding agent.2. It is not in dispute that the appellant is no way concerned with the clearing and forwarding of the goods. The goods are sent by the manufacturer directly to the buyer. The appellant is only a commission agent, and receives commission from both or either side, for the service rendered by him as sales or buying agent. The role of the appellant clearly is not that of a clearing and forwarding agent. Prima facie the demand is not tenable. In view of this the requirement for pre-deposit is waived and recovery is stayed till the disposal of the appeal....

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Arun Kumar

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT482TriDel

1. This is an appeal by the Department against the Order-in-Appeal Nos.648-649/CE/CHD/2003, dated 21-7-2003 wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal of the Managing Director of the company and set aside the penalty imposed on him by the Adjudicating Authority.2 None appeared for the Respondent and there is a remark from the Registry that the 'notice received back'. Learned D.R. submits that since the issue involved in this case is in respect of imposition of personal penalty on the Managing Director, we could proceed ahead in the matter.3. Since the question involved in this case is in respect of personal penalty imposed on the respondent Managing Director I take up the appeal for disposal.4. Learned D.R. submits that the personal penalty imposed on the Managing Director of the company under Rule 209A is justifiable and is correctly imposed by the learned Adjudicating Authority inasmuch the issue involved in this case is in respect of non-accountal of the steel tubes ...

New Era Enterprises Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are a SSI industry and are also doing the job work activity like cutting, painting etc of the transformer tanks. The audit team visited the appellants and during the course of the audit observed that the process carried out by the appellants would amount to manufacture and the appellants are liable to pay the duty. The appellants paid the duty as pointed out by the audit team in May 1997, July 1997 and August 1997. A show case notice was issued to the appellants for appropriation of the duty already paid and also for the imposition of the penalty. The adjudicating authority came to the conclusion that the duty paid before the issue of show cause notice is confirmed and appropriated and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2000/- on the appellants. The revenue preferred an appeal against the order in original and the Commissioner (Appeals), imposed a further penalty of Rs. 43,953/- on the appellants in addition to the penalty of Rs. 2000/-. Ag...

Paras Traders Vs. Rajasthan Copy Maufacturers Association

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 125(2005)DLT712

Vijender Jain, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, this appeal has been preferred.The dispute is with relation to trademark CHETAK and label CHETAK which according to the appellant, he is the the registered owner of the trade mark CHETAK in respect of its office files, exercise books and mathematical instruments vide certificate granted on 27th July, 1976.2. The Registrar of Copyrights has also registered the label CHETAK vide registration no. A-15872/76. However, in view of certain documents, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the respondent or its predecessor were prior user of the trademark of word CHETAK and thus declined injunction. The impugned order is of 27th November, 1995.This Court while sitting in appeal will not substitute the finding on fact as it has been contended before us by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.Mr. Sharma appearing for the appellant says that the finding arrived at by the learned ...

Ge Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mukesh Kumar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 124(2005)DLT191; 2006(32)PTC768(Del)

Swatanter Kumar, J.1. This is a petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner has made the following prayer :-'It is thereforee prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to :-(i) direct the Contemnor to reveal the identity including full names and addresses of his fellow contemnors, namely his uncle and the Pradhan of the locality and the other men who disrupted the commission proceedings;(ii) hold the contemnors to be in civil contempt of this Hon'ble Court and initiate civil contempt proceedings against the Contemnors;(iii) punish the Contemnors in accordance with law, and specifically, to order the arrest and detention of the contemnors in prison, and to impose a fine on them as provided for under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the Constitution of India;Any further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and...