Delhi Court September 2006 Judgments

M.P. Iron and Steel Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of alloy, carbon and other varieties of steel wire rods. It is liable to pay central excise duty on the goods manufactured by it on ad valorem basis.2. The appellant was selling its goods at factory gate both to wholesale dealers and to dealer, M/s. General Engineering Works, alleged to be related to the appellant. In addition to factory gate sales, it was also removing wire rods to its depots and carrying out sales therefrom. Assessments were provisional from 1994-95 onwards.3. Under order dated 3-12-96, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise finalised the assessment in regard to certain price declarations. These were all in regard to sales from depot. It was held that appellant shall be entitled to deduction from the depot price towards freight and octroi. Claim for deduction in regard to all other items was rejected.It is being pointed out that the amount of duty payable on account of this finalisation of assessment is Rs. 55,577/-. The appella...

Garg Diesel'S Vs. C.C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(113)ECC89

2. The dispute is about the Customs Valuation of a consignment "Sun Control Film" imported by the appellant at Kolkata Port in February 2003, The import price of the consignment was (US $) as under:Description Qty. Unit Price Amount Roll USD USD SAY TOTAL US DOLLARS SEVEN THOUSAND AND EIGHTY EIGHT AND CENTS FIFTY ONLY.The consignment was assessed provisionally and cleared. Subsequently, under adjudication order, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs ordered that the goods be assessed to duty at a value of Rs. 2.34/sq. ft. The basis for the enhancement of value was that on 17^th March 2003, another consignment had been imported at Chennai at this value. The appellant contested the proposed enhancement on several grounds. The first was that the import was from a manufacturer of the goods and that the prices mentioned in the invoices were commercial prices. The second was that there was no justification for enhancing that price even going by earlier imports inasmuch as, in October 2002, ...

Rajesh Kaushik S/O G.R. Sharma Vs. Shri T. Ramaswami, Secretary,

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. OA No. 885/2006 has been filed against action of respondents in denying age relaxation for regularization of the services of applicant.By way of interim relief applicant had prayed for restraining respondents from terminating his services by replacing him from fresh persons from open market. After hearing the learned Counsel of applicant on 4.5.2006 it was directed that short notice be issued to respondents returnable on 24.5.2006 and that respondents would maintain status quo as on date. While pleadings were deemed complete, interim orders dated 4.5.2006 were continued. In the present petition has been alleged that respondents have wilfully disobeyed Tribunals orders dated 4.5.2006 and terminated the services of applicant and have thus committed contempt of court.2. In paragraph 4 of their compliance affidavit, respondents have stated, the status quo which was granted by the Honble Tribunal vide order dated 04.05.2006, wherein the Honble Tribunal was pleased to issue the status qu...

Dr. Ambika Prasad Sinha S/O Dr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Ministry of

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this OA applicant has challenged respondents order dated 10.2.2006 which is promotion list of Selection Grade, IRMS officers to Senior Administrative Grade (SAG).2. Applicant started his career as Assistant Divisional Medical Officer in the Ministry of Railways on 29.6.1976. Presently he has been working as Senior Medical Superintendent w.e.f. 1.5.1998. It is alleged that vide the impugned orders applicant has been bye-passed for promotion to SAG while several of his juniors have been promoted. According to applicant, his name was left out due to misidentity with another officer bearing the same short name, Dr. A. P. Sinha, against whom a vigilance enquiry is pending. It has been averred that applicant has a clean and unblemished record and has never been involved in any case, and as such, he could not have been bye-passed in promotion. It has also been stated that applicant's junior Dr. C.D.Pathak may take charge as Chief Medical Superintendent, Sonpur at any time thereby embar...

Si Mohinder Pal Bharadwaj Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through Lt.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. Applicant through this OA seeks ante dating his promotion as ASI (SAST) 29.12.1987 from the date when the vacancy had accrued and was within the knowledge of the respondents.3. A brief history shows that the applicant was appointed on promotion as ASI and was later on upgraded as SI (SAST) w e f 29.8.1991. One Randhir Singh, ASI assailed his non-promotion in OA 353/1990 and order passed on 2.4.1992 directed consideration of promotion. As a result thereof, an order issued by the respondents on 15.6.93, modified the date of absorption i.e. 29.12.87 which raises presumption that on 31.12.1987, the post of ASI (SAST) was vacant. Applicant in paras 4.6 & 4.7 of the OA has categorically stated the aforesaid fact, which has not been specifically rebutted by the respondents in their reply.4. From the perusal of the order passed by the respondents, the same appears to be a bald and non-speaking order.5. In administrative capacity when public functionaries consider the claim of the polic...

