Delhi Court November 2006 Judgments

Afhq Civil Service (Direct Recruit Gazetted) Officers Overruled

Court: Delhi

1. Leave granted.2. The usual question as regards determination of inter se seniority between Direct Recruits (DRs) and Departmental Promotees (DPs) once again falls for consideration in these two appeals by special leave, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are being heard and decided by this common judgment.3. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi dated 14th November, 2006 in C.W.P. No. 4058/2002; C.W.P. No. 4458/2002; C.W.P. No. 5396/2002 and C.W.P. No. 62/2003 and order dated 15th January, 2007 in C.W.P. No. 18073/2005, whereby and whereunder the order dated 1st April, 2002 in O.A. No. 1356/1997 (Smt.Ammini Rajan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.) of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, is set aside.4. The Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") allowed the said O.A. filed by Smt. Ammini Rajan & Ors. challenging the Select List of Assistants for promotio...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Rania Kutir Udyog Samiti

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC576

1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the Respondent.The notice was issued to the respondent and were received back with the postal remarks "factory closed".2. Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the appeal filed by the respondent was allowed and demand under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was set aside.3. The respondent was manufacturing goods, which were liable for excise duty as well exempted goods and were availing the benefit of MODVAT credit in respect of the common inputs. At the time of clearance of the goods respondents were reversing the credit equal to the 8% of value of the goods cleared without payment of duty. The goods were cleared under invoices where the respondents were collecting excise duty at the rate of 8% showing separately in the invoices.4. The contention of the Revenue is that excise duty recovered from the customers is not disputed with the Revenue. Therefore, the demand was rightly made.5. I find that t...

Gopi Krishna Processors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(114)ECC330

1. These appeal are directed against the order-in-appeal dated 30.07.2004, which upheld the order-in-original that credited the amount of refund claim of the appellant to the consumer welfare fund.2. The relevant fact that arise for consideration are that the appellants: During the period June, July and August, 99 were working under compounded levy scheme under Rule 96ZQ of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. They were paying duty on the annual capacity determined by the Commissioner, Central Excise. The duty was paid on the basis of size of the chamber. A doubt arose whereby the duty was also demanded on the galleries which were a pollution control equipment. The size of the galleries were treated as liable to duty and they paid the duty for the said period amounting to Rs. 80,000 per month and the total amount for 3 months comes to Rs. 2,40,000.00. They submitted the refund claims to the department for the aforesaid 3 months as the Commissioner (Appeals). Customs and Central E...

Srikant Processors Ltd., Shri Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These three appeals are directed against order in appeal dated 30/07/04 that upheld the order in original confirming the demand and imposing penalties.2. The relevant fact that arise for consideration are the appellant No.'1' i.e. M/s Srikant Processors Ltd. (in appeal No. E/5402/04) is a manufacturer of Man-made Fabrics falling under Chapter No. 55 of Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. Appellant No. '2' i.e. Mr. Shreekant Lahoti (in appeal No. E/5403/04) is the Managing Director of the appellant No. '1' and looks after day-to-day matters of the appellant No. '1''. Appellant No. '3' i.e. M/s Srikant Lahoti (in appeal No.B/5404/04) is the sole Proprietorship Firm of appellant No. '2'.Officers of the Central Excise visited the premises of appellant No.'3' on 21/06/02 and found 550 thans of Man-made Fabrics after completion of Carbonization process. On being asked, the supervisor of the appellant No. '3' could not produce any documentary evidence under which the goods were received in th...

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

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)9STT84

1. This stay application is directed against the denial of Cenvat credit to the appellant.2. Considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused records. The denial of the Cenvat credit to the applicant is on the amount of Service Tax liability discharged by the applicant for the receipt of the services of goods transport operator. The applicant has correctly pointed out i.e. for March, 2005, the service tax liability discharged by the applicant through TR-6 challan, Cenvat credit was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals), while in this case the Cenvat credit in the month of April, 2005 is sought to be denied. I find strong force in the contention, that there cannot be two contradictory orders in respect of the same assessee on the same issue.3. Accordingly, the applicant has made out a prima facie case for the waiver of the pre-deposit of the amount involved. The application for the waiver of pre-deposit amount of service tax is allowed and recovery thereof stayed til...

