Delhi Court March 2007 Judgments

Gmp Finishing Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(119)ECC141

1. The appellant has challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) made on 29.03.2005 upholding the order-in-original to the extent that the refund of Rs. 5,22,000/-, which was sanctioned against the refund claim dated 19.06.2003, was ordered to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.2. It appears that, on the basis of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CCE, Jaipur v. Sangam Processors (Bhilwara) Ltd. , holding that the length of galleries was not to be included in the chambers for the purpose of capacity determination, the initial provisional capacity determination @ 1.5 lac per chamber per month came to be accordingly finalized at the same rate. Since, in the meanwhile, the appellant had paid excess duty, as set out in the order-in-original on the galleries attached to the chamber installed in the factory, a refund claim was filed under Section 11B of the Act to get the amount back. The appellant had claimed refund of Rs. 5,22,000/-, being the duty paid on galleries...

Krishan Kumar S/O Late Shri C.N. Vs. the Secretary, Ministry of

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA applicant impugns order dated 8.7.2006 whereby respondents after considering previous OA No. 576/2005 directed that it be treated as a representation and a speaking order be passed. In the said order, applicants as per records (in terms of the earlier RRS, i.e. SRO 13E of 1989 and SRO 74 of 1996 Driver (Fire Brigades) Grade-II along with other equivalent categories with requisite years of service) were eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Supervisor (Non-Technical).2. On a cadre review of Fire Brigade Driver's undertaken to improve their service conditions, the Government of India introduced a four grade structure vide its order dated 17.9.2002 whereby the following graded structure, with new pay scales was introduced: 3. With introduction of this graded structure, the promotional opportunities in the cadre of Fire Engine Driver's improved considerably and, therefore, it was felt that it is no longer necessary to persist with dual promotional avenues fo...

O.P. Shukla S/O Shri V.R. Shukla Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Validity of penalty order dated 28.9.2006 of reduction from the stage of Rs. 9,000/- to the stage of Rs. 8825/- in the time scale of Rs. 5500-9000 for a period of 4 months without having the effect of postponing future increment as well as minor penalty proceedings dated 31.1.2004 is impugned in the present application.2. Admitted facts of the case are that vide Memorandum dated 13.1.2004, under Rule 11 of Railway Servants (Disciplinary & Appeal) Rules, minor penalty proceedings were initiated against the applicant alleging that he claimed false under-rest. He was entitled to under rest to 1.35 hrs.instead of claim laid for 9.40 hours. Said allegations were denied on 16.2.2004. Disciplinary authority vide order dated 31.3.2004 recording the finding that he: 'failed to submit' representation in response to the aforementioned Memorandum proceeded with ex parte decision and imposed upon him the penalty of reduction to a lower stage of Rs. 5500/- in the time scale of Rs. 5500-9000/...

Rajiv Kumar, Constable of Delhi Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi (Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant, a Constable in Delhi Police, impugns respondents' order dated 18.11.2004, initiating a departmental enquiry (DE), an order passed on 29.7.2005 pursuant to an enquiry, imposing upon him a punishment of permanent forfeiture of two years' approved service with reduction in pay and lastly an order passed on 6.6.2006 in appeal, upholding the punishment.2. On the allegations that on a PRG raid applicant has allegedly demanded and accepted Rs. 50/- from one truck driver and an amount of Rs. 350/- recovered from him alleges him for gross misconduct, for which an enquiry proceeded held him guilty of the charge. On representation a major penalty has been inflicted, which on appeal when affirmed, gives rise to the present OA.3. Shri Anil Singhal, learned Counsel appearing for applicant contended that enquiry is vitiated for violation of Rule 15 (2) of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980, as PRG raid conducted amounts to a preliminary enquiry (PE), as held by the ...

Dr. Col. D.P. Attrey Vs. Government of India and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(1)SLJ110CAT

1. In the instant case, the applicant, a former Colonel in the Indian Army, is aggrieved by the fact that after joining the Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) as Civilian Scientist 'E' on 22.8.2003, his pay has not been fixed. The applicant has prayed for the following relief: (i) direct the respondents to protect applicant's last pay drawn as Colonel in the Indian Army before he joined DRDO and his full Army Service, to restore his equivalent status as Scientist 'F' in the DRDO as per Army H.Q. letter; or (ii) Applicant's case be considered for permanent secondment instead of permanent absorption with orders to grant him the rank of Brigadier which he could have got in the Army; (iii) direct the respondents to pay applicant's full Army pay with emoluments and non-practicing allowance forthwith with interest at the rate of 24% per annum; (iv) direct the respondents to grant the applicant status of Scientist 'F' and accordingly, equivalent seniority of Colonel from 19...

