Delhi Court June 2006 Judgments

Talib Jamal S/O Sh. Syed Farooq Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicants have filed this OA for a direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the applicants as Graphic Artists in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600/- in terms of the Scheme for Regularization of Casual Production Assistants and General Assistants in All India Radio framed by the respondents, with all consequential benefits.2. The applicants have been working with the respondents as Urdu Graphic Artists since December, 1990. It is stated that even though their contract was to work for 10 days a month, it was subsequently increased to 20 days a month. However, in terms of actual working conditions they have been working for the whole month since May, 1992 when the Daily Urdu News bulletins were introduced. Thus, at the time of filing of the OA they had rendered more than 13 years of continuous service. They have, therefore, sought regularization of their services in terms of the Scheme for regularization of Casual Production Assistants and General Assistants in AIR...

Additional Commissioner of Vs. Glad Investments (P.) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)102ITD227(Delhi)

1. This appeal has been filed by the revenue on 28-6-2001 against the order of the learned CIT (Appeals)-I, New Delhi, dated 23-3-2001 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment order under Section 143(3) for assessment year 1997-98. In this appeal the revenue has taken following grounds of appeal: On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in: (i) holding that the amount of Rs. 29,08,03,436 on sale of shares, by the lender, of the NIIT shares owned by the appellant but pledged to the lender did not constitute capital gain exigible to tax in the appellant's hand. (ii) not applying the ratio of Supreme Court order reported at 227 ITR 240. (iii) ignoring the fact that the assessee can legally recover the amount of Rs. 29,06,97,940 from the third party for whose benefits the assessee pledged his shares and sale proceeds of which were appropriated by the financial institution. (iv) ignoring the provisions of Section 2(47) and Section 45. As per the ...

Ashok Soni Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)102TTJ(Delhi)964

1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dt. 8th Sept., 2002 of learned CIT(A)-XIX, New Delhi, relating to the asst, yr.1997-98.2. The facts and circumstances under which the present appeal arises are as follows. The assessee is an individual. He had filed a return of income declaring an income of Rs. 1,42,730. This income was nothing but the salary income from the firm M/s Super Chemical Distributors of which he was a partner and interest on capital contributed to the aforesaid firm. The return was accepted under Section 143(1) of the Act.3. In the course of assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) in the case of Super Chemical Distributors, the AO noticed that there was an addition of Rs. 19,30,000 to the capital account of the assessee as partner of M/s Super Chemical Distributor as appearing in the books of M/s Super Chemical Distributors. Rs. 18,00,000 out of the aforesaid addition was explained as contribution out of sale consideration received on sale of plot a...

Zia Ur Rehman Vs. State of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT635

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that a recovery of 375 grams of contraband substance is said to have been made from the appellant. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory indicates that the percentage content of diacetylmorphine in the recovered substance is 10.8%. thereforee, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the actual weight of diacetylmorphine in the recovered substance comes to 40.5 grams. The appellant has been convicted under Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act). He has been sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and Rs 1 lakh as fine and, in default, simple imprisonment for one year.The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted on the strength of the ratio in Ansar Ahmed v. State 123 DLT 563, that the recovery made from the appellant would be of an intermediate quantity inasmuch as the actual weight of diacetylmorphine in the...

Omega Bright Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants are manufacturer of Carbon Steel Bright bars of iron and steel falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants issued supplementary invoice No. 1547 dated 11.8.2003 amounting to Rs. 1,39,203/- including excise duty component of Rs. 18,462/- being the differential amount of value of carbon steel bright bars supplied by the appellants to their customers during the period from 16.7.2003 to 9.8.2003. The refund claim was filed on the ground that the customer had not accepted the price increase for the month of July, 2003 and only passed the bill for the month of August.Since their bill for differential value was not passed by their customers for the month of July, 2003, therefore, they filed refund claim of Rs. 10,676/- for the duty paid on the differential value. The claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that there is no provision under Section 11-AB under which the application is filed for refund of duty in the c...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Aluminium Centre

