Delhi Court November 2006 Judgments

Cce Vs. U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(116)ECC349

1. This appeal is directed against order in appeal dated 8^th October 2004 which rejected the appeal filed by the revenue against the order in original.2. The issue involved in this case is regarding recovery of 8% of the amount of waste Bagasse and Press Mud cleared by the respondent treating it as an exempted product. The issue involved in this case as rightly pointed out by the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent and is squarely covered by the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Meerut v. Shakumbari Sugar & Allied Industries Ltd. Division Bench of the tribunal following the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in final order No. 551-554/03 dated 22/07/2003 held as under: We find that in this case, the Revenue is invoking the provisions of Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules asking for 8% of the value of press-mud and Bagasse. Rule 57CC of Central Excise Rules, 1944 provides that where a manufacturer is manufacturing excisable and exempted goods...

U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(115)ECC24

1. This appeal is directed against order in appeal dated 23/08/04 which upheld the order in original that denied the modvat credit to the appellant on various items.3. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order in original in respect of denial of modvat credit to the appellant on the welding electrodes and on the Tachometer. While upholding the order in original, the learned Commissioner has relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jaypee Rewa Cement for denying the modvat credit on the welding electrodes and for denial of modvat credit on Tachometer, the learned Commissioner has given the reasoning that the appellant had not filed the modvat declaration in respect of such items.4. As regards, the welding electrodes, I find that it is the contention of the appellant that these welding electrodes are used by the appellant has an input in their sugar factory. The contention of the learned advocate for the appellant that the issue is covered by the judgement o...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. K.L. Concast (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(115)ECC275

1. The Revenue has appealed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 30.9.2204, by which the demand of interest is set aside. No other part of the order is challenged as made clear by the learned authorized representative for the department.2. The respondent was engaged in the manufacture of shapes and sections of iron and steel. On 8.2.2002, the assessee intimated the debit of differential duty on sale of goods through consignment agents being the amount of Rs. 8,57,935/- for the period from 1.4.2000 to 31.3.2004 and Rs. 7,58,163/- for the period from 1.4.2001 to 31.1.2002. However, the interest accrued on these amounts was not paid. The respondent was, therefore asked to pay the amount of interest under Section 11AB alongwith the differential duty. A show cause notice came to be issued on 5.8.2003, requiring the respondent to explain as to why the differential duty should not be demanded and interest amounts on late payment should not be recovered under Section 11AB of ...

Shri Harjit Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this O.A., applicant has challenged Memorandum dated 13.8.2002 whereby he has been charged as follows: While working as Assistance/Engineer (E) under Electrical Division-III Sh. Harjit Singh, Assistance Engineer (E), applied for grant of No Objection Certificate for going abroad on 10.7.1986. He also applied for grant of E.L. for that purpose w.e.f. 1.11.1986 to 31.12.1986. Conditional No Objection Certificate was granted by the DG (W) vide Memorandum No. 27/8/H/85/EC-III dated 4.12.1986. As per that Memo, Shri Harjit Singh submitted a revised leave application w.e.f. 26.12.1986 to 31.5.1987 on 16.12.1986. The Controlling Officer is Executive Engineer (E), Electrical Division-III recommended for sanction of leave to the Superintending Engineer (E) DECE-VI on 24.12.1986. Eventually on the day when Shri Harjit Singh, Assistant Engineer (E) was relieved from that Division in accordance with his transfer order issued by the DG (W) order No. 317 of 1986, issued vide No. 28/18/86/EC-I...

Sharat Kohli S/O Shri Kuldeep Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Sub Inspector in Delhi Police impugns order dated 10.8.2005 whereby his request for out of turn promotion despite recommendation to the next higher rank on showing exemplary conduct, has been rejected.2. Brief facts of the case transpire that the applicant has been recommended by the Deputy Commissioner of Police for out of turn promotion along with three other officers as the team of Special Cell has shot gangsters, who had kidnapped a person. The role of the applicant in his citation at Annedure-D has been enumerated as under: On the IInd Floor, heavily armed underworld gangster later identified as Virender Pant & Chottu, took his position in the bathroom of one of the rooms and continued firing on the police party. Undeterred, ACP Rajbir Singh, Insp. Mohand Chand Sharma and SI Badrish Dutt in spite of being under heavy fire from Virender Pant, returned the fire. Exhibiting exemplary courage and bravery, they were able to neutralize Virender Pant and rescue Sh. Thekkat Sidhiq...

