Delhi Court November 2006 Judgments

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 and Ors. 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 the...

S.K. Dhaker, Working as Pgt Vs. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Since the issue raised in these two OAs is common in nature and relates to transfer, same were heard together and disposed of by the present common order.2. For brevity, facts have been delineated from OA No. 1346/2006.Applicant in this OA is a PGT (Chemistry) since 1997, while applicant in OA No. 1354/2006 is employed as Catering Assistant since the year 1993. Both are working in Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and posted to JNV Deverala. Tenders were invited to supply doors from public through Daily Newspaper "Amar Ujala" dated 21.01.2006, fixing last date of application as 28.01.2006 with date of opening tender as 30.01.2006.Applicant made a representation objecting the illegalities and fraud committed by the Principal as the work of doors had already been undertaken and completed on 18/19.01.2006 at a higher rate, though number of contractors were ready to complete it on lower rates. He was called by the Deputy Commissioner, Jaipur vide message dated 03.03.2006 and accordingly he rep...

J.K. Synthetics Limited and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 138(2007)DLT660; 2006(204)ELT369(Del)

S. Muralidhar, J.Background facts1. Petitioner No.1 J.K.Synthetics Ltd. and its shareholder Petitioner No.2 jointly filed this writ petition on 19.7.1982 seeking a large number of reliefs concerning the levy of customs duty and countervailing duty (CVD) on Caprolactum and Diemethyl Terephthalate (DMT) imported by Petitioner for the manufacture of polyester filament yarn and polyester fibre. In the twenty years during which this writ petition has been pending some of the issues raised have ceased to survive for consideration. The petitioners have restricted their pleas to three issues which will be referred to shortly. 2. By Notification No. 102 Cus dated 1.7.1977 the Central Government, in exercise of its powers under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 ('Act'), exempted DMT when imported into India from customs duty in excess of 100% ad valorem. In effect, the rate of customs duty payable on imported DMT was 100%. As regards caprolactum, Notification No.86 Cus dated 23.4.1980 exempted...

Sandhya Mukhi Vs. Ashish Mukhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2007)DMC122; 2009(93)DRJ505

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In these proceedings, the petitioner wife (hereafter 'the petitioner') has sought initiation of contempt action against the husband(hereafter referred to as the Respondent) on the ground that the latter willfully, and deliberately violated the order of court, and the undertaking made in his statements made before this Court. The orders in respect of which contempt is alleged are dated 25.9.2002 and 15.1.2003 issued by this Court.2. The facts essential to decide this petition are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 30.08.2001; no children were born out of the wedlock. The petitioner alleges that she was harassed for dowry and thereforee, lodged a complaint on 29.5.2002 with the Crimes Against Women (CAW) cell, Kirtinagar, New Delhi. During the course of reconciliation process the Respondent allegedly beat the petitioner in CAW cell on 15.07.2002, which led to registration of FIR under Section 107 & 151, IPC against him, on the basis of the comp...

Yoginder Kapil Vs. Sanjay Gupta

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(93)DRJ356; (2007)146PLR30

S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. Final arguments heard.2. The appellant is aggrieved by dismissal of his complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act for non-prosecution vide order passed by the Court below on 26.4.2005. The learned Counsel for the appellant has taken me through the proceedings of different dates before the Court below in order to show that his complaint was shuttling from the Court of Magistrate to the Court of Session and from the Court of Session to the Court of Magistrate before a date was finally given on 29.11.2004 for his evidence to be recorded on 26.4.2005. On 26.4.2005, an application for exemption from personal appearance of the complainant/appellant was moved before the Court below and his exemption was sought on the medical ground stating that on that day the Counsel had received an information that the appellant suddenly fell sick. This contention is supported by an affidavit filed by the petitioner. The learned Court below instead of granting exemption chose to dismiss th...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(93)DRJ483

S. Muralidhar, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 13.9.2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi ('ITAT') recalling its earlier order dated 12.7.2002 for the limited purpose of adjudicating upon ground No. 7 in the memo of appeal filed by the respondent assessee.2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal may be recited. By an order dated 30.3.2001 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), the assessee was held to be an 'assessee in default' for failure to deduct tax at source in respect of warehousing charges paid to M/s Pradeep Oil Corporation. The AO negatived the plea of the assessee that these were contractual payments warranting TDS in terms of Section 194-C of the Act at 2 per cent. The AO held that 'the composite arrangement is in essence an arrangement for taking the premises on rent. Hence, the payment is covered under Section 1941 and tax needs to be deduct...

Durga Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These appeals are directed against order in appeal dated 25.8.04 which upheld the order in original that confirmed the demand and imposed penalties on the appellants. Since all these appeals are arising out of the same order in appeal, they are disposed of by this common order.2. The issue involved in these cases is regarding the demand of duty confirmed on the appellants in respect of the duty liability arising out of the annual capacity of production determined under Rule 96-ZP(3) of Central Excise Rules for the month of December, 1999 to February, 2000. The appellants did not discharge the duty liability for three months. Show cause notice was issued to the appellants in terms of Section 11-A read with Section 96-ZP(3) proposing for demand and confirmation of duty and for imposition of penalties. The adjudicating authority confirmed show cause notice by different orders in original and also imposed penalty. On an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) also concurred with the finding...

Gobind Sugar Mills Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(116)ECC241

1. This appeal is filed against the order in appeal dated 28.2.04 which upheld the order in original that confirmed the demand.2. The issue involved in this case is regarding the eligibility of Cenvat credit on the Welding Electrodes used by the appellant for repair and maintenance of their machinery. It is the contention of the department that such credit is not available to the appellants in view of the orders of the Tribunal in the case of JP Rewa Cement Plant and Triveni Engg 2005 (186) ELT 158.3. None appeared on behalf of the appellant despite notice Since the matter is on board from 14.8.06, I take up the appeal for disposal in the absence of the appellant or their representative.4. The learned DR submits that in this case, it appears that the appellant have availed the modvat credit on capital goods and used the same for repair and maintenance of their plant and machinery. It is his submission that the issue is squarely covered against the appellants by the larger Bench decisi...

R.K. Marble Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(115)ECC27

1. This application for stay is directed against the order in appeal dated 10.7.06 which upheld the order in original regarding the demand of duty and also recovery of interest. Since the issue involved is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal, as upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the pre-deposit of the amount of duty involved is waived and appeal itself is taken up for disposal.2. Revenue issued show cause notice dated 5.11.2004 to the appellants on the basis of amended Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 for recovery of the service tax payable by the appellant as receipt of services from goods transporter operator for the period from 16.11.1997 to 2.6.1998.The specific allegations in the show cause notice is as under: Whereas, the amended Section 73 [73(1) to be precise] reads as under: Where any service tax has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, the Assistant Commissioner or, as the case may be, the Deputy Commissio...

Superior Fabrics Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These two appeals are directed against the order-in-original dated 25-3-2004 which confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalties on the appellants. Since both the appeals are arising out of the same order-in-original, both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant No. 1, Superior Fabrics is a manufacturer of ready-made garments and mosquito bed nets classifiable under Chapter Heading No.6201.00 and 6301.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant No. 1 was registered with the Central Excise authorities for such activity. On an intelligence that the appellant No. 1 was evading Central Excise duty on mosquito bed nets manufactured and cleared by them to various Government departments, investigation was initiated by the officers of DGCEI. On the completion of the investigation, show cause notice was issued to the appellants for the demand of duty on the supplies of mosquito nets to ho...