Delhi Court January 2007 Judgments

Raymond Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(116)ECC205

1. During the hearing of this appeal, it has been brought to our notice that the show cause notice dated 28.09.2001 issued by the Department was duly replied by the appellants on 20^th December, 2001 and also by a letter dated 08.01.2002 the appellants had requested the adjudicating authority not to insist on personal hearing as they were busy with other urgent matters.2. The matter was, however, not concluded by the respondents immediately thereafter, but a corrigendum to the show cause notice incorporating certain amendments was sent to the appellants on 03.11.2004. In this corrigendum, the last date for filing the reply was fixed as 06.12.2004.3. In the order-in-appeal passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the following observations have been made: On going through the case records, it is observed that the appellant had submitted the reply to the show cause notice under their letter of Ref. RL/ST Reply/2001-02 dated 20.11.2001. It is further observed that the personal heari...

Mittal Udyog Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. No one appears for the appellant. Despite the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh given on 9-3-2006 in the proceeding filed by the appellant requiring the party to appear before the Tribunal on 3-6-2006. It appears from the record that the appellant did not appear when the matter was on Board on 17-6-2006.2. The matter has transferred to the Division Bench, since the interpretation of a notification was involved. It appears from the record that the order under which the payment was required to be made, was not challenged by the appellant who straightway filed the refund claim. The appellant had made a refund claim of the differential duty amount of Rs. 44,000/- on the ground that term "diameter" with reference to which rate of duty per machines per month was prescribed, referred to the diameter of the end product aluminium circles. The adjudicating authority took the view that the differential duty paid by the appellants was appropriately payable and therefore, th...

Tooki Ram S/O Shri Bodan Singh Vs. Nct of Delhi Through the Chief

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Validity of communication dated 06.10.2005, rejecting applicant's request for stepping up his pay at par with Murari Singh, is challenged in present OA.2. Factual matrix is that applicant initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in 1978, was promoted as TGT on 02.02.1982 and further promoted as PGT w.e.f. 15.02.1991 vide order dated 19.12.1990. His grievance is that person junior to him, viz. Murari Singh, PGT (Geog.) initially appointed as TGT on 15.02.1983, and further promoted as PGT on 01.08.1996 is drawing higher basic pay than him. The said junior was getting less pay before implementation of 5th CPC recommendations and, therefore, anomaly had arisen in pay fixation, which needs to be rectified. He made representations to all concerned, since the year 2000 and when no response was emanating, he was compelled to file OA No. 1189/2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 31.05.2005 with direction to respondents No. 2 to pass appropriate speaking order.Pursuant thereto, respo...

insp. Ishwar Singh S/O Shri Bhim Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Though the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Since legal issue raised in these three applications is common in nature arising out of common facts and incident, same are being disposed of by this common order.3. Challenge is made to order dated 25.06.2004 passed by Additional Commissioner of Police, Security, New Delhi, inflicting punishment of forfeiture of five years approved service by deferment of increment permanently, which in turn has been upheld by appellate authority vide order dated 7.3.2005. Total 12 security personnel including applicants herein Inspectors Ishwar Singh, ASIs Diwan Chand & Balwant Bhai) were jointly proceeded against departmentally on the allegations that they miserably failed to prevent an unauthorized person to climb the dais and reach in the close proximity of the VVIP by breaking the security cordon during the function of National Awards organized by the Ministry of Human Resources Development held at the Convention Hall, Ashoka Hotel, New Delhi on 11.05.2001. These three applicants and othe...

Shri Amar Nath Chatterji S/O Late Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Validity of Presidential order dated 01.12.2005, imposing a penalty of one time cut of Rs.1000/- in the pension of applicant, is challenged in present proceedings.2. Admitted facts of the case are that Shri A.N. Chatterji, Assistant Engineer (B/R) while functioning as AGE B/R Gaya, was proceeded under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 vide Memorandum dated 21.11.2000, which contained two articles of charge. It would be expedient to notice said articles of charge, which read as under: MES-201048 Shri AN Chatterjee, AE B/R while functioning as AGE B/R Gaya during the period Sep'93 to Oct' 96 committed gross irregularities, in that he reviewed four demands on 23 Apr 94. These demands were originally given on 20, 23 and 24 Mar 93. As a result of this reviewal of demands, GE Danapur placed 13 supply orders on 13 Aug 94 the day on which he had handed over his charge. The said Shri AN Chatterjee also placed 3 job orders for Rs.56,650/- on 02 Feb 94 and two demands on 02 Feb and 05 Feb 95 f...