Generators and Alternators Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(115)ECC105

1. This appeal is directed against order in appeal dated 30/06/04 that upheld the order in original vide which confiscation of the seized goods were ordered and penalty imposed.2. The relevant fact that arise for consideration are the officers of the Central Excise visited the appellant's factory on 16/6/93 and found the finished goods lying in the factory premises unaccounted in the statutory books of records. The said goods were seized and show cause notice was issued proposing confiscation of such goods and imposition of penalties. Appellant resisted the show cause notice on the ground that the day of the visit of the officers being a weekly off, the late night production of earlier day was unaccounted in the statutory books of records. The adjudicating authority did not accept the contention of the appellant and ordered for the confiscation of the seized goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine and also imposed penalty. On an appeal, learned Commission...

Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(115)ECC319

1. This appeal is directed against order in appeal dated 06/09/04 that upheld the order in original vide which amount of duty was confirmed against the appellant and penalty was also imposed.2. The relevant fact that arise for consideration are appellant availed modvat credit on the Furnace oil purchased by them during the period May 1999 to October 1999 from Indian Oil Corporation. Appellants purchased this Furnace oil from the Namkum Depot, Ranchi of the Indian Oil Corporation. The invoices issued by Namkum Depot, Ranchi of Indian Oil Corporation indicated the excise duty @ 16% and collected the same from the appellant. Show cause notice was issued to the appellant for denial of the modvat credit of excess excise duty of 1% as during the relevant period the refinery paid excise duty @ 15%. The appellants resisted the show cause notice on the ground that the amount of the excise duty as indicated on the invoice was the correct and they have paid the total amount to the Indian Oil Cor...

Smt. Surajwati Wd/O Late Sh. Bijli Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Widow of deceased Bijli Singh, Photo Glezar, Photo Division, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, New Delhi, in this application seek compassionate appointment of her son i.e. Applicant No. 2.2. Shri Bijli Singh died in harness on 27.3.04 because of cancer, which disease had been detected only in November, 2003. Applicant No. 1 is an illiterate lady of 45 years old. Her eldest son i.e. Applicant No. 2 has passed 12th standard. In the circumstances, she made a request for compassionate appointment of her son vide application dated 21.05.2004, which had been rejected on 15/24.09.2004, stating that 5% quota for compassionate appointment had already been exhausted. It was also stated therein that her case was also sent to the Ministry for sympathetic consideration. Even the Ministry considered said request, but reiterated earlier stand taken by the department, which was communicated to her on 25.11.2004. In the meantime, applicant made representation to the Hon'ble Minister conc...

K.L. Juneja S/O Lakhmi Chand Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant retired on superannuation on 31.5.2005 from the National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC), a Government of India Undertaking, New Delhi. He is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 4.5.2006 from the Central Water Commission (CWC), Government of India, whereby he has not been found entitled for the same benefit as other similarly circumstanced persons. He has, therefore, prayed for the following relief: ii) declare the order dt. 04.05.06 issued by the CWC, R.K. Puram, New Delhi as illegal and quash the same. iii) declare the applicant entitled to the benefits of the judgments in the cases of Smt. Aruna Mehta & Others and 17 other cases mentioned in para 4.16 above, as he is similarly placed and similarly situated. iv) declare the applicant entitled to pro-rata pension and other pensionary benefits including D.C.R.G., leave encashment etc. for about 13 years of service w.e.f. 04.10.65 to 30.09.1978 with Central Government/CWC before his absorption in NTPC. v) direct...

Shri Dal Chand Vashisht Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Order dated 17th March, 2006, rejecting applicant's claim for medical reimbursement is assailed in the present application.2. Applicant retired as PGT (English) from Sarvodaya Vidyalaya, INA, New Delhi, on 31.05.1991 and settled down at Faridabad. He suffered heart problem and was rushed to Metro Hospital, Faridabad in emergency on 05.02.2004 where he was treated for CAD (Angioplasty) and paid a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- as per Bill No. 4324 dated 09.02.2004, and discharged from the said Hospital on 09.02.2004. Thereafter, he submitted his claim for reimbursement. He also submitted a representation dated 15.07.2004 to the Hon'ble Minister for Health & Social Welfare, Govt.of NCT of Delhi, followed by reminder dated 18.10.2004. He approached the Office of Respondents sometime in the month of December, 2004 to enquire about it and he was informed that his claim had been rejected, but nothing was communicated to him in writing. Therefore, he filed OA No. 2510/2005, which was disposed ...