R.D. Jain, Gyan Chand and Neema Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Secretary of

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. As these three OAs are founded on common facts with identical question of law, to avoid multiplicity and conflicting opinions, are being disposed of by this common order.2. In all these OAs applicants either Punch Card Operators or Punch Card Supervisor, challenge respondents order dated 25.5.2006, whereby their request to placement in the grade of Data Entry Operator (DEO) Grades 'B' and 'C' from the date they have completed six and nine years of service with consequential benefits has been turned down.3. We will take the facts of OA-1299/2006 as the lead case for convenience.4. Applicants, who joined the service with Computer Centre in 1983, have been by their nomenclature designated as Punch Card Operators but with the introduction of electronic technology and card systems in the field of computers adopted the trade of Electronic Data was kept open to be decided by a special committee by the IV Pay Commission.Accordingly, a committee, namely Seshagiri Committee was constituted, ...

H.K. Gupta Son of Shri R.K. Das Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicants, Junior Engineers (JEs) in CPWD, seek re-calculation of vacancies w.e.f. 1.4.1999 to 31.3.2002 and consequent promotion as a result of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) 2002 in the additional vacancies so made available with declaration of result dated 17.3.2003.2. Brief factual matrix transpires that applicants who are JEs (Civil) their next avenue for promotion as per Group 'B' Service Recruitment Rules, 1997 of Central Engineering Group 'B' is to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil), which is filled 50% from seniority quota having 8 years' regular service as JE and 50% by LDCE to be conducted by CPWD. The LDCE conducted for the year 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 shown total 131 vacancies, out of which 58 to be filled in 2000-2001 and 73 in 2001-2002. Applicants, who appeared for LDCE 2002, of which result was declared on 17.3.2003 in which applicants secured 501 and 511 for the year 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 respectively and could not come within the zone ...

Sh. Siddharth Nagpal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Anil Kumar, J.1. The petitioner has sought quashing of the demand letter dated 21.6.2004 issued by the respondent No. 2, Deputy Land and Development Officer imposing excess penalty rates with retrospective effect and a direction to the respondent No. 2 to refund the excess amount charged from the petitioner as penalty.2. Brief facts to appreciate the controversies are that properties bearing No. J-3(B) and J-3(C) were allotted to Shri Jairam Dass Nagpal, grandfather of the petitioner, by a perpetual lease deed dated 18.2.1971 executed by Shri Jairam Dass Nagpal and the Land and Development Officer, on behalf of the President of India, Lesser.3. It is contended by the petitioner that after the demise of Shri Jairam Dass, rights in the property devolved upon him and the property was mutated in his name in 1983, under the guardianship of his father as the petitioner was a minor at that time. The petitioner further submitted that the plot bearing No. J-3(B) was constructed upon by Late Jai...

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Nath Traders and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 137(2007)DLT631; (2007)IILLJ744Del

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 3rd November, 2000 passed by Employees Provident Funds' Appellate Tribunal( in short ' the Tribunal) whereby the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the respondents and set aside the order dated 7th October, 1999 passed under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952( hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Briefly the facts are that an inspection of the premises of the respondents was conducted by the members of the Squad, under Provident Funds Commissioner, and the squad recommended the applicability of the Act to M/s Nath Oil Company and Nath Trading, stating that the two establishments were one. The enquiry conducted by the Regional Provident Funds' Commissioner, after the report of the squad, revealed that Nath Trading and Nath Oil Company were operating from the same premises at 14, Kailash Colony, New Delhi 110048 and there was only on...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Jcbl Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order in appeal dated 31-8-2004.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the factory premises of the respondents were visited by the preventive staff and documents were seized. On the scrutiny of the documents, it was noticed by the officers that the respondent had availed Modvat credit on some of the documents under which no inputs could be received by them. On being pointed out by the officers, the respondent deposited the entire amount of Cenvat credit. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent which was adjudicated by the adjudicating authority and the amount of duty demanded was confirmed and amount paid by the respondents was appropriated. In addition to the appropriation, the adjudicating authority imposed penalty and also sought interest. The respondent deposited the entire amount of interest involved on such demand and also 25% of the amount of penalty as per the proviso to Section 11AC of Central Exci...