Delhi Court July 2006 Judgments

Delux Color Lab. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(104)ECC264

1. Heard both sides. In this case the appellants are providing the photographic and only contention of the appellant is that cost of material is not to be added while calculating the Service tax on the service provided by them. We find that this issue is already decided by the Tribunal in the case of Laxmi Color (Pvt.) Ltd. in Appeal No.ST/73/2005, dated 6-6-2006 2006 (3) S.T.R. 363 (Tribunal) in favour of revenue. In view of the above decision of the Tribunal, we find no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed....

Cce Vs. Surya Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The revenue is in appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 14.06.2004, which allowed the Modvat credit.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the respondent availed the Modvat credit of the duty paid on the parts used in the manufacture of two chilling plants in their factory during the period July 1996 to March 2001. The lower authorities issued a show cause notice alleging that the credit is inadmissible as per Rule 57Q as was in existence during the relevant period. Respondent contested the show cause notice on the ground that the said chilling plant is a necessity for the manufacturing of their final products i.e. bulk drugs and without the chilling plant there would be no final products.Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand on the ground that the parts of chilling plant were classified under chapter heading No. 84.15 and hence excluded by the rule itself. On an appeal the commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal.3. Learned DR submits that the credit...

Shree Nath Enterprises Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. is appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 17.6.2002 which upheld the order-in-original imposing penalty and confiscating the packing material found excess in the appellant's factory.2. The issue involved in this case is regarding imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act on the goods which were cleared by the appellant clandestinely without payment of duty and noticed during the surprise visit of the officers. The appellants discharged the duty liability on 1.10.2002 while the show cause notice was issued on 26.3.2003 and redemption fine (sic) imposed on the appellant on the packing material which were found in excess than the recorded balance in the appellant's factory. The appellant was not able to produce duty paying documents in respect of such packing material.3. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. It is the contention of the learned Consultant for the appellant that since the duty liability stands discharged...

Sh. Radhey Shyam Retd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this case, the applicant has challenged the propriety, validity and legality of the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority whereby the respondents have imposed penalty of reduction to the lower post, i.e., from Record Keeper to Daftry till the date of his superannuation and further his pay shall be fixed at the minimum stage in the time scale of pay attached to the post of Daftry and he shall not earn increments of his pay during the period of reduction.3. The applicant has been working in the Union Public Service Commission (for short `UPSC') since 1964 and at the relevant point of time, he was posted as Record Keeper under Respondent No. 2. During his tenure, he rendered service to the best of his abilities and there was no complaint whatsoever from any corner against him. While the applicant was serving as Record Keeper, he was served with a major penalty chargesheet dated 29.3.1990 with the following Articles of Charge: The said Shri Ra...

Shri Vinod Behari Mathur S/O Shri Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this case, applicant has sought for quashing and/or setting aside of the chargesheet dated 13.4.2006 framed against him.3. The applicant, after having come out successful in the examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission for recruitment to the post of Assistant Grade-II, was posted as Assistant in Land & Buildings Department with effect from 14.10.1986. In course of his service, he was promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade-I with effect from 28.3.1995. Thereafter, he acted as Tehsildar in the office of the Deputy Commissioner (West) with effect from 10.7.2001. The applicant joined as Sub-Registrar, Pritampura, on his transfer, with effect from 9.2.2005. He claimed to have possessed clean and unblemished service record till the date of initiation of disciplinary proceedings. But unfortunately, at the fag end of his service, he was shocked to have received an order of suspension, dated 24.10.2005, which was totally unfounded, bad and illegal. Following such...