Si (Ex) Birender Singh Vs. Govt. of Nctd Through Its

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Through this OA applicant has challenged the punishment of forfeiture of two years' approved service permanently entailing proportionate reduction in pay. His suspension period was also decided as not spent on duty. This punishment was imposed upon applicant vide order dated 29.8.2003 (Annexure A-1) in departmental enquiry initiated against him under Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980, vide order dated 8.7.2002. The following charge was levelled against him: I, K.S.Dalal, ACP/D.E.Cell, E.O. hereby charge you SI Birender Singh No. D-3762 (PIS No. 28850338) that while you were detailed as Emergency Officer at Police Station Moti Nagar on the night intervening 6/7.6.02, D.D. No. 23-A dt.6.6.02, Police Station, Moti Nagar, Delhi was marked to you for enquiry at 11.30 PM. You reached the spot in civvies along with Const. Surender No. 1243/W who was in uniform. On further checking by the senior officers you were found to have consumed liquor while on duty. You were got me...

Sh. Ravi Kumar S/O Sh. Vinod Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi, Through Its

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in both these case, the same are heard together and disposed of by a common order.2. The Department of Health & Family Welfare, Government of NCT of Delhi advertised 33 posts of Safai Karamchari in Lok Nayak Hospital in September 2002. Pursuant to the said advertisement, these two applicants offered themselves to be the candidates for the post of Safai Karamchari. They were asked to appear in the interview on 15.9.2003. A select list was prepared and the names of these candidates figured in the merit list. The applicants received offer of appointment vide Memorandum No. E1(4)/Rectt./LNH.2003/6628 dated 26.7.2004 inviting their acceptance within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of the Memorandum. The applicants have communicated their acceptance vide letter dated 29.7.2004. Thereafter, they were surprised when they received another letter from the respondents whereby their appointment orders were stated to have b...

Pooran Lal S/O Shri Ram Swaroop and Vs. the Cabinet Secretariat (Throu ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. Applicants, who have been working as Cleaner and Aircraft Assistant, are seeking promotional avenues which, inter alia, includes imparting training which has been promulgated by the respondents vide their order dated 24.11.93 and 20.11.94. Learned Counsel would contend that being an isolated post, hierarchy in ACP would not be sufficient in context of the pay scale for their further career progression. It is, in this background, stated that one of the qualifications if one applies as direct recruit for the post of JTO-II, is that he should have been imparted training in the Aircraft. As the applicants do not possess the same, it would be a disqualification for applying for the post of JTO-II. In this view of the matter, it is stated that denial of promotional avenue is an ante thesis to Article 14&16 of the Constitution of India.3. Learned Counsel of the respondents stated that on the basis of their letters imparting training to the Aircraft Assistants, one of the selectees as ...

Ashok Singh S/O Bachu Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The facts and issues involved in these OA being similar, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts have been taken from OA No.360/2006.2. Applicant was promoted to the post of Wireless Helper. He was considered eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of WMTR-III in grade Rs.3450-4590. Applicant being eligible for promotion to the post of WMTR-III was trade tested on 14/15.10.2005, however, he was not found suitable for promotion and many candidates junior to him were found suitable and promoted to the post.3. It has been pleaded on behalf of applicant that selection for the post of WMTR-III has to be strictly in order of seniority and juniors cannot be selected on the post of WMTR-III. Applicant has further alleged that he has been deprived of his promotion due to arbitrary and biased decision of respondents. Thus, applicant has sought direction to respondents to promote him to the post of WMTR-...

Sham Sunder Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 133(2006)DLT540; 2006(91)DRJ200

Reva Khetrapal, J.1. By filing the present petition, the petitioner seeks appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.2. The petitioner's case is that the respondents invited tenders for execution of the work of Construction of Dhalao in MPL, Ward No. C-80 in Karkardooma Village, Shahdara (South), for a total contractual value of Rs. 2,47,142/-. The petitioner in response thereto submitted his tender which was accepted by the respondents. Consequently, the said work was awarded to the petitioner vide work order bearing No. 756 dated 4th February, 1999 by the respondent No. 2 on behalf of respondent No. 1. As per the agreed terms of the work order, the work was to be completed within the stipulated time. According to the petitioner, he started the work as per the work order and completed the same without any delay and to the satisfaction of the Engineer-in-Charge within the stipulated period. According to the petitioner also, after the co...