Delhi Court September 2006 Judgments

Triveni Glass Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(224)ELT403TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal dated 10-11-05 that dismissed the appeal of the appellant for filing the appeal beyond a period of limitation.2. Considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused records. 1 find from the record that the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant on the ground that the revenue is able to show that they have posted the order by registered post, and it should be considered as deemed to have been served upon the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any findings on merits of the case. This issue of deemed service was referred to a Larger Bench in the case of Margra Industries Ltd. and Ors. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal vide its order No. 739/06 dated 10-7-06 2006 (202) E.L.T. 244 has held as under: 11 (a) Dispatch of adjudication order by speed post/registered post would not amount to a valid service in the absence of proof of actual delivery of speed post.3. The issue is now ...

Sangam Spinners Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. M/s. Sangam (India) Ltd. is a limited company from 1990. It started a spinning division at Bhilwara in Rajast-han in 1996 and obtained a central excise licence. Subsequently, in 1999, M/s. Sangam Spinners imported an electricity generating set for captive power supply. It took Modvat Credit on (capital) goods as permissible. Subsequently, spares and fuels for running power generating sets were also purchased on a continuous basis. Modvat credit is being taken on these items also. On 3-7-03, show cause notice was issued alleging that there was transfer of the power generating unit from Sangam Spinners to Sangam Power. Based on this allegation, the notice proposed to reverse the credits taken and to impose penalty on the appellant.2. The appellant resisted the proposal by contending that Sangam(India) Ltd. is the only legal entity and Sangam Spinners, Sangam Powers, Sangam Suitings etc. are all the divisions of the same company. It was also explained that the power generating unit wa...

Rama Shankar Mishra S/O Shri Raj Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant, a substantive member of Indian Forest Service (IFS) U.P.Cadre is of 1986 batch. By virtue of this OA he has assailed order of suspension dated 10.10.2005 with further orders, reviewing the suspension dated 17.3.2006 as well as memorandum of charges issued under Rule 8 of the All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969 (for short '1969 Rules') As a consequence thereof, grant of Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) with retrospective promotion with salary for the period has been sought.2. By way of interim relief, applicant has prayed for grant of benefits which have been accrued to his juniors following a review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) on the direction of the Tribunal in Kamal Kishore and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (OA-324/2005) decided on 23.3.2005.3. MA No. 950/2006 filed by applicant was in respect of implementation of the recommendations of the DPC kept in a sealed cover. An order passed on 29.3.2006 by the Tribunal directed provisional c...

Ram Nath and ors. Vs. Shri B.N. Mathur and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. This application has been made under Rule 24 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 read with Section 152 CPC on behalf of applicants in CP No. 463/2005 in OA No. 2943/2003 seeking recall of order dated 15.12.2005 in the CP, and fresh consideration of the CP on merits.2. OA No. 2943/2003 was disposed of vide order dated 4.3.2005 with a direction to respondents to treat the OA as a representation of applicants, consider the claim of applicants and dispose of the same in accordance with rules and instructions on the subject, under intimation to applicants. Vide order dated 12.7.2005 respondents are stated to have called upon applicants to furnish documents to establish their claims for consideration. Applicants submitted documents containing 47 sheets with their reply on 27.7.2005 to respondents. Alleging non-compliance of the directions of the Tribunal, CP No. 463/2005 was filed on 7.12.2005. The Tribunal disposed of the CP vide orders dated 15.12.2005, Annex...

Gajendra Pal Sharma S/O S.N. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Through this application has been sought review of orders dated 27.2.2006 whereby OA No. 462/2005 was dismissed being without merit.2. The learned Counsel of applicant stated that there are errors apparent on the face of record in Tribunal's orders. He stated that applicant had been enjoying in situ promotion in scale Rs.5000-8000 prior to introduction of ACP Scheme in 1999, therefore, granting first financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme in scale Rs.5000-8000 was not correct course of action. He further stated that applicant had not asked for upgradation under ACP Scheme in scale Rs.5500-9000. He drew our attention to paragraph 5.6 of the OA which reads: Because by granting the entry scale i.e. Rs.5000-8000 the Respondents have actually nullified the effect of in-situ promotion. In all fairness they should have granted the higher scale of Rs.5500-9000.3. Secondly, the learned Counsel stated that the grant of first upgradation in scale Rs.6500-10500 was not a contentious issue ...

