Delhi Court November 2007 Judgments

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Associated Construction Company

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(2)ARBLR526(Delhi); 2008(100)DRJ58

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed on behalf of the Union of India challenging the award made on 11.07.2002. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India focused on Claim Nos. 2 and 4 which were allowed by the learned arbitrator to a certain extent in favor of the respondent. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also dwelt upon Claim No. 11 which pertains to escalation of wages.2. Claim No. 2 pertains to the payment for RCC concrete M-20 in lieu of RCC M-15 as per the Site Order No. 4 dated 17.08.1998. The amount of the claim made by the respondent was Rs. 4,46,233.91. As against this, the arbitrator has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,23,373 in favor of the respondent. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the award of this amount has been made contrary to the terms of the contract. He submitted that the respondent knew all along that the concrete that was to be used was of M-20 ...

Systems India Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(126)ECC33

1. Heard both sides. The appellants filed this appeal whereby credit in respect of duty paid on inputs was denied on the ground that the appellants in the declaration filed under Sub-rule 1 of Rule 57-G of Central Excise Rules did not declare the final product Charging bar.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods and appellants cleared charging bar vide invoice 11 dated 7.1.1994 by paying Central Excise duty by utilizing the modvat credit. Show cause notice was issued on the ground that the charging bar was not declared final product, therefore, duty in respect of charging bar cannot be paid from the cenvat credit account.3. I find that as per the Central Excise Rules, during the relevant period, provides that credit on specified goods can allowed in respect of any input utilized towards payment of any excise on any of the final product in or in relation to the manufacture of which such are intended to be used in accordance with the declaration filed in Sub-...

Monnet Sugar Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(127)ECC49

1. Ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that in this case, the credit was denied on Welding Electrodes and imposed penalty of equal amount. He submits that the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shree Neer Cement Ltd. rejected the reference application filed by the Revenue against the admissibility of Cenvat credit on Welding Electrodes. He further submits that in any event, there is contrary decision of the Tribunal on this issue and, therefore, penalty is liable to be set aside.2. Ld. DR on behalf of the Revenue submits that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jaypee Rewa Plant held that Welding Electrode is not admissible for Cenvat Credit. He further submits that this Tribunal in the case of J.K. Cement 2007 (211) ELT 235 after discussing the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court held that Cenvat credit is not eligible on Welding Electrodes.3. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find force in the submissions of the l...

Cce Vs. Adhunik Packages (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(127)ECC47

1. Heard the ld. DR on behalf of the Revenue. None appeared on behalf of the respondent.2. In this case, Credit has been denied on the ground that the respondent failed to produce Sales Tax Form ST-XXVI-A. It is presumed that the respondent had not received the inputs in their factory. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the respondent. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).3. Ld. DR on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the grounds of the appeal filed by the Revenue. Ld. DR submits that Rule 57G(3) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 provides that no Credit under Sub-rule (2) is admissible unless inputs are received in the factory under the cover of the documents specifying therein the details of such goods along with the transporting vehicle numbers etc. He submits that the respondent failed to produce the ST forms, which is issued by Sales Tax Authority for production of the goods from one state to another. Thus, it is clea...

Dori Lal S/O Chinga Ram Vs. Lieutenant Governor, Government

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Dori Lal, the applicant herein, holding the post of Record Attendant (Special Grade) in Department of Delhi Archives (hereinafter to be referred as DAD), Government of NCT of Delhi, has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, seeking setting aside of order dated 20.2.2007 (Annexure A-1) vide which his representation for grant of pay scale of Rs. 950-1400 (pre-revised) as admissible to an employee holding the same post as the applicant in National Archives of India (hereinafter to be referred as NAI), was rejected. In consequence of setting aside of the order Annexure A-1, the applicant seeks direction to be issued to the respondents to give him higher pay scale of Rs. 950-1400 from the date of his appointment till the implementation of the Fifth Central Pay Commission recommendations pursuant to which the pay scale was revised to Rs. 3050-4590 and to pay due arrears to him.2. The brief facts on which the reliefs as mentioned...

