Delhi Court March 2006 Judgments

Gujarat Pickers Inds. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. (Prev.)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC357

1. This is an appeal against order-in-original dt. 29-1-05 wherein the adjudicating authority has confiscated the Heavy Melting Scrap under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 2,80,000/- and also imposed the penalty of Rs. one lakh under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act on the appellant.2. The issue involved in this case is in very narrow campus. The appellant imported Heavy Melting Scrap from Sudan and filed a Bill of Entry. The appellant did not produce any Pre-shipment Inspection Certificate to state that the consignment did not contain any type of arms, ammunition, mines, shells, cartridges etc. A SCN was issued to the appellant after physical examination of the goods imported. The adjudicating authority came to the conclusion that the appellants have violated the provisions of para 2.32 of the Handbook of Procedure of Foreign Trade Policy 2004-09 and vide his order-in-original confiscated goods and imposed t...

Jagnnath Steel (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC416

1. This appeal is directed against the order in appeal dated 16/9/93, which upholds the adjudication order wherein the demand was confirmed and penalty imposed against appellants.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the officers of the central excise visited the factory premises of the appellants, on 10/1/96 and authority found finished goods 25,389 M.T.of steel ingots short. The officers again visited the appellant's factory premises again found 50.0 M.T. of MS ingots physically against the recorded balance of 402.389 M.T. of ingots in RG-I. Hence total shortage of 352.389 was registered and a show cause notice was issued to the appellants demanding the duty on such short found finished goods and penalty was sought to be imposed. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and also imposed penalty on the appellants. On an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the appellant by way remand, directing the adjudicating authority to consider th...

Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Under the Sub-rule (5) of Rule 57C of the Central Excise Rules of 1944, it is provided that credit shall not be taken by the manufacturer after six months of the date of issue of any document specified in Sub-rule (3) and whether the intermediate products manufactured by the user of inputs specified under Rule 57-J are received by the manufacturer, after nine months.2. In the present case, the issue involved is about computing of the period of six months. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the phrase "after six months of the date of issue of any document", will be construed so as to mean six months after the date of issue of such document, while according to the learned Authorised Representative for the department this phrase should be construed so as to mean computing the period of six months from the date of issue of document itself. The credit has been taken on 28-11-96 in respect of six invoices dated 28-9-97. The said phrase is prima-facie capable of the meani...

Mahavir Industomelt Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT520TriDel

1. The appellant imported the vessel 'M.V. BHAVABHUTI' for breaking.The vessel was purchased from Shipping Corporation of India. The dispute in the present appeal is with regard to levy of duty on the ship and its stores.2. The dispute with regard to bunker is that the same was taken only at Porbunder and therefore, no duty was leviable on it. The contention is that since the vessel was sold at Porbunder any bunker taken thereafter cannot be treated as imported and subjected to duty. On the contrary, revenue authorities have held that vessel remained foreign going until it reached the breaking yard at Alang. It is their contention that the store is to be assessed at Alang, where bill of entry was filed for the purpose of clearance and payment of duty. The impugned order also points out that the appellant has failed to show that the bunker collected at Porbunder was duty paid. Even in the present appeal, the appellant is 13/200/3 not able to show whether the bunker in question was duty...

Shri Pradeep K. Chhabra, Sub

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant, in this O.A. challenges the impugned communication dated 20.4.2005 (Annexure A-1), rejecting his request for revision of pay-scale of DEO `B Grade with effect from 1.1.1986 made vide representation dated 7.2.2005, stating that the request has been examined at the appropriate level and it has been decided that the benefits of the judgment of the Tribunal/ Court are restricted to the applicants only as 'no general instructions have been issued by the Government of India for extending the benefits to the non-applicants.He further seeks a direction to the respondents to grant the re-designated category of DEO `B to him with effect from 1.1.1986 or from the date of appointment, whichever is later with consequential benefits.2. Admitted facts of the case are that based on the recommendations of the 4th Central Pay Commission, Sheshadiri Committee was set up and based on its recommendations, EDP cadres were rationalized vide Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure office...

