Delhi Court February 2007 Judgments

Mrs. Ruchie Seth Wife of Late Shri A.K. Seth, Deputy Commissioner of P ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(94)DRJ744

V.B. Gupta, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 2.12.1996 passed by Smt. Kanwal Inder, MACT, Delhi, appellants have filed the present appeal, seeking enhancement of the compensation.2. Learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 8,56,220/- as compensation to the appellants on account of death of Shri. A.K. Seth in a road accident.3. Deceased A.K. Seth, was serving as Deputy Commissioner of Police in Delhi Police and on 24.4.1992, was driving his maruti car No. DIB 4649 at about 5.00 a.m. near Swami Nagar, DTC Bus Stop on main outer ring road while returning from his official duty at I.G.I. Airport, New Delhi. The deceased was going on correct side of the road, when all of a sudden a truck bearing No. HR-26-A-5448 came from behind, which was driven at a very fast speed, rashly and negligently by respondent No. 2 and overtook the car of deceased from its right side and suddenly swerved to his left side while applying sudden brakes. The truck almost came ahead of the car and the car stru...

Sanjay Singh Kushwah Vs. Resident Commissioner, Mp Bhawan, Govt. of Mp ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 140(2007)DLT215

Hima Kohli, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking quashing/cancellation of advertisement dated 1st June, 2006 issued by the respondents and also seeking a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue at the post of Sub-Engineer (Electrical/Mechanical) in Madhya Pradesh Bhawan, New Delhi and for regularization of his services w.e.f. 5th July, 1997.2. The facts relevant for disposing of the present petition are as follows. In 1997, the Principal Resident Commissioner, M.P. Bhawan, Government of Madhya Pradesh, issued an advertisement in the Employment News inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Sub-Engineer (Elec./Mech.) on contract basis. It was specifically mentioned in the said advertisement that the appointment is on contract basis for 2 years, but will be extendable up to 60 years of age. The petitioner being a diploma holder in Electrical Engineering, applied for the said post. On 23rd June, 1997, a duly constituted select...

Prudential Spinners Ltd. Vs. the Employees P.F. Appellate Tribunal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 142(2007)DLT361; 2007(95)DRJ198; [2007(115)FLR29]

Hima Kohli, J.1. Rule.2. With the consent of counsels for the parties, all the three writ petitions are taken up for final hearing and disposal by passing a common order, as the issues involved are common. 3. In the present writ petitions, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 13th November, 2006 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `the tribunal') in ATA Nos.260 (1)/2006, 258 (1)/2006 and 259 (1)/2006 by which the tribunal has dismissed the appeals filed by petitioner assailing the orders dated 23rd January, 2004, 29th August, 2003 and 13th October, 2005 respectively passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh in proceedings under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short `the Act') determining the dues towards payment of provident fund for the period from January, 2002 in WP(C) No. 670/2007, for the period from April, 2001 to Decemb...

V Vs. Concast Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(213)ELT574TriDel

1. The appeal is filed in regard to a recovery proceeding. No appeal lies to this Tribunal against such proceedings. The appeal is not maintainable....

S. Kumar Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Duty demands and penalties are in regard to processed yarn cleared by M/s. S. Kumars Ltd. during the period 1999-2000. The appellant was discharging duty liability based on approved price list wherein assessable value was worked out by cost of production method.2. Under the impugned order, it has been held that assessable value worked out was less than the actual. As a result, a total demand of about Rs. 6.4 crores remains confirmed.3. The appellant contests the demand on merits as well as on limitation. On merits, the submission is that duty demand has been worked out incorrectly. It is being pointed out that cost revision was made by making additions of certain elements to the originally approved cost of production; but while doing so, cost of conversion remains provided for twice. The submission is that, in the original declaration, provision for conversion was included at the rate of Rs. 4/- PMT etc. The grievance is that when cost was computed afresh, the provision already mad...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Monga Brothers Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Revenue has challenged the order of the Appellate Commissioner holding that no penalty was imposable on the appellant and setting aside the same on the ground that if duty amount was already deposited by the appellant on 13-1-2003, before the issuance of the show cause notice on 22-7-2003.2. The adjudicating authority had disallowed Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,03,360/-, ordered its recovery from the respondent along with the interest and imposed penalty of Rs. 25,840/-, which was 25% of the duty amount. The adjudicating authority held: Penalty of Rs. 25,840/- i.e. 25% of the duty amount had also been deposited on 29-7-2003 along with the interest of Rs. 7012/- vide TR-6 challan No. 5 dated 29-7-2003.3. The penalty @ 25% appears to have been imposed by the adjudicating authority in view of the provisions of the first proviso to Section 11 AC, under which it was provided that where duty as determined under Sub-section (2) of Section 11A, and the interest payable thereon under Section ...

