Delhi Court September 2006 Judgments

Alok Plastic Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant has challenged the order of the Commissioner, Central Excise confirming demand of Rs. 44,624/- under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and imposing penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, besides holding that it was liable to pay interest under Section 11AB.2. In this stay application it has been argued that the benefit available to the applicant under the Board circular could not be denied to the appellant who was manufacturer of plastic spoons with brand name of the company to which they were supplied. The learned Counsel argued that the decision of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Kohinoor Elastics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore reported in 2005 (188) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), cannot assist the revenue because the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not finally decided that case, as stated in Para 9 of the judgement, in view of the Circular dated 27-10-1994 and it was directed that the matters be tagged with the cases ...

State of Madhya Pradesh, Through Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(112)ECC289

1. In both the above captioned appeals, identical issues are involved and, therefore, they are heard together. None appeared for the appellants. The learned authorized representative for the Department has taken us through the relevant record and also the contentions which are raised by the appellants in these appeals and has dealt with them.2. This appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Gwalior, made on 29th March, 2004 upholding the order-in-original imposing the penalty of Rs. 500/- under Section 75-A of the Finance Act, 1994, for failure to apply for registration under Section 69 within the prescribed time limit, and further penalty of Rs. 1000/- under Section 77 of the said Act for failure to furnish ST-3 return under Section 70 of the Act read with Rule 7 of the Service Tax Rules, 1944 with the direction to obtain Service Tax Registration and pay Service Tax due forthwith, with interest and file ST-3 returns.3. A show cause notice came to be issued o...

Ajay Yadav, Grade-ii/Asstt. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi, Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. As these OAs pertain to a challenge to two memoranda issued for major penalty under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 are interwoven insofar as common facts and identical question of law are concerned.Accordingly, to avoid multiplicity and for judicial convenience, the common order is passed, disposing of these OAs.2. Applicant in OA-11/2006 was posted as an Inspector in the Food and Supplies Department being Grade-II Assistant, whereas applicant in OA-12/2006, a Grade-I officer of DASS, was functioning as Food and Supplies Officer, Circle No. 70. Both these applicants have been jointly made accused along with one Shri V.K. Aggarwal in FIR No. 48/96 dated 14.09.1996 under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code on the ground that Shri Aggarwal demanded and accepted Rs. 50,000/- as illegal gratification from one Ramesh Chand on 16.9.1996 for not initiating action on the complaint of irregularities at the fair price ...

Om Prakash, Assistant Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Doctrine of equal pay for equal work is recognized under Part-IV in Article 39(D) of the Constitution of India as a Directive Principle of the State, however, it is fundamental in nature. It forbids any discrimination in the matter of grant of pay when two persons holding different posts are identically situated in all respects. It is a constitutional obligation upon the State to ensure that equal pay is paid for equal work. However, as the law developed, what has been discerned as ratio deci dendi is that fixation of pay is the prerogative of the Government and its expert bodies. The Courts are precluded from assuming the role of these bodies but an exception carved out in consonance with the principle of equality enshrined under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution is that two equal persons are not allowed to be treated unequals, whether it is service conditions or pay attached to the post. In such view of the matter, if a decision of the Government in its administrative capa...

Dr. Meena Gupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Its

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this OA the applicant Dr. Meena Gupta has sought a direction to the respondents to promote her to the post of Director-Professor by holding necessary DPC w.e.f. the year 2000 with all consequential benefits.2. The factual background of the case suggests that she was appointed on the post of Lecturer in G.B. Pant Hospital, New Delhi in the department of Neurology on 25.1.1982 consequent upon her selection by the U.P.S.C. She was made Assistant Professor by the U.P.S.C. in December 1983 and consequently was selected as Associate Professor by the U.P.S.C. as a direct recruit and joined the post of Associate Professor on 22.8.1985. The next promotional post from Associate Professor is the post of Professor in SAG (Senior Administrative Grade) level.3. Government of India had appointed a High Power Committee known as Tikku Committee on the services of doctors. This Committee was to look into all the aspects of career improvement and cadre restructuring of the doctors of the Central H...

