Delhi Court February 2006 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bajaj Carpets

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Revenue's grievance in this appeal is that the Commissioner did not take penal action against the assessee for failure to enter daily production in the RG-1 record, and for taking ineligible Modvat credit on capital goods. The findings of the Commissioner on these two issues are as under : 13. I find that the party have themselves admitted that RG 1 Register was not written for nearly one and a half months. The reason they have given against this is that the concerned officer was busy and occupied with some additional work. Moreover, they have also submitted that there was no intention to evade payment of duty as the clearance have been made after issuing of necessary invoices and making the necessary payments of duty. Consequently, a lenient view in the matter may be taken. In view of the facts of circumstances of this case, I am inclined to take a lenient view in the matter and drop the proceeding on this account but at the same time caution the party to be more carefully in futu...

Ajmer Zila Ex-serviceman Welfare Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 14,87,452/- and the penalty.2. The contention of the applicant is that the applicant is welfare co-operative society for the welfare of ex-serviceman and provide employment to the Ex-serviceman, their widows and family members, etc.and they are retaining only 5% for the services provided by them for running their day to day affairs of the society. The applicant is not commercial concern. The applicant also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kerala State Ex-Service League v. CCE, Thiruvananthapuram . Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as the applicant is a cooperative society for the welfare of Ex-serviceman and not a commercial, the pre-deposit of the whole of demand of service tax and penalty are waived for hearing of the appeal. Stay petition is allowed....

Sharman Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 26,973/- and the penalty.3. The contention of the applicant is that in the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal holding that the appeal has no jurisdiction arising from the order passed by the adjudicating authority at Amritsar.4. The applicant relied upon the Notification No. 14/2002-C.E. (N.T.), dated 8-3-2002 to submit that the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar has jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The applicant also pointed out that the forwarding letter of adjudication order shows that the appeal lies to Commissioner (Appeals)/ Jalandhar/Head office/Ludhiana.5. We have gone through the impugned order. We find that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) referred to various notifications issued regarding jurisdiction of various Commissioner (Appeals). We find that if Commissioner (Appeals) has no jurisdiction to hear appeal against which the order passed by the Additi...

Dr. B.S. Phogat S/O Shri Daulat Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Transfer to NPPTI, Hyderabad vice Dr. Bhaskar Tripathi by an order dated 31.05.2005, is the grievance of the applicant.2. Brief factual matrix transpires that the applicant was appointed as Senior Scientific Officer (Bioassay) through Union Public Service Commission and was later on re-designated as Deputy Director in the Bioassay Division of CIL, Faridabad under the Insecticides Act, 1968.The Recruitment Rules for Sr. Scientific Officer (SSO Bio) prescribed qualification of MSc (Agriculture) in Agronomy (Herbicides) with minimum five years research experience. The specific duties attached with the post are to test the sample and study in Bioassay Division.Under the Insecticides Act, there are three units i.e. one CBI & RC and CIL located at Hyderabad and others are in Kanpur and Chandigarh. NPPTI at Hyderabad, which imparts training, is not formulated under Insecticides Act, 1968.3. In the wake of 5th Central Pay Commissions recommendations contained in para 56.21, Ministry of...

Dr. (Miss) Prabha Sharma Vs. Hon'Ble Lt. Governor Government

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By virtue of the present OA, the applicant seeks her pensionary benefits with 18% interest.2. The applicant was lastly promoted as a Reader w.e.f. 1.12.1996. As per amendment carried out by the Govt. of NCT on 21.7.1997 under Clause C of Section 16 of Tibbia College Act, 1952, fund-cum-pension-cum-gratuity was approved for the employees of Tibbia College. There was contributory fund of the Board to which every employee, who has completed more than 3 years service and whose pay is chargeable to regular establishment, was required to subscribe an equal amount, which shall be contributed by the Board. However, this CPF was transferred to the Employees Provident Fund Commissioner w.e.f.1.4.1982. In the year 1995, EPF came into force w.e.f. 16.11.1995. As Tibbia College was taken over by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi w.e.f.1.5.1998, the management of college was transferred to and vests absolutely in the Govt. Section 7 of Tibbia College Take-over Act, 1997 provides in relation to the emplo...