Shri R.K. Ojha (D-1/819) Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi (Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. By virtue of this OA, Applicant has assailed an order dated 3.5.2005 passed by the respondents whereby a departmental enquiry has been initiated against him on the allegation that while posted as SHO, Tilak Nagar, he has tried to minimize the offence and also for not taking any preventive action.3. A representation preferred by the applicant to drop the proceedings was rejected by the respondents. Therefore, the applicant has challenged the enquiry.4. At the outset, learned Counsel of the applicant has produced before us the orders passed by the DCP, West District on 26.8.2006 in respect of disciplinary proceedings against SI Ishwar Singh and ASI Sahib Singh where they have been alleged to have minimize the offence in the same incident and their failure to take preventive measures. We directed the learned Counsel of the respondents on 1.9.2006 to seek instructions on the aforesaid orders. On instructions, it has been apprised to us that this particular point of view would have to b...

Shri Suraj Veer S/O Shri Jabar Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi (Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. The controversy involved in this case is about non-selection of the applicant and non-participation in the recruitment process for the post of Constable (Executive) on the ground that he has been found below the requisite height i.e. 170 cm. Applicant in this OA has annexed the copy of the certificate issued by the Safdarjung Hospital, where his height has been measured and adjudged as 170 cm, which has been disputed by the learned counsel of the respondents vehemently.3. In the matter of recruitment, one of the conditions precedent for eligibility for appointment to the post of Constable (Executive) is that one must be having height of 170 cm, unless he is claiming certain relaxation provided to some categories.4. In the interest of justice, as the selection of 2002 has been over with the appointment of the selected candidates, we direct the respondents to get the applicant examined in any Hospital for measurement of his height and in the event, his height is found 170 cm.or above...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Indiahit Com (P) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)105TTJ(Delhi)501

1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT (A), dt. 30th July, 2004 for the asst. yr. 2001-02, in the matter of deletion of penalty of Rs. 11,05,712 imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the of the IT Act, 1961. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT (A) erred in (i) deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 11,05,712 on the ground that for disallowance of certain expenses or addition to the declared taxable income, it cannot be concluded that the assessee has concealed the true particulars of its income. (ii) relying upon the judgment in the case of CIT v. Prithipal Singh & Co. relating to asst. Yr. 1970-71 as the same was not applicable after amendment to Section 271(1)(c) by the Direct-tax Laws (Amendment) Act of 1975.3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income declaring a loss at Rs. 78,28,4...

Vijender Kumar JaIn and Sons (Huf) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Incom ...

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)106TTJ(Delhi)83

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A), dt. 4th Oct., 2002 for the asst. yr. 1995-96, in the matter of order passed under Section 143(3)/147/251 of the IT Act, 1961.2. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Originally assessment in this case was completed under Section 143(3)/148 on 13th April, 1998, wherein main addition was made on account of NRI gift of Rs. 2,20,000 received by the assessee from M/s Mohd. Shamim Khan s/o late Shri Hamid Ulla Khan of Riyadh. In the first round of appeal, the matter was restored back to the file of the AO to verify the actual position from the bank as to whether deposit in the NR(E) account can be out of local clearance or not. The AO was also directed to consider the deposit in the related account only prior to the date of gift i.e., 26th Sept., 1994. A notice under Section 131 to Smt. Mohd. Shamim Khan was to be issued, to give a right of cross-examination to the assessee.However, while refraining ...

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. E.i. Dupont India Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)298ITR296(Delhi)

1. This appeal has been filed by the revenue on 7.10.2002 against the order of the learned CIT(Appeals)-XIV, New Delhi dated 16.7.2002 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment order Under Section 143(3) for assessment year 1999-2000.2. First ground in this appeal is directed against deletion of the addition of Rs. 3,19,93,825/- being expenses incurred on repairs and maintenance of lease-hold premises. Facts of the of the case leading to this dispute briefly are that the assessee filed return declaring loss of Rs. 5,21,75,080/-. While computing this loss the assessee claimed deduction of a sum of Rs. 3,19,93,825/- under the head 'Repairs and maintenance on lease-hold premises'. The assessee claimed deduction of this amount relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Auto Services Pvt. Ltd. 233 ITR 468 (SC). The learned Assessing Officer found that in the accounts of the assessee the expenditure had been capitalized and depreciation of Rs. 51,34...