Shri Hari Om Gupta S/O Late Shri Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through, th ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA the applicant has sough quashing and setting aside of impugned orders dated 11.07.2003, 21.05.2004 and 07.06.2005 whereby a penalty of reduction in pay by five stages for a period of three years was imposed on him. It was also ordered that he will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and it will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay.2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk in 1990 by the respondents. While the applicant was working as Assistant Sales Tax Officer (ASTO, for short), a Charge Memo for major penalty was issued to him on 14.05.2001 through which the following Article of Charge was communicated to him: While functioning as ASTO in Old Ward - 36 and New Ward - 89, Sh. H.O. Gupta, the then ASTO, has committed mis-conduct in as much as that he had passed the rejection order in the case of registration of M/s. Tarai Foods Ltd., 304, Sai Plaza, 187-88, Sant Nagar,...

Daya Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant, since retired compulsorily under FR 56 (j), has sought a challenge to respondents' order dated 5.11.2004, whereby on a disciplinary proceeding a major penalty of reduction by one stage in the pay scale for a period of 18 months has been inflicted upon him with cumulative effect. Also assailed is an appellate order dated 28.3.2006, whereby the punishment imposed has been upheld. A disagreement note by the disciplinary authority (DA) dated 27.6.2004 is also assailed.2. Applicant while working as a Postal Assistant was proceeded against for a major penalty on the allegation that on 1.4.1999 while working at headquarters office Gurgaon he remained unauthorizedly in the office after duty hours and had consumed liquor. It is also alleged that applicant went to the second floor of head office where one Smt. Shanti Devi who came to him for help he has not paid any attention to her request, which resulted in her rape by one of the constables posted there. Although criminal case a...

insp Dharam Pal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA the applicant has sought quashing and setting aside of the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 22.01.2004 and of the Appellate Authority dated 31.01.2005 whereby he was awarded the punishment of censure. He has further sought to declare the procedure of awarding punishment of censure without holding a departmental enquiry ultra vires of the Parent Act as well as of the Constitution of India.2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is working as Inspector in Delhi Police. In accordance with the powers and procedure laid down under Sections 154/158 of Cr. P.C., after the completion of investigation, either a Charge Sheet is submitted in the Court or, where during investigation no clue of the criminal is found, SHO submits a report for closure of the investigation to the concerned Magistrate or if, after complete investigation, no cognizable offence is made out, investigation is sought to be closed by the Police and a request for closing of the case as ca...

Asstt. Cit Vs. Erik Matthew Gottesman

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of ld.Commissioner (Appeals)-XXX, New Delhi dated 31-7-2006 for assessment year 2003-04, in the matter of order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,85,522 made by the assessing officer on account of social security contribution. The appellant craves the right to amend, alter, add or substitute any grounds of appeal.3. During the course of hearing we found that the tax effect in the appeal filed by the revenue is less than Rs. 1,00,000, insofar as there is a deletion of addition of Rs. 1,85,522 made by the assessing officer on account of social security contribution.4. We have gone through the grounds of appeal filed by the revenue and A found that tax effect in the instant appeal is less than Rs. 2 lakhs.In view of C.B.D.T. Instruction No. 2, dated 24-10-2005, the department should no...

Centre for Public Interest Litigation Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 139(2007)DLT289

Swatanter Kumar, J.1. Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), a registered Society stated to have been formed for the purposes of conducting public interest litigation in an organized manner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of quo warranto alleging that the respondents no.1 and 2 have illegally permitted Prof. P. Venugopal, respondent no.3, Director of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as 'the Director') to continue against the post in complete and vent on disregard of the statutory regulations as he is being permitted to continue in that post beyond the age of 62 years as well as he is occupying the post of Cardio Thoracic Vascular Surgeon since his appointment as Director in July 2003.2. The Society claims that it has eminent lawyers as members of its Executive Committee and they are generally interested as public spirited professionals to take legal steps in accordance with la...