Dr. Sumitra Pal D/O Late Shri M.M. Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through t ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

to set aside the impugned order at A-1 and to further direct the respondents to treat the entire suspension period from 23.08.2002 to 09.10.2003 as spent on duty for all intents and purposes.2. It is submitted by the applicant that she was appointed as Specialist Surgeon Grade-II in August, 1982 and was promoted to the rank of Specialist Grade-I in the year 1991. She has always discharged her duties to the best of her ability but in spite of it, vide order dated 5.3.2002, she was transferred from R.M.L. Hospital, Delhi to Govt. of NCT, without informing her the place where she is supposed to join her duty. To a great surprise, she was put under suspension vide order dated 23.8.2002, which was revoked on 09.10.2003 but her period of suspension was to be decided after the departmental inquiry is over against the applicant. She received imputation of misconduct issued on 08.10.2003 under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. She submitted her reply but till date respondents have not taken any ...

Hari Kishore S/O Shri Shiv Charan Vs. Director General Indian Council

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. This matter has been heard in part on numerous dates and had been adjourned directing learned Counsel for respondents to seek instruction from respondents on applicants request that since eight Type-II quarters are still vacant, whether applicant could be adjusted against one such quarter. Shri B.S. Mor, learned Counsel for respondents pointed out that he has instructions to state that his request cannot be acceded to. In the circumstances, I proceed to decide the matter on merits.2. By present OA, challenge is made to order dated 10.2.2006 vide which allotment made earlier of quarter No. C-77 (Type-II), Krishi Vihar, New Delhi was cancelled and allotted quarter No. A-106 (Type-I), Krishi Vihar, New Delhi. Further vide said order, respondents gave him time upto 28.2.2006 to vacate the quarter failing which licence fee at damage rent is to be charged w.e.f. 01.3.2006.3. Facts as stated are that applicant was appointed as Peon on 26.4.2004. His farther, working earlier with ICAR as C...

Shri Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal (R.K. Vs. the Commissioner, Kv Sangathan,

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this OA, applicant has challenged Clause (b) of last para only of order dated 5.1.2006 wherein it is observed that the period from 2.12.2002 to 27.10.2003 may be regularized by grant of leave of kind due to the applicant since the applicant has not performed any duty during this period. Applicant has sought pay and allowances for the above said period with continuity of service, with a direction to the respondents to regularize the said period. It is submitted by the applicant that he was posted from Meerut to Imphal and was struck off strength on 13.8.2002. While he was availing joining time, he fell sick and he informed the authorities about it along with the medical certificates. He reached Imphal on 01.12.2002 and gave an application to the Assistant Commissioner to allow him to join the duties. However, he was not allowed to join by the Principal nor any order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner. In the meantime, he was threatened by the local people there. He requeste...

Ashok Kumar and Associates Vs. Punjab National Bank and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: I(2007)BC22

1. The present appeal is filed against an order passed by D.R.T., Chandigarh on 29th October, 2003 in appeal No. 10 of 2001 in R.C. No.150 of 1997. Before getting into the issue, few facts which are relevant are narrated hereunder.2. The respondent-Bank herein, instituted Original Application No. 472 of 1996 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (D.R.T.), Jaipur against one Aqua Plastics Ltd. and seven others seeking to recover certain amounts.The Original Application appears to have been decreed on 2st July, 1997. Thereafter, recovery proceedings were initiated. The Recovery Officer, by order dated 19th May, 1998 issued attachment order on the property, the subject-matter of the appeal before this Tribunal. Having realized that the Recovery Officer has issued an attachment order, this appellant who claims to be a purchaser of the said property under a Tripartite Agreement dated 3rd May, 1996, filed objections before the Recovery Offfier urging the Recovery Officer that the so-called pro...

Satish Kumar Bargujar Vs. Suman Chauhan

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 136(2007)DLT643; I(2007)DMC488

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act; it is directed against the order of the learned additional Judge, in H.M.A. No.06/05, dated 12-12-2005 disposing off the respondent-wife's (hereafter 'the wife') application under Section 24 for maintenance. Proceedings for divorce, on the ground of desertion were initiated by the appellant against the respondent; they are pending adjudication.Brief facts2. The appellant and the respondent were married on 7-11-2000; they apparently lived together till 21 June, 2003. The wife in her application under Section 24, alleged that she was deserted by the Appellant (hereafter 'the husband') when she was in the family way, in an ailing condition and since then she was living with her parents. Her father had been maintaining her and her minor son. It was alleged that the husband had not made any provision for maintaining his wife and son; as a consequence she took up employment as a Class 1V employee in the Dist...