Delhi Court November 2006 Judgments

Mcd Vs. Jainander Kumar Jain

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 136(2007)DLT432

Mukul Mudgal, J.CM No. 1458/2006 (Delay)1. The delay is condoned. The application is allowed and stands disposed of.LPA No. 158/20062. This appeal challenges the judgment dated 20.10.2005 passed by learned Single Judge. The central issue involved in the writ petition was that the petitioner who was appointed on 13.7.2003 subsequently bettered his qualification in 1964 and acquired due qualification for the post of LDC. In 1963 the appellant-MCD promulgated the rules for recruitment to the posts of Lower Division Clerks which provided for departmental quota initially 20% and subsequently reduced to 10% for the promotion of Class-IV employees such as peons with five years of service and qualification of metriculation for promotion to the post of LDC. The learned Single Judge has found that the twelve persons who were appointed as LDCs with the prescribed qualification amongst peons working with MCD were appointed much later than the petitioner. The writ petitioner had acquired the prescr...

Cce Vs. Shri Dhaneshwar Chakresh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(114)ECC323

1. This appeal is directed against order in appeal dated 19/05/06, that upheld the order in original which confirmed the reduced service tax but reduced penalty.2. The relevant fact that arise for consideration are the respondent was issued a show cause notice for the demand of service tax for the period 16/07/01 to 30/09/04, on an allegation that he was providing photography services. The said show cause notice was confirmed by the adjudicating authority with an equal amount of penalty and interest. On an appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) looking into the documents produced by the respondent reduced the amount of duty payable by the respondent and consequently reduced the penalty imposed on him.3. None appeared on behalf of the respondent. There is a communication from the proprietor i.e. the respondent to decide the matter on merits.4. Heard the learned DR. It is his submission that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) could not have to reduced the amount of the service tax, ...

K.G. Somani and Co. Vs. Cst

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(115)ECC43

1. This appeal is directed against order in appeal dated 06/06/06, which upheld the order in original vide which interest amount was appropriated and penalty of equivalent amount of the service tax was imposed.2. It is not in dispute that the appellant had delayed the deposit of service tax for the quarter ending October 99 to December 99 and January 2000 to March 2000.3. Mr. K.G. Somani, C.A., partner of the appellant firm submits that they are challenging only the imposition of penalty on them. They took the registration of the service tax, as soon as the same were introduced for the services rendered by Chartered Accountant, in 1998.It is his submission that prior to these two quarters and subsequent to these two quarters there was no infraction on their part and infraction in these two quarters was absolutely due to over sight as there was no one looking after the job. He pleads for leniency in imposition of penalty on them under the Section of 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.4. Learn...

Honda Motor Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)5STR195

1. The appellant challenges the order of the Commissioner directing recovery of service tax amount of Rs. 1,94,91,959 with penalty of the like amount under the provisions of Section 78 and the penalty not exceeding Rs. 1,94,91,959 under Section 76, penalty of Rs, 1,000 under Section 75A with interest payable under Section 75 on the service tax demanded.2. At the outset, the learned Counsel submitted that in respect of the same agreement, the Tribunal had waived pre-deposit in another matter which was filed by the recipient for the subsequent period. Copy of the order dated July 17, 2006 is placed on record. It appears from the order that no reference has been made whatsoever to any of the clauses of the agreement which have been taken into consideration by us.Moreover, interim order in respect of different period and against a different impugned order cannot constitute a precedent for passing interim order in the present case. It is submitted for the Revenue that in similar matters ra...

Hind Lamps Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(114)ECC317

1. This appeal is directed against order in appeal dated 27/07/04 which upheld the order in original denying the modvat credit to the appellant and also imposed penalty.2. The relevant fact that arise for consideration are appellants were manufacturers of Electric Lighting Bulbs and Fluorescent tubes. The said finished products of the appellant were exempted from payment of duty and were brought into the duty net from 01/03/97. The appellant filed claim for modvat credit of the inputs in stock as on 01/0397 and also for the inputs received between 01/03/97 to 16/0397. The appellants filed requisite declaration of the inputs under Rule 57G to the authorities on 17/03/97. Appellant availed the modvat credit on 28/03/97. Show cause notice was issued to the appellant for denying the modvat credit and also for imposition of the penalty having violated the provisions of the Central Excise Rules, in respect of availment of the credit. The appellants contested the show cause notice on the gro...

