Delhi Court December 2007 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Cce Vs. Divisional Manager,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-2007
Reported in: (2008)10STR290
1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal No.95-ST/BPL/06 dt. 19.12.06 whereby Commissioner (Appeals) directed to refund the amount of Rs. 1,08,109/- under Section 11B of the Central Excise, 44 alongwith interest.2. The relevant facts of the case in brief are that the respondent filed a refund application on excess payment of tax. The adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund claim but it was denied on the ground of unjust enrichment. The respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals), allowed the appeal of the respondent.3. Ld. DR submits that it is admitted position from the Commissioner (Appeals) order that the respondent did not submit any evidence in support of the unjust enrichment. So, the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot allow the refund claim on the basis of new evidence, which is hit by Rule 5 of Central Excise (Appeals) Rules, 2001. She relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mandhana Dyeing v. CCE...
industrial Security Agency Vs. Commissioner of C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-2007
Reported in: (2008)10STR265
1. The applicant filed this application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal of 110 days. Ld. Counsel submits that on 10-12-2006, they received the impugned order and filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Hon'ble High Court. By order dated 21-3-2007 certified on "30-3-2007", the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy.Thereafter the applicant filed this appeal on 29-6-2007.2. It is seen that the applicant filed this appeal within the stipulated period on the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order of the Hon'ble High Court. Hence, I find there is sufficient reason for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. COD is allowed.3. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty. The ld. Counsel submits that there was dispute of payment of tax between the applicant and M/s. BSNL. The Hon'ble High Court decided that the...
Sumer Kumar Datta Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi and anr.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-2007
Reported in: (2008)(98)SLJ395CAT
1. The following two orders are being assailed in this O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 : (i) order dated 12.02.2007 of Home (Police II) Department of the Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) rejecting the applicant's representation dated 22.08.2006 (Annexure-1) and (ii) the order dated 10.06.2005 by which the applicant has been sanctioned pay scale of the post of Director of Prosecution only from 17.05.2000 to 17.05.2001 (Annexure-IA).2. The applicant retired on superannuation on 30.04.2004 from the post of Director of Prosecution, GNCTD. He had joined the prosecution branch of GNCTD on 15.03.1967 as Prosecuting Sub-Inspector and in due course of time rose to become Chief Prosecutor in the scale of Rs. 2775-4000 (pre-revised) with effect from 17.05.1995 on regular basis. The next higher post in the cadre was Director of Prosecution. When the incumbent Director retired on 30.11.1995, the applicant, being the senior most Chief Prosecutor was ordered v...
Khyali Ram, Ex-inspector S/O Shri Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Throu ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-2007
Reported in: (2008)(2)SLJ379CAT
1. Khyali Ram, the applicant herein, who is Inspector in Delhi Police, through present Application filed by him under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, complains of 17 years of continued harassment and torture meted out to him by the respondents in first not prosecuting but persecuting him in a criminal case and then dismissing him from service invoking provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, and when the said order was set aside, to proceed in departmental enquiry against him on wholly made up and frivolous charges. The respondents, on the other hand, have endeavored to show that the applicant who was departmentally tried on extremely grave and serious charges which stood proved in the departmental enquiry held against him, confirmed by the disciplinary and appellate authorities, has yet been given punishment of forfeiture of his two year's approved service, which would be far less commensurate to the misconduct indulged by him. Which out of ...
Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Shanker Raju
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-2007
Reported in: 150(2008)DLT545; 2008(100)DRJ742
A.K. Sikri, J.1. Delhi is a place where cost of living as well as cost of construction has been steadily increasing at least in the last 30 years. Last few years have seen an upward trend at feverish pace. For persons with average income, to which category Government employees also belong, it is already becoming difficult to have their own accommodation in Delhi. That day is not far away when it would be impossible for a salaried class employee (excluding those with higher income like top executives in corporate sector) to afford his own house as the residential accommodations are becoming costlier and prices skyrocketing. It has corresponding effect of similar nature on the rentals as well. thereforee, arranging a rental accommodation also is becoming difficult to this middle class. It is one important reason that rent-free accommodation provided by the employer is viewed as the most lucrative perk. As a sequitur, this also becomes reason for perennial litigation between the employer ...
