Delhi Court November 2006 Judgments

inter Metal Trade Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(115)ECC45

1. The appellant challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the confiscation of the goods and imposing the reduced penalty of Rs.20,000/-.2. The appellant company was engaged in the manufacture of zinc ingots and zinc ash and availed modvat credit in respect of the inputs. During the surprise visit by the preventive officers of the excise department on 15.03.2000, it transpired, on physical verification of the finished goods and raw material in presence of Shri Rajeev Sharma, the authorized signatory of the appellant company and two independent pancha witnesses, that zinc ingots were in excess to the extent of 28,277 kgs. while there was a shortage of zinc ash to the extent of 1,33,843 kgs. We are not concerned with zinc ash because that aspect has been decided in favour of the assessee and there is no appeal by the revenue.2.1 It was found on stock verification and sample weighment of ingots that there was excess stock of 1088 Nos. of zinc ingots weighing 26117 kgs....

Ram Babu Kesarwani Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These three Misc. applications are for joining the applicant as a party to Appeal No. E/2318/06-SM. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellants is that the appeal filed by Shri Madan Babu Kesarwani, if allowed, may affect the applicants rights. It is also their submission that their several outstanding amounts may be affected if the appeal of Shri Madan Babu Kesarwani is allowed.2. The Counsel Shri S.N. Ojha, who appears for Madan Babu Kesarwani submits that the applicants are not at all affected in the absence of any grievance. Their coming in appeal does not arise. He draws my attention to Rule 12 of the (CEGAT) Procedure Rules, which clearly indicates that if no order is passed against current applicants, no appeal lies.3. The learned DR leaves it to the Bench. It is the contention of the Counsel for the appellant that in the ground of appeal they had taken a ground that the current appellant has no right to file appeal.4. Considered the submissions made in d...

Amrit Engg. and Foundry Works Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(115)ECC36

1. These two stay applications are directed against the order in appeal dated 11.8.06 that upheld the order in originals confirming the demand and imposing penalties. Since the issue is in a narrow compass, the condition of pre-deposit of penalties is waived and appeal itself is taken up for disposal.2. Considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the record. The issue for consideration is regarding denial of modvat credit on the finished goods manufactured and cleared by him to their purchase Rs. The purchasers did not avail the modvat credit on these goods cleared by the appellants. At the same time, rejected part consignment, back to appellant. The appellant availed the credit on such quantity under Central Excise Rules. The appellant is required to follow the procedure as per the Trade Notice issued by the jurisdictional Commissioner under the provision of Sub-rule (3) of Rules. I find that the office of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jalandhar gave post fact...

Nagendra Sharma S/O Shri Sahab Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. Judicial activism has been commented upon recently by the Apex Court. In a judicial review, nothing precludes the Tribunal to go into the manner in which the decision-making process has taken place on Executive side and whether the discretion has been exercised judiciously or not? 3. An antithesis to good administration is invidious discrimination.When two persons are similarly situated meeting out differential treatment would go to the route and in a policy decision as to even trading on the turf occupied by the administrative prerogative would be permissible if the decision of the administration is against the Constitution or violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India.4. In this view of the matter, applicant, who is working as Senior Trains Clerk (STNC), assails an order passed by the respondents whereby on rejecting his request for refusal to Head Trains Clerk (HTNC), he has been proposed to be proceeded against in a disciplinary proceeding.5. Learned Counsel for applicant...

Mahavir S/O Shri Ram Swaroop, Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through (the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. Grant of temporary status to a casual labour does not involve a pre-requisite fulfillment of eligibility criteria laid down under the recruitment rules. It will be material only when a casual worker with temporary status is considered for regularization against a Group 'D' post as per DOPT OM of 10.9.1993.3. In the above backdrop, non-consideration of the applicant and cancellation of his candidature for the post of Safaiwala, as being not qualified educationally having not passed the 5th class, is the grievance in the present OA.4. Learned Counsel for applicant states that the applicant, who had been working on muster roll since 1.1.1989 and having been accorded temporary status on 31.3.2000 has a right to be considered for regularization and rather to be appointed against a substantive group 'D' post even according to the Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors..5. Learned Counsel would further contend that reject...

insp. Sarwan Kumar (Pis No. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Its