Narayan Diwakar Vs. C.B.i.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT258; 2006(88)DRJ78

R.C. Jain, J.1. The petitioner, who was a member of Indian Administrative Services (1969 Batch), and retired from the said service on 30.6.2004 on attaining the age of superannuation, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuing a writ/order or direction to quash 30 FIRs, fully detailed in Annexure P-5 to the petition, and any other FIR(s) registered by the respondent/CBI in respect of the revival of the Co-operative Group Housing Societies (in short 'CGHS') during the tenure of the petitioner as Registrar Co-operative Societies, Delhi ('RCS') from March, 2001 to 30th June, 2004 or for deletion of his name from the said FIRs.2. Before adverting to the various grounds and pleas on which the quashing of the said FIRs is being sought, it will be useful to notice the background which formed the genesis for the registration of the said FIRs. A Division Bench of this Court, seized of a WP(C) 10066/2004, titled as Yogi Raj Kr...

Om Pal Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(88)DRJ759; 2007(1)SLJ502(Delhi)

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner, Mr. Om Pal Singh, has questioned and challenged the virus of Rule 16 including the sub rules of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, for short). He has also impugned the orders passed by the Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, pursuant to which he was awarded the punishment of removal from service and the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing his original application.2. The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in Delhi Police on 1.8.1984. It is alleged that he willfully absented himself from duty w.e.f. 10.2.1999. The petitioner did not send any information/medical papers or move any application requesting for leave. Absentee notice dated 23.2.1999 was issued to him and was served upon his wife. Thereafter, another notice dated 10.3.1999 was issued to him directing him to resume duties. The petitioner sent ...

Sher Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Thr. Defense Secretary and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(88)DRJ468

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The petitioner Mr. Sher Singh has filed this writ petition against the order dated 11th September, 2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing the original application being OA NO. 274/2003 and against the order dated 14th October, 2003 dismissing his review application. By the impugned order dated 11th September, 2003 learned Tribunal has, inter alia, held that the petitioner cannot claim back wages or promotion as civilian staff officer on ad hoc basis from 15th May, 1997 to 10th August, 2001 on the basis that a junior to the petitioner was allowed to officiate at the said post during this period.2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of the resolving the present controversy are as under. 3. The petitioner joined Armed Forces headquarters as an ad hoc Lower Division Clerk on 7th February, 1964. His services were later on regularised with effect from 21st April, 1965. The petitioner's seniority was fixed on the basis of his date of re...

Harvans Kumari and ors. Vs. Sharda Aggarwal and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT299

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. C.M.(M) 113 of 1994 is directed against judgment dated 16.9.1993 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') in R.C.A. No. 228 of 1992 whereby the learned Tribunal has, while adjudicating on an order in appeal dated 1.4.1992 passed by the Additional Rent Controller dismissing the eviction petition, concurred with the same and held that interest on arrears of rent is not part of rent.2. Counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice a judgment of this court in Ram Perkash v. D.N. Srivastava 2006 Rajdhani Law Reporter 58 where a contrary view has been taken by the High Court. In that view of the matter, the judgment under challenge is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal to decide in accordance with law.3. C.M.(M) 113 of 1994 is allowed and disposed of. Parties to appear before the Tribunal on 16th March, 2006....

Dr. Devinder Gupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT337

Markandeya Katju, C.J. 1. This writ petition has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation praying for a writ of quo warranto for quashing the appointment of respondent No. 3 as the Secretary of the Medical Council of India. 2. In our opinion, the petitioner does not have any locus standi to file this writ petition.3. In para 2 of the writ petition he has stated that :-That the Petitioner is a practicing General Surgeon who is also holding a degree of PhD in Law. His name has been entered into Limca Book of records for this unique achievement. He is a social activist and has written his thesis on the subject of female feticide and inadequacies & fallacies in the laws controlling the medical field. Petitioner is called as a guest to deliver lectures on Medico-legal aspects in the field of Medicine practice. Petitioner is concerned with the major fallacies in the constitution, working of the respondent No. 2 and the rules & regulations which are responsible for the falling standards of ...