Shri Virender Kumar S/O Shri Ram Vs. Ministry of Defence (Navy),

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. Vide an order passed on 28.02.2005, Shri Mahesh Kumar and Shri Satpal (respondent No. 5) in the present OA were promoted following the directions of this Tribunal in OA-2626/2003 vide order dated 7.10.2004 and as a result of fall out action, applicant stood reverted from CDM (Engg.) as Draughtsman Grade-I (Engg.).3. This has been assailed by the applicant on the ground that holding a permanent post and duly promoted by a DPC, he could not have been reverted without following the due process of law, which is not in consonance with the principles of natural justice and results in deprivation of reasonable opportunity to show cause.4. One of the contentions raised, though taken in the rejoinder, that whereas assuming that Satpal and Mahesh Kumar had been promoted on the directions of holding DPC by the Tribunal in OA-2626/2003 vide order dated 7.10.2004, yet by virtue of retirement of one Shri R.K. Kinni, a vacancy had arisen, which could have been utilized to comply with the directio...

Sh. P.N. Sharma, Assistant (E) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. Applicant, who seeks promotion to the grade of Assistant Accounts Officer assails his non-promotion alleging mala fides against the respondents and also promotion of his juniors, which is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.3. Applicant in this case seeks holding of a review D.P.C. and consideration for promotion with all consequential benefits.4. After completion of pleadings, learned proxy counsel for respondents produced before us a copy of the order dated 10.4.2006 communicating that a review DPC was held on 14.2.2006 for the vacancy year 2005-2006 and has adjudged the applicant as not fit because he has adverse remarks in his ACRs for the years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004.5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the applicant states that whereas the ACRs for the aforesaid period should have been communicated in time, the same have been communicated after holding the original DPC against which representations are pending, the original DPC as well review...

Sh. Anuj Kumar Vs. Union Public Service Commission

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Skeletal picture of the applicants case, as pleaded in the application, is as follows: 2. The applicant has appeared in the Written Test for the post of Assistant Commandant of Central Police Force (Assistant Commandants) Examination conducted in 2003 by Union Public Service Commission (for short `UPSC). It appears that he was declared successful in the Written Test, Physical Efficiency Test and Interview. The result of test was declared by the UPSC on 07.05.2004. It is stated that the applicant had successfully come out in the interview as well as in the physical and medical standard test and physical efficiency test held in June and July, 2004 by the BSF Authorities. The first merit list was published on 16-22/10/2004 by the respondents, which was followed by second list, in which name of the applicant was strangely expunged. The applicants claim is that in the first list his name was mentioned to have qualified in the interview and personal test but to his utter dismay, his name...

R.G. Nagia Vs. K

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By way of this Review Application, review applicant seeks review of our order dated 20.04.2006 passed in TA-5/2000.2. We have perused our order dated 20.04.2006 and do not find either any error apparent on the face of record or discovery of any new and important material, which even after exercise of due diligence, was not available to the review applicant. If the review applicant is not satisfied with the order passed by the Tribunal remedy lies elsewhere.The Apex Court in Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das 2004 SCC (L&S) 160, observed as under: 13. The Tribunal passed the impugned order by reviewing the earlier order. A bare reading of the two orders shows that the order in review application was in complete variation and disregard of the earlier order and the strong as well as sound reasons contained therein whereby the original application was rejected. The scope for review is rather limited and it is not permissible for the forum hearing the review application to act as an...

Director of Income Tax Vs. Mitsubishi Corporation

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. The revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 25-11-2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA Nos. 5292/Delhi/2004 and 1797/Delhi/2004 pertaining to the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04, respectively. Since the question involved in both the assessment years is identical, we are dealing with the facts pertaining to assessment year 2002-03.2. The assessee initially filed its return of income on 31-10-2002 claiming a loss of Rs. 2.13 crores.3. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return on 10-3-2003 and along with the revised return claimed refund of a sum of Rs. 4.73 crores on account of excess taxes withheld at source (TDS). Out of this Rs. 1.4 crores was claimed by the assessee for itself and the remaining for its consortium partner Rotem Industries.4. On a technical objection being raised by the Income Tax department on 31-3-2004, the assessee filed another revised return claiming the amount of Rs. 4.73 crores in its own name as per the TDS certificates for th...