Delhi Court November 2007 Judgments

S.P. Construction, N.K. Traders, Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)12STJ307CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the appellant.The Tribunal vide stay order dated 13.9.2007 appellant - M/s Krishna Enterprises was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 53,661/-, appellant - M/s S.P. Construction was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 83,996/- and appellant - M/s S.S. Electrical was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,19,234/-. The appellant had not complied with the conditions of the stay order, therefore, the appeal Nos.ST/360/07, ST/410/07, ST/409/07 are dismissed for non-compliance to the provisions of Section 35F of Central Excise Act....

Pasupati Spinning and Weaving Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)12STJ344CESTATNew(Delhi)

2. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of amount of Service Tax and penalty. The demand of Rs. 3,52,738/- was confirmed on the ground that the applicant received the service of commission agent which is outside India for the period 9.7.2004 to 31.5.2005.3. The contention of the applicant is that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order had not considered all the issues raised in their appeal. The contention is that the applicant raised the issue of jurisdiction on the ground that the demand is confirmed against the factory and commission has been paid by their head office. The applicant also submitted that demand is time-barred as no suppression can be alleged against the applicant. The contention is that in the show-cause notice a demand prior to 30.6.03 is on the ground that the applicant received the service of C & F agent and after 30.6.03, the same activity is considered as recipient of business auxiliary service.4. The contention of the Rev...

Shri R.K. Doomra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this O.A., applicant has sought direction to Respondents to make payment of TTA Bills and Composite Transfer Grant.2. Brief facts of the case are that applicant while working as Assistant Engineer (E) in the Office of Executive Engineer (E), Jaisalmer, received an Office Order dated 01.10.2005 whereby he was relieved in public interest from that Division w.e.f. 01.10.2005 to report to Superintending Engineer, Coordination Circle (E), CPWD, New Delhi for further posting orders.3. It is stated by applicant that in compliance of said order, he proceeded to Delhi and submitted his joining report on 05.10.2005 in the Office of Superintending Engineer, Coordination Circle (E), CPWD, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. It was after about a month that he received another Office Order dated 02.11.2005 whereby he was directed to report back to Executive Engineer (E), Jaisalmer, since his joining in the Office was without proper order of transfer. Once again applicant complied with the order and report...

Ct. Amarjeet Singh S/O Shri Raghu Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Constable Amarjeet Singh, applicant herein, was dismissed from service pursuant to a departmental enquiry wherein the charge against him for remaining willful absent from duty for a period of 13 months, 27 days and 18 hours was proved as per the report of the enquiry officer, Annexure-1, dated 23.3.2005. The order of dismissal from service was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, the disciplinary authority, vide order dated 14.11.2005 which has since been confirmed by the Joint Commissioner of Police vide order dated 31.5.2006 in an appeal carried by the applicant against the order passed by the disciplinary authority. These are the orders that have been challenged in the present Original Application filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.Summary of allegations prepared by the enquiry officer reads as follows: It is alleged against you Const. Amarjeet Singh No. 1830 SD that while posted at Police Station K.M. Pur, South District on...

Ajay Kumar Mittal Son of Shri Mooll Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Ajay Kumar Mittal, applicant herein, successfully competed for the post of Assistant Central Intelligence Officer Grade-II (General) (hereinafter referred to as 'ACIO-II/G') pursuant to an advertisement published in the daily newspapers in the year 1985 for 338 vacancies that were available and for which advertisement mentioned above was published. He received an offer of appointment on 11.07.1986 and joined at the office of Assistant Director, D.R.T. Centre, Shivpuri (Madhaya Pradesh) on 27.7.1986. He underwent training of four and a half months required for final appointment in the service. The applicant, as per the case set up by him in this Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, was imparted training in 55th Batch and some of his colleagues, who were selected in the same process of appointment and were imparted training in 56th Batch, were promoted to the post of ACIO-I/G on 06.12.1995. The applicant claiming himself to be senior ...

