Delhi Court June 2006 Judgments

Kanta Suri Pa No. 30647 Senior Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By virtue of this a show cause notice dated 17.4.2002, order dated 19.12.2002 and order dated 7.3.2003 are being assailed whereby the financial upgradation granted to the applicant under Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme has been, on cancellation, withdrawn with consequential recovery. Applicant seeks quashing of the orders and declaration of DOPT OM dated 18.7.2001 as ultra vires.2. Applicant was appointed as Education Instructor on 14.10.1980 on ad hoc basis and was further appointed as Senior Translator (Hindi) w.e.f.30.11.1982 on which post she was regularized. Applicant on 29.12.1988 was offered vacancy based promotion as Translation Officer (Hindi), which she refused on personal grounds. The refusal of the applicant was accepted by the competent authority and on promulgation of DOPT OM dated 9.8.1999 regarding ACP, she was granted first financial upgradation w.e.f. 9.8.1999 on 15.11.1999.3. A clarification was issued by the DOPT on 18.7.2001 where it is laid down that o...

Sangeeta Sharma W/O Shri Bhawani Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi, Through th ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. Applicant, who is a contractual employee, seeks grant of maternity leave, which has been turned down by the respondents vide order dated 10.2.2006. With the rejoinder, the applicant filed a copy of order dated 16.5.2000 issued by the Additional Secretary whereby in the matter of staff nurses appointed on contract basis they had been accorded maternity leave (135 days on delivery and 42 days on abortion). The office order dated 11.10.2004 while appointing a contractual worker makes admissible grant of maternity leave.3. In the light of above when there are decisions to the effect taken by the respondent, the claim of the applicant for grant of maternity leave and salary in lieu thereof shall be reconsidered by the respondents in the light of the orders referred to above. The claim of the applicant with regard to joining of duties at par with Lab Assistant, who was similarly situated, shall also be reconsidered by the respondents.4. With the above observations, OA stands disposed of....

M.R. Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These are appeals filed by M/s. M.R. Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Chander Kumar, Director of the said company challenging the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-1. In the impugned order, the Commissioner had confiscated the seized goods and tempo and raised demand of duty amounting to Rs. 84,900/- and also Rs. 29,70,823/- said to be evaded on the offended excisable goods during the period 17.1.2002 and 18.2.2002. Besides this, the Commissioner has also imposed penalty of Rs. 30,55,723/- on the party and Rs. 1,00,000/- on the Director. The said order also appropriates Rs. 20,00,400/- already deposited by the appellants towards payment of Central Excise duty demanded above. The entire case revolves around the interception of one tempo caught red handed carrying goods manufactured by the appellants without any evidence of payment of Central Excise duty as well as the goods alleged to have been removed in a clandestine manner, relying on certain loose sheets, which were r...

Bundelkhand Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These two appeals have been filed by M/s Bundelkhand Alloys Pvt.Ltd. and Shri Saurav Jain, Director of company.2. Central Excise officers while conducting transit checks at Kalpi Road, Orai at 4.45 hours on 29-11-2000, intercepted three trucks bearing Registration No. UTK/2524, UP 78 R/5572 and UHH/1153 loaded with MS ingots. The truck drivers produced 3 invoices/bill Nos. 00950, 00951 and 00952 respectively all dated 29-11-2000 issued by M/s. Raj International, Orai along with respective builty Nos. 28, 29 and 30 all dated 29-11-2000 issued by M/s. R.K. Road Lines, Orai showing consigner as M/s. Raj International, Orai.3. Statements of truck drivers were recorded on 29-11-2000 and they stated that they were not aware of the godown of M/s. Raj International. They had loaded the goods from the factory of M/s.Bundelkhand Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Orai and they have only the challans of M/s. Raj International and builty. In the follow up action, the officers visited the premises of M/s. Bunde...

Lallan Prasad Rana and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicants are employees of the Department of Telecommunication (DoT) working on different posts, such as, Workman, Lab. Attendant, Wash Boy, Tea Maker, Safai Karamchari, etc. They are seeking direction from the Tribunal to the DoT to forward their option forms to the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) for absorption therein.2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants joined the service in the DoT between 1977 and 1998 on different posts mentioned above. The BSNL was carved out of the DoT w.e.f. 01.10.2000. Thereafter the DoT issued an Office Memorandum (OM) No. A-11013/13/2001-Admn.II dated 17.08.2001 advising various staff members of the DoT to exercise their option for absorption in the BSNL or otherwise in the proforma enclosed with the OM. A copy of this OM along with the Provisional Terms and Conditions and an option form was sent to all the applicants.3. All the applicants accordingly filled up the proforma/option form for absorption in BSNL and submitted it ...