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)100TTJ(Delhi)1

1. Since common issues are involved, all these four appeals filed by the assessee are directed to be disposed of by a common order.2. The first ground in appeal for asst. yr. 1998-99 is against the disallowance of the licence fee amounting to Rs. 271,10,91,600 paid by the assessee to the Department of Telecommunication (DoT).3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is a public sector corporation incorporated on 28th Feb., 1986, for providing telecommunication services. It took over the management, control and operation of Delhi and Mumbai telecommunication Districts w.e.f. 1st April, 1986. The DoT in exercise of the power of the Central Government conferred under Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, granted licence vide letter No. 1-101/85-MTAC/PHB, dt. 27th March, 1986, to establish, maintain and work telecommunication services within the territorial jurisdiction of the Union Territory of Delhi and areas covered by the Municipal Corporation of Bomb...

Jt. Cit, Special Range, Vs. Mansurpur Sugar Mills Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)8SOT365(Delhi)

This appeal is preferred by the revenue against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), Muzaffarnagar dated 15-5-2000 and the only issue which arises for our consideration out of the same relating to the deduction on account of lease rent is raised by it in the following grounds : "1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 62,42,055 on account of disallowance of lease rentals paid in respect of plant and machinery taken on hire by relying on his appellate order for assessment year 1994-95 ignoring the fact that these payments are merely financial arrangements but have been given a colour of sale and lease back transactions and such expenditure is clearly inadmissible in view of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of McDowell and Co. v. CIT (1985) 154 ITR 146, It is also stated that the appellate orderrelied upon by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not been accepted by the department and an appeal has...

Ms J.K. Rowling and ors. Vs. Vikas Balwant Shukla and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 127(2006)DLT405

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is an application under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed jointly by the plaintiffs and the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 for recording of the compromise and for passing a decree in terms of paragraph 40 of the plaint in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 incorporating the terms of settlement as a part thereof. Insofar as the Defendant No. 1 is concerned, the claim of the plaintiffs has already been settled and/or compromised by virtue of an order dated 10.09.2003.2. During the pendency of the proceedings against the defendants 2 and 3, the parties have arrived at a settlement and have decided to compromise and settle the entire dispute in the present suit. The broad features of the settlement are that the defendants have acknowledged the plaintiff No. 1 to be the creator and author of several original literary works under the world famous Harry Potter Series for children. The defendants h...

Bentals Corporation Ltd. Vs. Smt. Kamlesh Rani

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 127(2006)DLT721; 2006(87)DRJ597; (2006)143PLR39

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This petition is directed against the orders of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, dated 28.4.2005 and 3.5.2005 whereby the learned Judge has, in his order, while disposing of a review, gone into details to show that the written statement filed by the petitioner cannot be termed as counter- claim and thereby dismissed the review petition.2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that on a bare reading of the written statement, the background stated therein and the prayer made at (c) together with the averments in paragraph (10), makes out a case of the petitioner by way of a counter-claim. He submits that the pleadings therein are sufficient and, thereforee, ought to have been treated as a counter-claim and a plaint as such. Deficiency in court fee would have been made with under Order 7 Rule 11(c) CPC. In support of his arguments, he relies upon a judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Smt. Parvathamma v. K.R. Lokanath and Ors. : AIR1991Kant283 .3. Counsel ...

Rajinder Singh Negi Vs. the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT133; (2006)143PLR12; 2007(1)SLJ264(Delhi)

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. Issue Rule. Mr. Vinay Sabharwal, counsel for the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the MCD) waives notice of rule. The petition was heard for final disposal.2. The writ petitioner joined services of the Delhi Development Authoriy(DDA) in 1976. He was selected and appointed to the post of LDC, in March, 1981; later, he was promoted as UDC in 1986. By an order dated 29-7-1991, the petitioner, along with nine others were transferred to MCD. The Slum and JJ Wing of the DDA was transferred, by general order dated 1-9-1992, to the MCD. It is averred that the petitioner qualified in a departmental examination for promotion to the post of Assistant, in DDA, on 21-4-2003; he later requested for his transfer to that organization. Apparently, the MCD accorded approval for the petitioner's regularization to the post of Assistant in 2003.3. The petitioner was arrested on 11-3-2005, for having committed offences under Sections 6 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,...