Filament India Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(114)ECC365

1. This appeal is directed against order in appeal dated 10/03/06 that upheld the order in original vide which demand of interest on service tax and penalty was upheld.2. The relevant fact that arise for consideration are the appellant was availing the services of the goods transport operators during the period 16/11/97 to 02/06/98. Without any demand or any direction from the revenue, the appellant deposited the duty liability of service tax on his own on 29/08/02 vide TR-6 challan. Revenue issued a show cause notice to the appellant for imposition of interest and for penalty under Section 77 and for appropriation of the amount of the service tax paid by the appellant. The adjudicating authority appropriated amount paid by the appellant as service tax and imposed interest on them and also imposed penalty. On an appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order concurring with the findings of the adjudicating authority.3. The learned authorized representative appearing on behalf of the ...

Jagdish and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicants in OA No. 949/2004 have filed MA Nos. 1327/2006 and 1328/2006 seeking to correct the father's name of applicant No. 2 in the memo of parties as Sat Pal instead of Sant Lal and to add the title 'Prasad' with the name of applicant No. 1 in the memo of parties, and take the same on record.2. It is observed that the applicants had filed OA No. 949/2004 which was disposed of on 1.12.2004, whereafter a writ petition filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was dismissed thereby confirming the order of this Tribunal which has become final. The applicants have stated that initially a contempt petition was filed wherein two months' time was granted to implement the directions of the Tribunal, but aggrieved by non-implementation, another contempt petition was instituted and during the course of hearing an order dated 25.5.2006 of compliance was submitted whereby the applicants were brought on the regular establishment appointing them as Mate. In this background, the second con...

Ashok Kumar Dochana,presently Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste category, submits that he was initially appointed as Telephone Operator and later converted to Radio Telephone Operator (RTO), from which level the next promotional post is Assistant Wireless Officer (AWO), the cadre strength of which is two posts, as recorded in the recruitment rules.He is aggrieved that the respondents are not following the rules of reservation for the Control Room staff and no roster has been maintained since inception of Delhi Fire Service. As he is senior enough to be considered for promotion as per his position as an SC candidate for the post of AWO, the applicant submitted a representation on 17.2.2004 to the SC/ST Commission, New Delhi, stating that even though there is more than one post of AWO, the reservation roster is not being maintained and there are various persons, namely, Shri Jugal Kishore, who is his senior and others who are his juniors and can be considered for promotion later, but in order to f...

Rup Chand Hassija (Group-c), Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant was a Lecturer with the Commercial and Secretarial Institute (CSI) where he joined in 1969 on an initial pay scale of Rs. 250-470 which was revised over the years. From 1.1.1996, he was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500. It is submitted that at inception when the CSI was set up on approval of a scheme by the Ministry of Home Affairs in 1961, the scale of pay of Lecturers was identical to that of PGTs in the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi, for higher secondary schools. As and when the pay scale of PGT was revised on recommendations of the Pay Commission, so also was the pay scale of the Lecturers in the Institute. However, this parity remained only till the 3rd CPC and was disturbed thereafter. When the Ministry of HRD on 12.8.1987 granted senior scale of Rs. 2000-3500 to all PGTs who had completed 12 years in scale of Rs. 1640-2900 w.e.f. 1.1.1986, a selection scale of Rs. 2200-4000 was to be granted to 20% of PGTs in the senior scale. Ho...

Ram Gopal Sharma S/O Gainda Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant joined the Railways as Commercial Clerk in 1977 and is working as Senior Booking Clerk, Northern Railway, Jhinjhar near Aligarh. While he was Booking clerk at Aligarh Railway Station, a major penalty chargesheet dated 27.7.2000 was issued to him containing six articles of charge which were sought to be supported by a statement of imputations, a list of seven documents and four witnesses which were enclosed with the chargesheet. The applicant submits that the enquiry officer appointed to conduct the enquiry submitted his report ex parte against the applicant and proved the articles of charge I to III, whereas articles IV and V were partially proved, and article VI was not proved. The applicant made his representation and the disciplinary authority by order dated 30.4.2003 imposed upon him a penalty of reduction in the same time-scale of pay in grade Rs. 4000-6000 (RS) by two stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect and on reduction the pay was fixed at R...