Ms. Pooja Verma, Ms. Ritu, Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties in RA-199/2005, which has been filed by the original respondents against the Tribunal's order dated 24.7.2003 whereby, though rejecting the request of the applicants for regularization, a direction had been issued by the Tribunal in favour of the applicants, who had been working on ad hoc basis, to consider them till regularly SSC candidates join duty. Accordingly, the interim order dated 20.6.2003 was made absolute.2. Learned Counsel for original respondents earlier filed one miscellaneous application, being MA-601/2005, for modification in the order dated 24.7.2003, which was withdrawn with liberty to assail remedy by way of review.3. Learned Counsel would contend that as per the recruitment rules apart from mode of selection through SSC, alternate mode is through deputation as well in the wake that the SSC candidates are not joining.The official respondents have attempted to fill up the post on deputation, which is regular mode and the a...

L.R. Soni, Executive Engineer Vs. the Secretary, Ministry of

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By virtue of this OA applicant assails panel for promotion to the grade of Superintending Engineer (SE) for the vacancies of the year 2004-05. He seeks holding of a review DPC and consideration of promotion to the grade of SE.2. Applicant, who was appointed as Assistant Engineer (AE) in Military Engineering Service (MES) in 1986, was promoted as an Executive Engineer (EE) on 18.7.1994. The channel for promotion from EE to SE is governed by Indian Defence Service of Engineers (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1991. As no criteria is provided under the Rules, general instructions of DoP&T issued in 1989, re-iterated in 1991 where the benchmark is 'very good', are to be adopted. Thereafter seniority would hold the field. As applicant was no empanelled for the post of SE, it led to his representation, which was disposed of by respondents on the ground that applicant as per his ACR could not make the grade of 'very good', gives rise to the present OA.3. Learned counsel ...

Cosmo Steels Pvt. Ltd., Shri Vs. C.C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(109)ECC460

1. These appeals are directed against duty demand, confiscation and penalties imposed under adjudication order dated 19.9.2003 of the Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta.2. The brief facts of the case are that 180 consignments of brass scrap/dross and copper scrap were imported by the appellant at Calcutta Port during the period 1984 to 1988. Out of these, 173 consignments were assessed to duty and cleared by the customers. When 7 consignments were pending clearance, on 19^th September 1988, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence carried out search action in the premises of the appellant and others. This led to issuance of Show-cause Notice dated 15.3.89 alleging that appellant had mis-declared the description/weight/value of the goods under import and there was large evasion of duty. The appellant resisted the allegations; but the charges were upheld in the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs dated 19.9.2003 and duty demand of about Rs. 2.7 crores was confirmed along with penaltie...

Sumnesh Tyagi Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against review order dt. 9.1.2006 passed by the Commissioner (Service tax).2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant is a C&F Agent of Asian Paints. The appellant had taken the registeration as C&F agent service provider. The appellant had defaulted in paying the Service Tax and filed the returns belatedly for two quaerters i.e. quarter ending June, 2002. Quarter ending Sept, 2002, the number of days delay is 42 days and 17 days, respectively. A SCN Was issued to the appellant for imposing penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The adjudicating authority had dropped the imposition of penalty for quarter ending Sept., 2002 but imposed a penalty of Rs. 100/- only in respect of quarter ending June, 2002. The Commissioner of Central Excise on review of the order came to conclusion that penalty has to be imposed on the appellant for both the quarters as he has not made out a strong justifiable case for non-impos...

Shree Gujarati Samaj Bhavan Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC483

3. The appellant filed this appeal challenging the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the imposition of Service Tax in respect of the 'Mandap Keeper' was upheld.4. The only contention of the appellant in this appeal is that they were providing the place for religious ceremony such as marriage. The contention is that marriage is religious ceremony, therefore, imposition of Service Tax in uncalled for. The appellant relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Krishna Mutt to submit that the marriage is a religious ceremony, therefore, is not covered under the scope of Service Tax.5. The ld. SDR appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the appellant is a society registered under M.P. Society Registration Act and they are providing space i.e. one hall and attached rooms for consideration for organizing social functions, therefore, are covered under the definition of 'Mandap Keeper' as provided under the Finance Act. The Revenue also submitted...