Delhi Court December 2006 Judgments

Nagender Singh, Ex. Constable of Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. This application has assailed the legality, validity and propriety of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police dated 15.3.2005 whereby and whereunder his representation purportedly submitted to the respondent-authorities was rejected. It is alleged in the application that while the applicant was posted as a Constable, a false case being FIR No. 2/97 under Section 409 IPC was registered against him in P.S. Chanakya Puri. Thereafter, disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. The applicant's sole grievance is that although on the same and identical facts the criminal case was pending trial but the respondent authorities in the hot haste, proceeded against him in the departmental proceedings and recorded an order of dismissal. At the initial stage, the applicant stated that he would be prejudiced in the event he is asked to take part in the departmental proceedings but since the respondent-authorities did not pay any attention to his request, he found no other way...

Ram Karan Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(2)SLJ307CAT

1. Applicant, who retired on superannuation as Deputy Director (Horticulture) on 31.1.2006, by virtue of this O.A. has assailed a memorandum issued to him a day before his superannuation, i.e. on 30.1.2006, initiating disciplinary proceedings against him for a major penalty under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Quashing of the memorandum with release of retiral benefits is also one of the reliefs claimed for.2. Applicant while working as Deputy Director, the post which he has earned on excellent service record for the purpose of superannuation, has been accorded vigilance clearance on 12.1.2005, whereby it is certified that against him neither there is any vigilance case pending or being contemplated. However, this vigilance certificate was cancelled and withdrawn on 27.1.2006.3. A day before the retirement on 30.1.2006, Under Secretary to the Government of India, without satisfying as to whether the proceedings have been initiated on behalf of the President being the Appointing...

Ramakant Sharma S/O Shri Suraj Pd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Ramakant Sharma, Senior Mail Sorter (RMS), Jhansi, in this OA seeks quashing of penalty as imposed vide order dated 03.1.2005 making recovery of Rs. 41,473/- @ Rs. 1,000/- per month being the alleged loss suffered by the Department in Court proceedings etc. namely OA No.2107/2002 [Mithlesh Kumar v. Union of India]. Statutory appeal preferred was dismissed vide order dated 30.08.2005 passed by Director, Postal Services, Agra Region, Agra.2. Factual matrix is that a charge memorandum under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was issued by the Superintendent, Railway Mail Service, "X" Division, Jhansi vide memorandum dated 17.6.2004 for an incident dated 2nd/3rd January 2002. In brief while working as Mail SA in X-25/2 IN on 03.1.2002, he received a ML from RPD Lucknow to X-25 IN having total X/12 = 12 alongwith bags through MA Lucknow RMS/3 dated 02.1.2002 but he failed to dispatch RP bag for Kanpur RMS which was entered at SL No. -2 of the said ML due to which the disposal of the conte...

Yogesh Auto Centre Vs. Bses Yamuna Power Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Complaint of the appellant subsequent to the settlement arrived at between the parties in an earlier complaint whereby the appellant was allowed to make payment of the bills raised by the respondent in three equal instalments was dismissed vide impugned order dated 29.7.2005 on the ground that non-payment of the 3rd instalment by the appellant did not entitle the appellant to file a fresh complaint. 2. The grievance of the appellant raised through this appeal can be redressed by allowing to make payment of 3rd instalment in respect of the agreed amount of Rs. 26,955 against bill of Rs. 44,925 within two months and till then the electricity connection shall not be disconnected. 3. It is made clear that if there is fresh bill raised upon the respondent on the allegations of theft as stated by the Counsel for the appellant, the District Forum may entertain such a complaint by treating it as a fresh complaint and not a complaint bearing Case No. 82/2005. 4. The a...

Ajay Somani and Company Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)9STJ65CESTATNew(Delhi)

2. The issue involved of this case is regarding the enhancement of penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 by the Commissioner as a revising authority. The appellant is a Chartered Accountant engaged in providing the services of chartered accountant services and during the period October to December 2001 and April to June 2002, delayed the payment of service-tax by almost 88 days in both the quarters. Show cause notice was issued to him for imposition of penalty on the delayed payment on the service tax as per the provisions of Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. Adjudicating authority imposed the penalty of Rs. 500/- on the appellant under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. Appellant did not prefer any appeal against such order. The learned Commissioner as a revisionary authority issued show cause notice to the appellant indicating his intention to review the said order in original. Appellant did not appear before the revisionary authority nor did he file any written sub...