Ravindra Brothers Vs. Una Cooperative Group Housing Society
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-2007
Reported in: 2008(100)DRJ211
ORDER xviii HEARING OF THE SUIT AND EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES 18. Power of Court to inspectThe Court may at any stage of a suit inspect any property or thing concerning which any question may arise and where the Court inspects any property or thing it shall, as soon as may be practicable, make a memorandum of any relevant facts observed at such inspection and such memorandum shall form a part of the record of the suit.10. I am unable to persuade myself to agree with the submissions of learned Counsel for the respondent. An arbitrator is not bound by the strict parameters of the said code. Apart form this, it has to be seen that the arbitrator is an architect who visited the site and both the petitioner and the respondent would have pointed out as to how the work was defective or had been completed. If the arbitrator makes some nothings for himself, it cannot be said that the same would have to be mandatorily handed over to the respondent-Society since they are in the nature of nothings ...
Lala Ram Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-2007
Reported in: 2008(100)DRJ129
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This appeal challenges the judgment dated 22nd March 2004 and the order on the point of the sentence dated 25th March 2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in SC No. 7/2000 arising out of FIR No. 585/99, in Police Station Pashchim Vihar, by which the appellant was sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 394 IPC and was further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 3000/- in default of which he was required to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 302 IPC. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.2. The brief facts of the case as set up by the prosecution are as follows:(a) On 22nd June 1999, police Station Paschim Vihar received an information from PCR that a murder was committed in house No. 137, 1st Floor, Ambika Vihar, Paschim Vihar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to ...
Suresh Enterprises Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-2007
Reported in: 2008(101)DRJ46
S. Muralidhar, J.CM No. 16830/2007Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.WP(C) 8911/2007 & CM No. 16829/20071. The challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is to an order dated 12th December, 2006 passed by the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade ('ADGFT'), Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, New Delhi.2. By the impugned order, an order passed by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Mumbai ('JDGFT') was set aside and the case remanded to the JDGFT, Mumbai for de novo consideration.3. On the previous date of hearing, i.e., 4th December 2007, we had requested learned Counsel for the Petitioner to address us on the question of the maintainability of this petition in this Court since the proceedings emanated from the order passed by the JDGFT, Mumbai. At the request of learned Counsel for the Petitioner, this matter was adjourned for today.4. Mr. C. Hari Shankar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner subm...
Cce Vs. Shri Ram Diesels (India)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-2007
Reported in: (2008)(127)ECC180
1. Heard the learned DR on behalf of the Revenue. The respondent filed written submission and requested to decide the matter in their absence.After hearing the learned DR and on perusal of the records, it is seen that the Central Excise Officers during the stock verification detected shortage of inputs and the respondent immediately reversed the credit of Rs. 20,080/-. The adjudicating authority imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 13 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 for contravention of the rules. The appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). By the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. The contention of learned DR is that Rule 13 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 provides minimum penalty of Rs. 10,000/- and therefore, Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified to reduce the penalty. He relied upon the decision in the case of CCE, Lucknow v. Sarjoo Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. reported in 2006 (204) ELT 478 (Tri. Del.)....
Ganga Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-2007
Reported in: (2008)(128)ECC102
1. The relevant facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of V.P. Sugar, Molasses classifiable under chapter heading No. 17.01 and 17.03 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1885. On 12.09.1989, the Central Excise Officers visited the factory and verified the stocks and found shortage of molasses. Show cause notice dated 25.9.1989 was issued proposing demand of duty of Rs. 79,427.88. Further, a corrigendum to show cause notice dated 15.11.89 was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. By adjudication order dated 27.12.2004, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty of equal amount under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules 1944.The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order.2. The learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant submits that photocopy to show cause notice was served to the appellant on 25.11.2004 and therefore the demand is barred by limitation. He...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »