Delhi Court September 2006 Judgments

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Ind-swift Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(208)ELT212TriDel

1. Respondent is a manufacturer of medicine. It received several inputs which were eligible for Modvat credit. Accordingly, credit was also taken. However, for various reasons, the credit taken inputs could not be utilised for production for about 2 years. Thereupon, Revenue authorities asked the appellant to reverse the credit taken on those inputs and the appellant reversed the credit as well as paid interest.All the same, show cause notices were issued proposing to impose penalties on the respondent and in adjudication, penalties proposed were confirmed under Rule 173Q read with Rule 13 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. When the matter went in appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), he set aside the penalties on the ground that, before the issue of show cause notices, the appellant had reversed the credit and in such a case, no penalty was imposable in view of the decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Machino Montell (1) Ltd. 2004 (168) E.L.T. 466 (Tri.-LB): 2004 (...

Bhoorathram and Co. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(113)ECC303

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant was a manufacturer of Prestressed Cement Concrete Pipes which are liable to Central Excise duty. The appellant was availing itself of Modvat credit on inputs used in such manufacture. Input credit so taken was utilised for payment of duty on these pipes.3. When there was no credit balance in the appellant's modvat account (the entire credit having been utilized for payment of duty) on 3.10.2002, the pipes in question came to be exempted from central excise duty. The Central Excise authorities found that part of the inputs on which credit had already been availed was lying unutilized in the appellant's factory on the date of exemption. It was also found that some of the inputs were also in the manufactured goods lying in stock, and in the final products under manufacture. Based on this, demand was raised under Rule 12 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 seeking to recover the Cenvat credit (Rs. 7,34,458/-) attributable to aforesaid inputs in sto...

Seer Fashions Vs. Commissioner of Customs (igi)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC475

2. The appeal is in regard to a claim for drawback amounting to Rs. 72,090/- in relation to four exports made to USA by the appellant in October 1990. The submission is that after completion of the exports, the appellant had filed a drawback claim before the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (DBK), New Delhi along with the documents required for establishing the claim. It is being pointed out that after the receipt of the claim and verification of papers, a receipt (token number E-728 dated 15.1.91) was issued to the appellant. However, no payment was made. The appellant continued to pursue the matter but on account of the drawback claim along with relevant papers, being lost in the Customs House, the claim was not paid. On 12th April 1997, the appellant again wrote to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs supplying Bank attested export invoices, airway bill, photocopy of Export Promotion copy of shipping bills, Bank certificates of price Realisation etc. Still no payment was made. Fi...

Shri K.S. Parmar S/O Shri Prabhu Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. Applicant impugns his transfer from Raja Ki Mandi, Agra Division to Allahabad Division on the ground of pending disciplinary proceedings, which has been concluded for want of a final order.3. It is stated that as per Railway Boards letter dated 25.1.1969 on conclusion of the inquiry and to its outcome, a railway servant, who has been transferred, efforts should be made to transfer him back in the original unit of seniority. The relevant para of aforesaid letter dated 25.1.1969 is reproduced as under: 4.8 Transfer of Railway servants from one unit of seniority to another unit of seniority on administrative grounds except on promotion / due to shrinkage of cadre / legal requirements etc., should be ordered rarely and in public interest only e.g., in cases where the conduct of an employee is under investigation or where in the interests of the Administration it is considered that the Railway servant should be kept at another station. In such cases of transfer, the Railway servants so ...

Shri Narayan S/O Shri Naubat Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through t ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

(a) to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 14.12.2005 passed by respondent No. 3 addressing to respondent No. 4 vide Annexure-A.1 and direct the respondents to restore the financial upgradation to the applicant granted earlier by virtue of order dated 11.3.2002 in the higher grade i.e. in the grade of Rs. 4000-6000/-. (b) to declare the order of recovery of arrears already paid to the applicant under A.C.P. Scheme to make financially sound to the applicant, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional etc. Accordingly the respondents be directed to stop the recovery of the arrears already paid to the applicant; (c) to direct the respondents not to reduce the pay scale of the applicant which is likely to be reduced in the month of January, 2006 as the impugned order is passed on 14.12.2005; and (d) to pass any other and further order or relief which this Honble Tribunal deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.2. We have heard the learned Counsel for both ...

Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. Applicant impugns his transfer from Idgah, Agra Division to Allahabad Division on the ground of pending disciplinary proceedings, which has been concluded for want of a final order.3. It is stated that as per Railway Boards letter dated 25.1.1969 on conclusion of the inquiry and to its outcome, a railway servant, who has been transferred, efforts should be made to transfer him back in the original unit of seniority. The relevant para of aforesaid letter dated 25.1.1969 is reproduced as under: 4.8 Transfer of Railway servants from one unit of seniority to another unit of seniority on administrative grounds except on promotion / due to shrinkage of cadre / legal requirements etc., should be ordered rarely and in public interest only e.g., in cases where the conduct of an employee is under investigation or where in the interests of the Administration it is considered that the Railway servant should be kept at another station. In such cases of transfer, the Railway servants so transfer...

Jagdish Singh and ors. Vs. Nct of Delhi Through the Chief

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. Applicants, who had earlier filed OA-772/2004 (Delhi Flood Control Mazdoor Union and Ors. v. NCT of Delhi and Ors.), an order passed on 8.10.2004, directed the respondents to take into consideration the observations made in the body of the order and finalize the recruitment rules so that the applicants are accorded benefit of ACP scheme. In compliance thereof on finalization of the recruitment rules, an order passed by the respondents on 21.6.2005 accorded them the first upgradation in ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 3200-4900, whereas learned Counsel for applicants states by relying upon the office order passed in the case of two Tube Well Operators where on accord of the first ACP in the pay scale of RS. 4000-6000, the second ACP was accorded to them in the pay scale of RS. 4500-7000. Accordingly, it is stated that the applicants, who are identically situated and performing the identical work, are entitled to the same pay scales in the hierarchy of ACP as the pay scales therein and n...

Dr. Jagbir Singh Nain, I/C Vs. Government of National Capital

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Through this application applicant has sought review of order dated 22.5.2006 by which OA No. 47/2005 and OA No. 2804/2004 were dismissed.2. It has been stated that these OAs were dismissed under Rule 15 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules on the ground of non-appearance of applicant's counsel/applicant.3. It has further been stated that in paragraph 9 of Tribunals orders it has been mentioned, Certainly benefit of fixation of FR 22(I)(a)(2) is allowed on promotion to a higher post. Such is not the case of applicants. It has been further mentioned in paragraph 10, 'The benefit of FR 22(I)(a)(2) is available only on promotion to a higher post. It has been averred that the benefit of this rule is not confined to the case of promotion only but also to appointment to the new post. It has thus been stated that there has been an error of law apparent on the face of Tribunals orders.4. We have considered the contentions raised before us as also carefully perused the T...

Pradeep Mehta Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(91)DRJ384

P.K. Bhasin, J.1. It is an old saying that 'Necessity is the mother of invention' and the same can be said to be applicable in these matters. Having failed to get an order of bail from two Courts the petitioner who is presently lodged in Tihar Jail in connection with two criminal cases, has invented a novel way of seeking his release on bail by filing these two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of habeas corpus instead of invoking Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Few facts only need to be noticed by us for disposing of both the petitions which were heard together since common question of law is raised therein. The petitioner was arrested by the Crime Branch on 07-05-2006 in connection with a case under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC registered vide FIR No. 162/06 dated 21-02-2006 at police station Dwarka. The investigation of that case was later on taken over by the Crime Branch. The complainant and the petitioner were at one t...

Ajay @ Ajju Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(91)DRJ295

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. Issue notice. Mr. Pawan Sharma accepts notice on behalf of the State. Both the counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the State submit that this Revision Petition can be disposed of at the first hearing itself.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order on charge dated 8.8.2006 as well as the formal charge framed on 10.8.2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.3. The charge framed, inter alia, against the present petitioner by the learned Additional Sessions Judge reads as under:ChargeI, Narottam Kaushal, Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi charge you: 1. Ajaya @ Ajju s/o Raaju, 2. Santosh Kumar s/o Ram Sarup 3. Naved Khan s/o Liyakat Ali as under:That on 5.4.06 at 11.30 p.m. at N. Block at Panchvir Park Vishnu Garden, within the jurisdiction of P.S. Tilak Nagar, you all alongwith a sardar boy (not arrested so far) in furtherance of your common intention committed robbery while stopping the scooter of the complainant on the point of knife ...