Eicher Motors Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)14STT169

1. When the stay application came up for consideration, both sides agreed that the appeal itself may be disposed of. Accordingly, requirement for pre-deposit is waived and we proceed with the appeal.2. The appeal is directed against demand for Service tax. The alleged service was rendered in terms of two agreements dated 18th June 1999 and September 1996 between the appellant and M/s. AVL. Gesellschart Fuer and M/s. HLS Horsch Leue Schmidt. The proceedings before the lower authorities took place without considering these agreements as the appellant had not produced these agreements before those authorities.Therefore, it is necessary, that the original authority reconsiders the case in the light of these vital documents. The impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted to the original authority for fresh adjudication after taking into account these agreements which shall be produced by the appellant within two weeks from today....

Gupta Tobacco Company Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(115)ECC32

1. This appeal is listed for hearing on the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Central Excise Appeal No. 12 of 2005 decided on 31/07/06. The Hon'ble High Court has directed the Tribunal as under: We allow this appeal, set aside order of the Tribunal and remand the case to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on the question of levy of penalty. If it is held that levy of penalty is warranted having regard to the requirements of the statute, the Tribunal will be bound to levy penalty equal to the amount of duty. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal for further proceedings on October 9, 2006.2. The relevant fact that arise for consideration are the appellants were manufacturers of Tobacco and were registered under the Central Excise Act. The officers of the Anti Evasion visited the appellant's factory on 08/06/2001, on the physical stock checking, it was noticed that there was a shortage of finished goods. The appellant deposited the e...

Munshi Ram Tilak Ram and anr. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(115)ECC108

1. These two appeals are directed against the order-in-appeal dated 23^rd October 2003 that upheld the order-in-original, which confirmed the demand, confiscated the seized" goods and imposed penalties. Since both the appeals are arising out of same impugned order they are disposed off by a common order.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the officers of Anti-evasion Central Excise, Jorhat visited the premises of M/s Shivam and found 'Bandar" branded tobacco for which the owner could not produce any duty paying documents. The said goods wee seized and records were resumed which revealed that 60 bags of tobacco were booked from Punjab and were lying in the godown of transporter. The officers also visited the said transporter and they found that 40 bags of Bandar branded tobacco without any duty paying documents, which were seized.Statement of the proprietor of M/s Shivam was recorded, who stated that the Bandar branded tobacco was purchased by him from M/s Rahul...

G.K. Raju, Afle (Chinese) Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this second round of litigation, applicant challenges impugned memorandum dated 10.05.2006, reiterating earlier transfer order.Applicant also challenges Memorandum dated 15.05.2006 enclosing aforesaid Memorandum dated 10.05.2006, as the same could not be served upon him due to his proceeding on 26 days earned leave w.e.f.08.05.2006.2. Admitted facts are that applicant initially joined Intelligence Bureau in the year 1989 as ACIO-I, and promoted in the year 1996. He was posted at IB Headquarters from May 1996 to April 2006, & is presently holding Group-A Gazetted post of Assistant Foreign Language Expert (hereinafter referred as AFLE) in pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/-.Initially vide order dated 05.12.2005, he was transferred to Itanagar (North East), which was modified to Kolkata. OA No. 339/2006 was instituted challenging aforesaid transfer on the ground of discrimination etc. Said OA was disposed of vide order dated 30.03.2006 noticing his undertaking that he would join new ...

Pyarelal Coir Products (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(114)ECC336

1. In this appeal the appellant challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) made on 30.9.2004, upholding the order in original by which the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 54000/- under Rule 9(2) of the central Excise Rules, 1944, read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, due to non-accountal of 1500 Kgs. of primary foam blocks valued at Rs. 1,80,000/- 2. In the show cause notice dated 25.4.1995, the appellant was called upon to show cause as to why duty amounting to Rs. 54000/- on 1500 Kgs.primary foam blocks, said to have been destroyed in the fire accident on 5th/6th December, 1994, should not be demanded under Rule 9(2).2.1 In their reply to the show cause notice, it was contended by the assessee that the accident was caused due to chemical reaction of the inputs that had gone into the final product, which awaited further processing on it, such as cutting of block of foam into sheets etc. It was contended that the combustion due to chemical r...