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By virtue of this OA, applicant, an Inspector in Delhi Police has assailed an order passed by the respondents after a departmental enquiry (DE), imposing upon him a major punishment, which is multiple in nature with treatment of suspension as not spent on duty. Also assailed is an order passed in appeal on 29.4.2003, affirming the punishment.2. The following allegations have been alleged against applicant in the DE: You, S.I. Shatrughan No. 3031/D and Insp. Sarwan Kumar No. D-I/818 while posted at P.S. Patel Nagar were on patrolling duty on the night between 30/31-3-98 in the area of P.S. P.S. Patel Nagar. You, S.I. Shatrughan were asked by Insp. Hari Darshan SHO/Ashok Vihar and Insp. Ravinder Kumar, Addl. SHO/Ashok Vihar to accompany them for a raid. You S.I. Shatrughan accompanied them to House No. 2112/1-A, Prem Nagar where a raid was conducted and illicit liquor was recovered. You, S.I. Shatrughan were directed to call senior officers on the spot in view of recovery from the ar...

Khazani Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Arun theraja and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. This complaint has been instituted by the legal heirs of the deceased Mr. Bale Ram, against the O.P. 2 hospital and O.P. 1 the operating doctor on account of whose negligence the deceased expired during the operation and have claimed Rs. 18,18,676 with 18% interest as compensation and Rs. 9 lacs as damages with pendente lite interest and costs. 2. Case of the complainant, in brief, is that on 25.11.1995 he developed some pain in his throat and to get the proper medical treatment and checking drove his two-wheeler scooter along with his wife, complainant No. 1 and reached ENT Shardha Gynae Centre, O.P. No. 2 located at J-9, RBI Colony, Outer Ring Road, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi between 1.00 p.m. and 1.30 p.m. He was examined by Dr. Arun Theraja, O.P. No. 1 in the said hospital and the doctor after examining the deceased informed the complainant No. 1 and the deceased that there was some blockage in the throat of the deceased and some minor operation will have t...

Sun Vacuum Former Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(116)ECC125

1. This appeal is listed on remand by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, on an appeal by revenue. Hon'ble High Court has passed the following order: In view of judgment rendered, today, in C.E.A. No. 13 of 2005 (Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-Ill v. Machine Montell (I) Ltd. and Anr.), to the extent the penalty and interest levied on the assessee have been set-aside because the duty was deposited before issue of show cause notice and remand the case back to the Tribunal for fresh decision on merits and in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal for further proceedings on 4.9.2006.2. The issue involved in this case is regarding the amount of the penalty and the interest i.e. payable by the appellant. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the non-payment of the duty, for non-inclusion the amount of customs duty, as moulds given to them for manufacturing of components by Maruti Udyog Ltd. was totally unin...

Cce Vs. Jadia Pipes (India) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(115)ECC272

2. The relevant fact that arise for consideration are officers of the Central Excise Division, Rohtak visited the unit of the respondent and during the course of investigation, they found that there was a shortage of raw material on which credit was availed by the respondent.The respondent immediately reversed the amount of credit involved.Subsequently a show cause notice was issued for imposition of penalty and for appropriation of the amount paid by the respondent.Adjudicating authority appropriated the amount of the demand and also imposed equivalent amount of penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On an appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order in original to the extent it imposed equivalent amount of penalty. Aggrieved by such order, revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal and Tribunal vide its order dated 01/06/05 modified the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and reduced the penalty to Rs. 15,000/-.The revenue feeling aggrieved approached the ...

Shri Devanand, Staff Car Driver Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. By virtue of this OA, applicant impugns respondents order dated 18.9.2006 whereby his appeal made against rejection to change the inquiry officer has been turned down.3. Learned Counsel for applicant would contend that right from the initiation the inquiry officer is acting de hors the Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, as he has, on the first date, mentioned that no separate information would be sent to the defence assistant and the matter would be proceeded ex parte if the delinquent does not appear in the preliminary hearing. A representation preferred for change of inquiry officer was to the effect that as the charges emanate from the fact that the applicant had been working as Driver of the President of CESTAT, any inquiry officer appointed, who is subordinate to the President, would not be acting independently and accordingly, it is prayed that an outside officer of CESTAT be appointed as an inquiry officer.4. The aforesaid request has been turned down as the erstwhile inquiry...