Ms. Shobhawati W/O. Late Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant, who came to be appointed on compassionate grounds on the demise of her husband, who was a railway employee, has filed this Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking to set aside the order dated 18.9.2006 issued by the Assistant Personnel Officer (second respondent herein) vide which her representation seeking change of category of employment from Safaiwali to Khallasi has been rejected.2. Earlier in point of time, the applicant for the same relief i.e.change of category from Safaiwali to Khallasi filed OA 577/2006 which was disposed of by this Tribunal on 8.3.2006. The operative part of the order reads as follows: Annexure A-7 shows that applicant has given representation to the Sr. DPO, DRM's Office, New Delhi for change of category from Safaiwali to Khalasi, which has been forwarded for necessary action. Since, no final order has been passed thereon as stated by applicant, this OA is disposed of at the admission stage itself without...

Sas Pharmaceuticals Vs. Emerson Labs Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2008(1)53; 2008(36)PTC476(Del)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This suit has proceeded ex parte against the defendants. The ex parte orders were passed on 01.02.2007. However, that was done after the defendant No. 2 had filed its written statement. It is only after the filing of the written statement that the defendant No. 2 stopped appearing in the matter. By the order dated 01.02.2007, the plaintiff was directed to file its evidence by way of affidavit within four weeks and also to have the exhibits marked. Thereafter, the plaintiff has filed the evidence affidavit of Mr Sandeep Jain (PW-1) who is the partner in the plaintiff firm. Along with the evidence affidavit, various documents were annexed and marked as Exhibits PW-1/1 to PW- 1/28. The evidence affidavit filed on behalf of the plaintiff essentially supports the averments made in the plaint.2. Having examined the evidence on record, I am of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to succeed in this suit, particularly in respect of prayers (a), (aa) and (b) of para ...

C.i.T. Vs. Indian National theatre Trust

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Del)641; [2008]305ITR149(Delhi)

S. Muralidhar, J.1. The questions of law referred to us under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench A , New Delhi ('Tribunal') read as under:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in observing that the provisions of Section 11(2) are applicable to the assessed's Trust2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in directing that the accumulation of the trust in previous years prior to the previous year relevant to the asstt. Year 1980-81 shall also qualify for deductions of 75% allowable Under Section 11(2) of the Income-tax Act3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law in treating a sum of Rs.50,000/- deposited with Shriram Centre for Art and Culture as application of income whereas it was a loan to the said concern2. The assessed Trust was created on...

Kamla Kapur Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(100)DRJ295

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. Issue rule. With consent of counsel for the parties the matter was heard for final disposal.2. The petitioner claims directions to the respondents to remove his lock and the ambulance parked at service outlet namely Knick Knack.3. The petitioner was inducted by the respondent All India Women's Conference sometime in 1991 to operate on 'No profit No Loss' basis, a kiosk to cater to the needs of working women residing in the hostel. As a result she opened an outlet known as 'Knick Knack' and started retailing items of daily use for the benefit of such hostel residents. It is not in dispute that she occupied the premises all these years. In this background on 9.12.2005, the respondent issued a letter calling upon her to pay Rs. 750/- per quarter as donation excluding maintenance charges. This demand was reiterated on 7.10.2005 and 29.3.2006.4. On 3.7.2006 the respondent issued a letter inter alias alleging as follows:In 1995, you have given an undertaking to AIWC th...

Narayan International Thr. Its Proprietor Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(225)ELT54(Del)

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 1st October, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant with a further direction that the appellant would deposit the balance 20% of the demurrage charges with the International Airport Authority of India( for short the 'IAAI') and upon deposit of the said amount the said authority would take steps to ensure that the bank guarantees furnished to it are returned for discharge.2. The appellant herein imported a consignment of Y.K.K. Polyster zippers type LFC-32, No.3, size 8, of Japanese origin from Singapore through invoice dated 15.6.1990. The value declared was of Singapore dollars 12 per 100 pieces. The total value of the consignments was Singapore $ 53,300/- C.I.F. The Bill of Entry was filled on 23.6.1990. The appellant did not insist on a show cause notice as it was incurring heavy demurrage. The Addl. Collector enhanced the value of the goods imported. The ap...