Delhi Court October 2006 Judgments

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Prerna Strips

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC488

1. This stay application is filed by the Revenue against order in appeal dated 19th June, 2006 that set aside the order in original dated 30th January, 2006.2. The relevant fact that arise for consideration are respondent in this case filed an application for registration with the authorities on 28-7-2005. The said registration application was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Derabassi Division on the ground that the respondent had purchased the site in which M/s. Majestic Metalliks Ltd. were operating and the said M/s. Majestic Metalliks Ltd. has not discharged their duty liability towards the Central Excise demand and hence the licence surrender application of M/s. Majestic Metalliks Ltd. was rejected. It was also indicated in the rejection letter that since the licence of M/s. Majestic Metalliks Ltd. was not cancelled, a new licence cannot be issued to the respondent from the same premises.Against such order, the respondent filed an appeal with the Commissione...

Advance Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(114)ECC1

1. The appellants challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) made on 17.8.04, upholding the order-in-original except as regards seizure of the tempo. Under the order-in-original made on 17.12.99, the Joint Commissioner confiscated 2374 moulded chairs and 3047.900 Kg of suction pipes, totally valued at Rs. 7,06,916/- found unaccounted for, under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, with an option to the appellant to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rupees one lakh and also confiscating the seized goods valued at Rs. 32,902/-, removed without payment of duty of Rs. 5,809/- in a tempo, with an option to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rupees five thousands only, as well as confirmed the demand for duty of excise for Rs. 1,00,639/- (including Rs. 5,809/-) in respect of goods cleared without payment of excise duty, and, further demands of Rs. 2,790/- for inputs found short and Rs. 3,69,997/- in respect of 8165 chairs clandestinely removed without payment of dut...

Rpg Transmission Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is preferred against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 16-8-04, rejecting the appeals of the present appellant, which were preferred against the order-in original, by which the Assistant Commissioner had rejected the total refund claim, amounting to Rs. 5,38,488/-, of the appellant.2. None appeared for the appellant. The learned authorised representative for the department has gone through the relevant material on record and the findings of the authorities below, and submitted that even in a case of captive consumption, the doctrine of unjust enrichment could be invoked. He placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Solar Pesticide Pvt. Ltd. and CCE, Mumbai-II 3. It appears from the record that the appellant was engaged in manufacture of transmission tower parts falling under Chapter sub-heading 7308.90 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.The appellant filed refund claim on 17-11-99 for Rs. 5,38,488/-, on the ground th...

Dr. M.R. Diwan, Ifs (Retd.), Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this O.A., applicant has sought a direction to the respondents to make the entire payment of gratuity of Rs. 3,50,000/- along with interest @ 2% p.m. w.e.f. 1.5.2004 till final payment is made and the entire payment of pension along with commutation of pension after giving the pay scale of PCCR as was given to Shri S.K. Raha, who was junior to the applicant w.e.f. 01.8.1978 with a further direction to Respondent No. 3 to provide all the records so that he may claim his pending dues after going through the entire records.2. It is submitted by the applicant that he superannuated from service w.e.f. 30.4.2004 (page 27) but till date neither gratuity nor commutation of pension have been paid, as a result of which he is finding it difficult to survive. He has also stated that vide letter dated 14.10.2005, applicant has been informed by Respondent No. 3 that they do not have any dues to be paid to the applicant, which is absolutely wrong. He has stated that there is no valid inquiry p...

Shri Roshan Lal S/O Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through (the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. Order passed by the respondents on 8.5.2003 is assailed by the retired railway servant whereby his pay scale has been reduced to Rs. 4750/- to Rs. 4600/- and consequently there has been a downward revision in finalization of pension and other retiral benefits.Applicant is also aggrieved by withholding of first class passes, which are due to a railway servant on reaching the pay to Rs. 5000/-.3. Learned Counsel for applicant, at the outset, would contend that before such action has been taken by the respondents, he has not been afforded an opportunity to show cause about the factum of his absence.Having not afforded this, now after an inordinate delay of about five years, it is precluded to the respondents to take such an action against him.4. On the other hand, respondents learned Counsel states that the applicant when appeared before the Lok Adalat has categorically admitted that his pay was fixed lastly at Rs. 4875/- and accordingly, he cannot be allowed now to reprobate and is b...