Narender Kumar Sharma, Master Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

(a) Issue appropriate directions to Respondents to consider case of the Applicant for reversion to his original grade of Moulder (HS.I) and promoting him further at par with his other colleagues as per orders dated 20-10-1999 and 8-9-2003 (A/5); Pass such further or other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.2. The facts as stated are that applicant was appointed as Moulder in the year 1983, promoted as Master Craftsman (Moulder) vide order dated 24.09.1993. He applied for reversion to his original grade of HS-1 (Moulder) vide application dated 17.08.1993, followed by reminders dated 18.02.1994 and 25.05.1994, which remained unattended. On implementation of 5th Pay Commission's recommendations, Master Craftsman has been placed in the pay scale of Rs.4,500-7,000/-, whereas Chargeman Grade-II has been granted pay scale of Rs.5,000-8,000/-, though feeder grade for both posts is same i.e. HS Grade-I. Though Chargeman Grade-II ca...

Surat Singh Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These six appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order of the CIT, Faridabad dated 31-3-2005 passed under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), relating to assessment years 1994-95 to 1999-2000, whereby an earlier order passed under Section 263 of the Act dated 23-3-2004 has been amended by him.2. The first and the foremost grievance of the assessee against the order of the CIT passed under Section 154 of the Act is that the same is without jurisdiction and is based on misinterpretation of the provisions of Section 154 of the Act. In order to understand the grievance, brief background is necessary which is as follows.3. The assessment for assessment years 1994-95 to 1999-2000 was framed by the assessing officer vide orders passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act on 22-3-2002 read with subsequent orders under Section 154 dated 28-3-2002. The aforesaid orders were reviewed by the CIT and were cancelled by ...

Yogesh JaIn Vs. Bses Yamuna Power Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2007Delhi161; 2007(94)DRJ695

S. Muralidhar, J.1. The prayer in this writ petition is for a writ to quash the electricity bill of Rs. 4,08,621/- raised against the connection bearing K.No. 11410C030033 installed at T-27, Gali No. 10, Industrial Area, New Rohtak Road, Anand Parvat, Delhi. A preliminary objection is raised by learned Counsel for the Respondent as to the maintainability of this writ petition. According to him, the dispute involved in the petition can be referred to the Consumer Forum constituted under Section 42(5) of Delhi Electricity Act, 2003 (`Act').2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the meter installed in the premises is defective and consequently the bill raised is erroneous. He says this kind of a dispute is not within the scope of the jurisdiction of the Forum. He refers to Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (IE Act) which provides that, in the event of a defective meter, the dispute would be referred for the opinion of an Electrical Inspector. It is submitted th...

Dharam Pal Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 137(2007)DLT467

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Appeal 144 of 1982 as also Criminal Appeal 84 of 1983 seek to challenge the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Sessions Case Nos. 71 of 1981 and 72 of 1981, arising out of FIR No. 79 of 1981, Police Station, Sultanpuri, Delhi whereby the learned judge vide his judgment and order dated 28.7.1982 has acquitted Ram Murti and Ranbir Singh of the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC while giving them benefit of doubt in Sessions Case No. 71 of 1981 titled State v. Ram Murti etc. However, the learned Judge went to hold accused, Dharam Pal guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I IPC. He was, however, acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC in Sessions Case No. 71 of 1982. Dharam Pal was further held guilty for an offence punishable under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act, 1955 and accordingly convicted in Sessions Case NO. 72 of 1981. Fur...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Saw Pipes Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]300ITR35(Delhi)

ORDER1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dt. 12th Nov., 2002 passed by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench F, in ITA No. 3007/Del/1997 relevant for the asst. yr. 1994-95.2. The Revenue has raised two issues. Insofar as the first issue is concerned, learned Counsel for the respondent fairly concedes that a substantial question of law has been framed by this Court in several other cases and, thereforee, he does not contest the first issue. On this basis we frame the following substantial question of law:Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in deleting interest under Section 234B of the IT Act, 1961?3. Insofar as the second issue is concerned, we are of the view that no substantial question of law arises and, thereforee, we dismiss the appeal in that regard.4. The assessed is engaged in the business of manufacturing pipes. It manufactures pipes used for oil and gas sector, re-rolling of SS strips and manufacturing of cold roll SS strips of thicker gauge from hot rolled SS strips. It has thre...