Sandeep Kumar Verma S/O Late Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. While employed as Travelling Ticket Examiner in the Northern Railway, disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the applicant, which ultimately ended in an order whereby he was to be removed from service as a penalty. The Divisional Commercial Manager by Annexure A-1 had passed this order. An appeal carried to the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager stands dismissed on 24.07.2006. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, the revisional authority, also did not choose to interfere in the orders, as could be seen from proceedings dated 06.01.2007. This application has come to be filed in the above circumstances.2. Articles of charges, a copy of which is produced as Annexure A-7, allege that the applicant had absented himself unauthorizedly from 27.06.2005 to 29.10.2005. It was also alleged that in spite of his transfer from Najibabad to Hardoi, he did not travel over to Hardoi and had not assumed office and was remained absent without intimation. As a consequence, it was ...

Dr. S.K. Sharma S/O Late Shri M.R. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Un ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Validity of Memorandum dated 6.7.2005 (page 40) initiating departmental proceeding under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and order dated 28.02.2007 (page-21) whereby applicant has been given the punishment of 'censure' has been challenged by the applicant in present O.A. Dr. S.K. Sharma, while working as Superintending Engineer at Indore Central Circle, CPWD, Indore during the period from 28.04.1999 to 24.07.2002, committed the following lapses: The work of 'Special repairs to External services for CRPF Group Centre, Neemuch; SH: Re-carpeting of internal roads' was executed by M/s Shapers Construction Ltd., Bhopal under Agreement No. 30/EE/ICD-I/99-2000. Dr. S.K. Sharma during inspection of site of work on 2.12.1999 issued verbal instructions for execution of Extra Item of spreading of fine sand over road carpeted surface which was analogous to the item of Seal coat. In view of remark given under DSR-97, item 17.59, i.e. for seal coat, only Chief Engineer was competent to allow th...

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Exportos Apparel Group Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Del)233; [2008]299ITR176(Delhi)

ORDERMadan B. Lokur and Dr. S. Muralidhar, JJ.1. Admit.2. The following question of law is framed for consideration:Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal') was correct in law in holding that the assessed is entitled to a deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before adjusting unabsorbed business and unabsorbed depreciation3. Learned Counsel for the Revenue has drawn our attention to Section 80A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'Act'). This Section occurs in Chapter VI- A of the Act and the relevant portion is Sub section 1 which reads as follows:80A - Deductions to be made in computing total income(1) In computing the total income of an assessed, there shall be allowed from his gross total income, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Chapter, the deductions specified in Sections 80C or 80U.4. A plain and simple reading of the above shows that for computing the total income of an assessed, first the gross total income of the as...

Ranjan Dwivedi and anr. Vs. C.B.i. Thr. the Director General

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008CriLJ1440; 146(2008)DLT684

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In these revisional proceedings, under Section 397, Criminal Procedure Code ('Cr.PC.'), the petitioners impugn orders of the Special Judge, dated order dated 27.02.2007 (which directed recording of the statement Under Section 313 Cr. P.C). By order dated 06.03.2007, the application to recall the first impugned order was rejected. The third order under challenge is dated 21-3-2007.2. The facts necessary to decide the proceedings are that due to a bomb explosion at Samastipur Railway Station, at 6.30 p.m on 02.01.1975 Shri L.N. Mishra, the then Railway Minister sustained serious injuries. He expired on 03.01.1975 in the morning at 9 am at Danapur, Bihar. The matter was investigated initially by local police, C.I.D and later by CBI. A few persons earlier arrested were discharged. Two of them made confessional statements and one was recorded Under Section 164 Cr. P.C. The CBI gave them a clean chit. In June 1975 internal Emergency was imposed and the Ananda Marg sect...

Sh. Zile Singh Vs. Sh. Mangloo Ram Bansal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 146(2008)DLT50

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 5.8.04 passed by the ADJ, Delhi whereby appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 6.5.03 passed by the Civil Judge, Delhi was dismissed.2. Appellant was the defendant in the suit filed by the respondent seeking a decree in sum of Rs. 2 lacs.3. It was pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement to sell dated 17.9.90 whereunder defendant agreed to sell an alternative plot which was to be allotted to him by DDA for a sale consideration of Rs. 2 lakhs. That pursuant to the said agreement the plaintiff paid earnest money in sum of Rs. 1 lakhs to the defendant on 17.9.90. That the balance sale consideration was to be paid at the time when the possession of the plot was to be handed over to the plaintiff and execution of sale deed and other necessary documents. That the defendant failed to perform its part of obligations under the...