Shri S.C. Dubey, Assistant Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By virtue of this OA applicant has assailed an order passed by the respondents on 19.8.2004, whereby his request for interpolation in the panel of Assistant Engineers formed in the year 1993-94 has not been acceded to on the ground that even if erroneously others have been included it would not confer upon him a right to be included.2. A brief factual matrix, relevant to be highlighted, transpires that applicant, who was appointed as Inspector of Works (IOW) Grade-III on completion of training was promoted as Grade II and I on 23.12.1989 and 6.2.1996 respectively. Applicant and others being aggrieved with not incorporating their names in the seniority list above his immediate junior B.B. Gamit filed OA-782/2001 - Satish Chandra Dubey v. Union of India before the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal, which was disposed of on 15.2.2002, in the light that a memorandum dated 14.2.2002 accorded seniority to applicant over and above his junior.3. An order passed on 14.2.2002 on correction of ...

NavIn Chandra Pant S/O Shri Vs. the Joint Secretary to Govt. of

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this O.A., applicant has challenged the order dated 30.9.2004 passed by the disciplinary authority imposing punishment on applicant and order dated 19.12.2005 whereby the punishment has already been reduced by the appellate authority but, according to the applicant, it is still harsh and instead even if the charge was proved, only some minor penalty could have been given to the applicant.2. It is submitted by the applicant that vide memo dated 11.2.2004 (page 45), 3 charges were levelled against the applicant for misbehaving with the Principal in front of the students and staff members on 2.12.2003, for marking the attendance of all the students of Class XI on 4.11.2003 while all the students were absent and for not signing the notices dated 2.12.2003 and 3.12.2003 sent by the Principal and instead writing a remark on both the notices. In the said charge-sheet, there were 4 prosecution witnesses but out of these 4 also, Shri N.K. Chauhan, PGT (Eco) was subsequently given up. Dur...

A.R. Khanna and Sons Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 134(2006)DLT239

Rekha Sharma, J.1. The Delhi Development Authority (in short called DDA) vide Agreement No. 3/EE/CPD.VI/85-86 awarded the work of construction of Local Shopping Centre at Lawrence Road to M/s. A.R. Khanna and Sons (hereinafter called the Contractor). It was stipulated in the agreement that the work was to commence on 26.3.85 and was to be completed by 25.9.85. It was also stipulated that the contractor was to submit structural drawings within 15 days of the award of the work and the work was to be commenced only after receiving approval of the structural drawings from the Engineer in charge of the work.2. It is the case of the contractor that the designs were submitted to the DDA on 18.4.85 for approval but no approval of the same was received during the currency of contract. It was only on 13.11.85 after the date of completion of the work had expired that the DDA informed the contractor that approved foundation plans could be collected from its office and directed it to commence the w...

Pooja Vs. Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 134(2006)DLT538

Anil Kumar, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ or direction to the respondent to admit the petitioner in the general category to the 3 1/2 year diploma course, 2006 in General Nursing and Midwifery (DGNM) Course, 2006.2. Brief facts to appreciate the controversies are that the petitioner appeared in the entrance test for admission to D.G.N.M, 2006 which was held on 11.6.2006 and scored 14th rank and 44th position in the inter ranking in the merit list of General category.3. Respondent is a statutory body run by the Government of NCT of Delhi and recognized by the Indian Nursing Council which is a national body and which imparts and prepares guidelines and rules for the nursing courses throughout India. The respondent under the guidance of this national body is responsible for conducting examination in this regard and respondent is also recognized by Delhi Nursing Council. Respondent is stated to be a teaching hospital attached to the University College of Medical Sc...

Narender Singh Negi and ors. Vs. Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 134(2006)DLT436

Anil Kumar, J.Rule.1. With the consent of the parties the matter is taken up for final disposal. The counsels also contended that no further affidavits are to be filed on behalf of the parties. 2. The petitioners who have qualified 10+2 in vocational engineering stream claim admission directly to second year/III semester of the diploma course run by the respondents in the present petition. The petitioners have claimed that the eligibility conditions laid down by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are contrary to the eligibility conditions prescribed by respondent No. 3, All India Council for Technical Education and are, thereforee, void and are not applicable to the petitioner. 3. Brief facts to appreciate the controversies between the parties are that the petitioners are the students of engineering based vocational courses in Delhi and have qualified their 11th and 12th class from G.B.S.S School, More Gate I; Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya, Vikas Puri, A-Block and Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya, Ashok Nag...