Delhi Court May 2006 Judgments

D.M. International Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both the sides and perused record. The dispute is about assessable value for the purpose of customs duty in regard to two imports made by the appellants in February, 2004. The consignments in question were of polypropylene sheets weighing 21.081 MT. The goods were imported from Taiwan. The appellants declared the transaction value of US $ 450 per MT and produced invoices in support of that price. Customs authorities rejected the transaction value for the purpose of valuation of the consignments and assessed at US $ 750 per MT. The appellant was served no show cause notice proposing rejection of transaction value. Nor was there any material adduced for the purpose of assessing at US $ 750 per MT.2. Against the above assessment, an appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeals with the following observation: - The appellant had filed two Bills of entry No. 373913 and 373914 both dated 17-2-2004 for clearance of PP Sheets in ...

Risansi Industries Limited and Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC120

1. These appeals are directed against the order of the Commissioner confirming the demand of Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 56,90,146/- wrongly availed and utilized in a fraudulent manner under Rule 12 of Cenvat Credit Rule, 2002 read with Rule 11(A) of the Central Excise Act and imposing a penalty of the like amount. The Managing Director has in his appeal challenged the penalty of Rs. 5 lacs imposed on him under Rule 26 of the Rules, 2002 read with Rule 209A of the Central Excise rules, 1944.2. According to the Revenue, the appellant company was engaged in the manufacture of pumps, hammers & knives and other excisable goods and was availing credit of Cenvat paid on inputs used in the manufacture of such goods. An intelligence was received to the effect that the applicant was fraudulently availing Cenvat credit without actually receiving the inputs in the factory and without using the same in the manufacture of goods which were manufactured by them. The applicant had by its lette...

Dr. R.S. Tiwary Vs. Union of India and ors. Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant through this OA impugns the order dated 23.8.2004 whereby his request for waiving of recovery of Rs. 31928/- as an excess payment of gratuity has been turned down.2. Facts, which are undisputed, transpire that the applicant having served the Army joined ICMR and was permanently absorbed on 1.2.1991.The option accorded to retain military pension and gratuity resulted in exercise under Rule 19 (1) (a) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for short 'Rules 1972'). On retirement on superannuation from ICMR on 28.2.2002, he was paid pro-rata pension and DCRG amounting to Rs. 292040/-. The applicant was asked on 17.2.2003 to refund an amount of Rs. 31928/- as an excess payment of DCRG. Applicant resultantly filed OA-1672/2003 raising an issue regarding retention of gratuity and non-applicability of the limit of Rs. 3.5 lacs as gratuity to the civil servant. The said OA was disposed of on 11.3.2004 to examine the plea of recovery under Rule 64 of the Rules 1972.3. As a result thereo...

Shri Jasbir Singh Rawat S/O Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi), (Through th ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By the present OA, challenge is made to order dated 17.07.2002 passed by Sr. Divisional Operating Manager, Ambala, inflicting punishment of dismissal from service, modified vide appellate order dated 11.09.2002, taking a sympathetic view, reinstating him in grade of Rs. 4,000-6,000/- at basic pay of Rs. 4,000/- in the post of Shunting Jamadar, as up-held by dismissing revision petition by the Chief Operating Manager (G), Northern Railway, Delhi, vide order dated 09.05.2003.2. The facts of case as stated are that Memorandum under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, was issued on 23/31.1.2002 alleging grave negligence, carelessness and serious misconduct. The article of charge reads as under: On 16/1/02 Guard Sh. J.S. Rawat was booked to work 312 Dn passenger train ex UMB to SRE as per link. Departure signals were lowered at 16.50 hrs. but Shri J.S. Rawat failed to give start signal to his train driver even for fifteen minutes. On receiving information...

Dr. (Mrs.) Neena Sharma Vs. Director General, Employees

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Through this OA applicant has assailed Annexure A-1 dated 17.11.2003 conveying to applicant that her name has not been recommended for promotion to the post of CMO by the DPC.2. According to applicant, after completing ten years of regular service as IMO Grade-II w.e.f. 14.5.2004, she became eligible under the rules for promotion to CMO in grade Rs. 12000-375-18000. She is aggrieved that while she was considered unfit for promotion by the DPC held on 29.7.2003, her junior, respondent No. 3, Dr. Ashwani Kumar Chawla, was promoted to the post of CMO. She is stated to have made representations against her non-promotion which did not yield any satisfactory response from respondents.3. The learned Counsel of applicant stated that applicant had received adverse remarks in her ACR for the year 1998-99 which were expunged before the date of DPC meeting. Apart from this, there were no adverse remarks according to applicant. The learned Counsel stated that from the period 1997-98 to 2001-02,...

Lloyd Insulation (India) Ltd. Vs. Ntpc and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2007)BC411

ORDERMadan B. Lokur, J.1. Since learned Counsel for the caveator has put in appearance, the caveat stands disposed of.OMP194/20062. The petitioner has filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for an interim measure restraining respondent No. 1 (NTPC) from invoking or encashing four bank guarantees given for performance of the contract between the parties. It is also prayed that respondent No. 2 bank be restrained from making any payment in respect of the these bank guarantees.3. NTPC awarded a contract to the petitioner for supply and installation of fireproof cable penetration sealing system for its thermal plant in Uttar Pradesh.4. According to the petitioner, it completed the work under the contract as per the technical specifications stipulated therein to the satisfaction of NTPC in March, 2003. This is so stated by the petitioner in paragraph 5 of the petition. The additional work was also completed in March, 2004 and thereafter joint measurem...

Director of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs. Prakash Education Society

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Del)243; [2006]286ITR288(Delhi)

ORDERBy The CourtThe respondent-assessed is running an educational institution for the past many years. It has been allowed exemption under section 10(22) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') from payment of tax ever since the assessment year 1986-87. For the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97, the assessing officer declined exemption under the provision mentioned above on the ground that the assessed was a profit making organisation and that the same did not exist solely for educational purpose. In support, the assessing officer relied upon investments made by the respondent in three different companies of Birla Group, namely, Kesoram Industries K. Ltd., Padmavati Rage Cotton Mills and Rajeshwari Polyfil Ltd., for the years 1991-92, 1994-95.2. Aggrieved by the above order the assessed went up in appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) who upon an appraisal of the available material came to the conclusion that the society existed only for educational purpos...

Abdul Kalam Vs. State (Government of Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2007)ACC794; 2006CriLJ3071; 129(2006)DLT613; (2006)144PLR33

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 3.10.2002 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate whereby the petitioner has been served with notice under Sections 288/338 IPC. The learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the complainant, namely, Mohd Shamshad, was engaged to do some plastering work at the residence of the petitioner. While doing the plastering work, the said Mohd Shamshad is alleged to have fallen down from the scaffolding which had been put up for the purposes of carrying out the plastering work. It is alleged that the scaffolding was not made secure enough to ensure that nobody falls and injures himself while working on it. There is no other allegation against the petitioner.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the allegations as stated, the petitioner cannot be regarded as having committed any offence under Section 288 IPC. He submitted that this provision, i.e., Section 288 IPC requires th...

Rahman Exports (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(109)ECC635

1. The appellants had imported Mould Doctor with accessories from Korea and filed bill of entry No. 530966 dated 7.8.2003 classifying the goods under Customs Tariff heading 8453.9090 claiming concessional rate of duty vide Sl No. 257 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus and claiming the goods as moulds for leather footwear mentioned at Sl No. 265 of List 34, relevant to Serial No. 257 of Notification No. 21/2002. Since from the description of the goods given in Bill of Entry, the classification and claim for exemption was not clear, the appellants were asked to submit the documents for proper classification and for examining the exemption applicable for the goods. The commercial invoice was filed by the appellants on enquiry from the customs. The catalogue of the goods revealed that the goods were tools and were not moulds for leather footwear. Therefore, the first check examination was ordered for classification. Instead of getting the goods examined, the appellants vide their letter date...

Gopsons Papers Ltd., Shri NitIn Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(109)ECC649

1. The main dispute in all these appeals is the correct classification of the items produced by the appellant. The appellant imports thermal paper. It is classified under heading 4811.90 at the time of import. At the import stage, the paper is in jumbo rolls.2. In terms of specific orders from their customers, the appellant makes paper rolls out of imported jumbo rolls. The size specified in one such order is 3.5 cm wide. Thus, the width falls from that of a jumbo roll packing to 3.25". Before slitting into such small width rolls, the appellant prints the particulars as ordered by its clients on the paper. The printing is mostly rules and regulations of lottery tickets. We may reproduce one such printed material: For information How To Win please refer to the playslip. Please write your name and sign the receipt below as proof of ownership. HOW TO CLAIM PRIZES: Prizes up to Rs. 5,000 can be paid by any licensed Playwin retailer. If the prize totals more than Rs. 5,000 the retailer wil...