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(107)ECC259

1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal dated 31-8-2005.2. None appeared on behalf of the respondents despite notice. Heard learned D.R. and perused the record. The department is in appeal against non-imposition of penalty by the appellate authority under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. I find from the order-in-appeal that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the penalty under Section 77 and 78 to Rs. 4000/-. From the order-in-appeal it seems that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the provisions of Section 76 while passing the order. Since the Commissioner (Appeals) has not given findings on the applicability/non-applicability of Section 76 and his order-in-appeal which is not indicating the penalty to be imposed under Section 76, needs to be considered afresh. Accordingly, Order-in-Appeal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for considering the matter afresh in the light of Section 76 of the Finan...

international Tobacco Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC190

2. The dispute is about classification of 'Tipper . Gold Tipped Cigarettes'. The applicants were discharging duty liability after classifying it under heading 2403.11, that is to say as "Other than Filter Cigarettes". It may be noted that rate of duty on this variety of cigarettes is lower.3. In the impugned order a finding has been reached that the cigarette in question is a filter cigarette and should be classified under 2403-13 and should discharge duty at the higher rate.4. The Cigarette in question is filled all through with Tobacco. At the non-smoking end, there is a denser separate portion. The denser portion and the smoking portion are separately rolled and later on attached.Both parts are rolled with paper. The colour of the paper used for containing the denser tobacco is different.5. The contention of the applicant is that the cigarette in question is un-filtered cigarette since no filtering material is used. During the hearing of the case, learned Counsel for the applicant ...

Unikeller India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC467

1. The issue involved in this case is regarding imposition of interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 and imposition of penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants were recipient of services from goods transport operators and C & F agencies. The appellants were required to pay service tax for the period 16.11.97 to 1.6.98 for the services received by them from these two service providers. The appellants deposited the service tax liable to be paid by them in February, 2004. The Revenue issued show cause notice to the appellants on 8.11.2004 for demand and recovery of interest and imposing penalty. The adjudicating authority ordered to recover the interest and also imposed penalty of equivalent amount. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) also concurred the views of the adjudicating authority.3. Considered the submissions made by both sides at length and perused the record. The challenge of t...

Smt. Paramjit Kaur W/O Late Ved Raj Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Through this OA applicant has challenged Annexure-B orders dated 9.12.1994 and 30.12.1994 whereby certain colleagues of applicant were promoted to the post of UDC while applicant's name was omitted from such promotion. The learned counsel of applicant submitted that while applicant had started to work with respondents on daily basis w.e.f.1.11.1985, she joined as LDC with respondent No. 2 on 2.5.1988. Among others, she was confirmed in the post of LDC vide Annexure-A dated 1.9.1992. The learned counsel stated that applicant had submitted various representations seeking promotion as UDC but all to no avail.Applicant has sought modification of the impugned orders so as to include her name among others promoted. She has sought promotion as UDC w.e.f. 9.12.1994 with consequential benefits.2. In the application in paragraph 3 relating to limitation applicant has stated that this OA 'is within the period of limitation prescribed in Section 21 of the AT Act, 1985 as the applicant had give...

Shri Bhagat Singh Bhatia S/O Late Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicants had originally sought a direction to the respondents to re-fix their pay as Draftsman notionally w.e.f. 22.08.1973 and with actual benefits w.e.f. 16.11.1978, as had been ordered by this Tribunal in the case of Dinkar Rao Kawday and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. in OA No. 2020/1994, with all consequential benefits. The order of this Tribunal in this OA was pronounced on 06.02.2002. Thereafter the matter having been taken to the Hon'ble Delhi High court in WP (C) No.903-904/2004, the case was remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration in the light of the order of this Tribunal in the case of Smt. Urmil Sharma v. Union of India and Anr. OA No. 2233/2000 dated 05.09.2002, with the following direction: the matter shall now be reconsidered by the Tribunal as to whether or not the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the revised pay fixation notionally from 22nd August,1973 and actually from 16th November,1978 as granted to their CPWD counterparts, who incidental...