Shri Perfetti Van Melle India (P) Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The issue raised is whether "bubblegum", manufactured and cleared by the appellant was entitled to exemption under S. No. 247 of Notification No. 6/2002. That entry may be noted:247. 1704.90 Sugar confectionery (excluding white chocolate), not containing cocoa 3. The exemption is for sugar confectionary falling under sub-Heading 1704.90. That sub Heading is 'other'. The only specific sub Heading under Heading 1704 is 1704 10 00 which is for 'chewing gum, whether or not sugar coated.' Therefore, all sugar confectionary, other than 'chewing gum', which is specifically mentioned under the sub-Heading 170410 shall fall for excise under 1704.90 as 'other'. This is the clear position under the tariff.4. It is seen that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Gum Products P. Ltd. 1997 (91) E.L.T. 249 (S.C.) that bubble gum and chewing gum are different products. The Central Excise Tariff was also dealing with chewing gum and bubble gum as separate products, as would be seen from the earlier...

G and G Pharmaceuticals Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(117)ECC309

1. The appellant filed this appeal on the ground that modvat credit was denied and penalty was imposed on the ground that appellants had availed the credit without filing declaration under Rule 57-H of Central Excise Rules and adjudicating authority wrongly condoned the delay in filing the declaration under Rule 57-H of the Rules.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of medicines and for availing the credit in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of final product, the appellants filed necessary declaration under Rule 57-G of Central Excise Rules, on 15.9.98 along with application for condoning the delay. The delay was condoned. Thereafter, the appellant also filed a declaration under Rule 57-H on 13.1.1999 in respect of the duty paid on the inputs lying in stock. Thereafter credit was taken on 11.3.1999.3. A show cause notice was issued for denial of this credit. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings on appeal filed by ...

Shri Moon Network (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Out of the demand of about Rs. 50 lakhs of service tax, the appellant has already deposited Rs. 15 lakhs. The submission is that this is the only tax payable and the remaining demand is not sustainable.3. The demand is for the period 2001-2005, and has been made by treating the appellant as a broadcaster for the period, in regard to the sale of space/time slot for advertisement. The submission is that this service became taxable only from 18-4-2006 and therefore, no levy should be made for the previous period. It is also being pointed out that, for whatever broadcast was done, was not charged and therefore no levy was attracted. Another contention is that the appellant who is a "multi system operator" was included as a cable operator from 10-9-2004 and therefore, could not be treated as broadcaster for the previous period, as the nature of service remains the same.4. Prima facie, the contention is correct. The provision for levy of duty shows that 'multi system operator' was introd...

D.K. Aggarwal and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(3)SLJ320CAT

1. Applicants erstwhile Small Industries Promotion Officers (in short 'SIPOs') now working as Assistant Director Grade-II have assailed respondents' order dated 6.5.2005 and consequent denial of pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 w.e.f. 1.1.1996.2. It is not disputed that the Cadre Controlling Authority in respect of 15 disciplines of this post of SIPOs in the office of Development Commissioner, Small Scale Industries, SIPOs (El) and (Statistics) when promoted recommended IES and ISS respectively without the change in Cadre Controlling Authority. The pay scale of these 15 disciplines of SIPOs in pre-revised scale of Rs. 1640-2900 on the implementation of recommendations of 5th Central Pay Commission have been revised and placed in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000. However, subsequently vide order dated 25.8.1998 allowed higher pay scale to the SIPOs (El) in the scale of pay of Rs. 6500-10500 w.e.f. 1.1.1996. Another order passed on 22.7.1999 granted this scale to SIPOs (Statistics). As such, t...