Delhi Court April 2007 Judgments

D.H. Kutti and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)9STJ142CESTATNew(Delhi)

2. According to the appellant, who has challenged the remand order, it was not rendering maintenance or repair services. We have carefully gone through the works order, a copy of which is on record. Not only the subject of the works order is 'annual maintenance contract', but there is entire list of tools etc., which were required to be maintained, enumerated in Clause 5 of the agreement and there are numerous clauses in it which clearly show the nature of maintenance and repair services undertaken. Prima facie, therefore, there is no substance in the challenge made by the appellant against the impugned order. No case for total waiver of pre-deposit is made out. The contention that the extended period of limitation is wrongly invoked, is without any substance because at the relevant time, the appellant had, prima facie, suppressed the correct facts from the Revenue. Having regard to the fact that the Commissioner (Appeals) has remanded the case for examination of the items of work spe...

Shri Mukesh Kumar, Shri Yogesh Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(117)ECC456

1. The appellants challenge the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the penalties imposed on them under Section 112 of the Customs Act.2. According to the Revenue, the appellants had participated in the commissioning of the fraud by signing the applications for DEPBs in respect of Shipping Bill Nos. 33 dated 03.01.2000; 6728 dated 25.07.2000; 7248 dated 07.08.2000; 4739 dated 17.12.1999; 4687 dated 14.12.1999; and 4410 dated 27.11.1999.3. The learned Counsel for the appellants, has, by a communication dated 23.02.2007, submitted that, the appeals of the partners may be decided in the light of the decision of the Tribunal in Customs Appeal No. C/579/06-NB(S) decided on 01.12.2006 in which the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside, relying upon the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 13.09.2006. That order was passed in respect of different DEPBs whereby the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.4. From the material on record, the role of all the appellants in fraudu...

international Traders Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(118)ECC321

1. The appellant M/s International Traders, Delhi imported two consignments declared as lovage at Bombay and filed Bill of Entry No.16016 dated 11.5.99 and Bill of Entry No. 16043 dated 27.5.99 seeking clearance of the consignments. The Customs Tariff classification claimed was Entry No. 1211.90, a subheading under Heading No. 12.11, which reads as under: 12.11 Plants and parts of plants (including seeds and fruits) of a kind used primarily in perfumery, in pharmacy or for insecticidal, fungicidal or similar purpose, fresh or dried, whether or not cut, crushed or powdered.2. The appellant also produced invoice describing the consignments as Lovage from M/s Mustafa Enterprises, Karachi. Since the import of Lovage from SAARC countries was exempt from import licencing, the appellant produced 'SAARC Preferential Trading Arrangement (Sapta) certificate' dated 16th April 1999 from the Export Promotion Bureau, Ministry of Commerce, Government of Pakistan.3. Upon examining the consignment, Cu...

Decent Aluminium Indus. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(118)ECC164

1. The appellant, who had opted for the special procedure under Rule 96-ZA of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and who allegedly did not pay Central Excise Duty for the period after 31^st December, 1997 @ Rs. 7,500/- per month, challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) made on 31^st March, 2001, upholding the order-in-original by which a total demand of Rs. 82,500/- under four show cause notices for different periods was confirmed under Rule 96-ZB read with Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and a penalty of the like amounts imposed under Rules 173Q, 209 and 96-ZE of the Rules.2. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of Aluminium Circles falling under chapter sub-heading No. 7606.20. The application of the appellant for removing their product under Rule 96-ZA was granted on 18.12.1997 for the period from 19.12.1997 to 30.11.1998. The duty was paid @ Rs. 7,500/- per month as per the Notification No. 33/97 dated 30.05.1997. The appellant paid only Rs. 3,750/- f...

Cce Vs. Anubhagya Welfare Society

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)9STJ145CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. The Revenue challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) made on 26.09.2006 by which the order-in-original confirming demand of Rs. 38,267/- of Service Tax, imposing penalty of like amount under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, imposing penalty of Rs. 40,000/- under Section 78 of the said Act, and ordering recovery of interest of Rs. 38,267/-, was set aside.2. A show cause notice was issued on 15.12.2005 to the respondent, Anubhagya Welfare Society, for not paying Service Tax in respect of taxable service under the category of 'Cable Operators Services'.According to the Revenue, the assessee received from its members one time security deposit of Rs. 500/-, which was later on adjusted and utilized as additional collection for providing taxable services over and above charging regular amount of Rs. 50/- per member per month upto March, 2003, which was raised to Rs. 60/- per member per month from April, 2003 to March, 2005. A total amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- was adjusted as ad...

Sandeep Kumar S/O Shri Sri Ram Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi, Through Its

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. A Constable in Delhi Police has assailed an order passed by the respondents on 26.7.2004, terminating his service under Rule 5 (1) of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'Temporary Rules'). Also assailed is an order passed on 29.5.2006, whereby representation against termination has been turned down.2. Applicant was appointed as a Constable in Delhi Police on 17.1.2003.While performing his duty, after completion of training, applicant was involved in a criminal case FIR No. 263/2004, under Section 376 of IPC.An order passed by the respondents dispensed with the services of applicant on termination. Meanwhile, the Additional Session Judge acquitted applicant on 14.12.2005 of the charges, as prosecution has failed to prove the charge against him. A representation preferred against termination was turned down on the ground that acquittal of applicant in criminal case was not honourable and as applicant had indulged in criminal activities,...

Ramashish S/O Shri Raghubir Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi, Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By virtue of this OA applicant has assailed an order passed by the disciplinary authority (DA) on 2.2.2005, dismissing him from service as well an order passed on 3.8.2005, passed by the appellate authority, upholding the punishment.2. Earlier, applicant had approached this Tribunal in OA-710/98, seeking promotion as peon/daftry, wherein directions were issued on 19.7.2001 to furnish 8th class certificate and thereafter to consider the same. As respondents have rejected his plea vide letter dated 7.7.2005 on the ground that applicant has been dismissed on producing forged document, the matter was closed.3. Applicant, who was placed under suspension on 25.1.2002. Thereafter a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him on the ground that applicant, who was allowed to appear as a private candidate for matriculate examination in 1996-97, has informed by producing a marks-sheet that he had passed the matriculation examination from Bihar School Examination Board. On verification o...

Shri Hari Prakash, Joint Director Vs. Union of India (Uoi) the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. This OA is filed against the orders of respondent No. 2 dated 19.11.1995, 20.11.1996, 8.2.2001 and 21.3.2006. (i) to declare the act of the respondent No. 2 illegal and discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and quash the order dated 15.11.1995 vide letter No. A/43792/SCSO/HP/CAO/P-1 and orders of even No. dated 8.2.2001 and 21.3.2006. (ii) To direct the respondent No. 2 to consider the applicant for promotion to the grade of CSO (Dy. Director) for the DPC/Review DPC and to accordingly promote him to the grade of CSO (Dy. Director) and SCSO (Jt. Director) with all consequential benefits in the nature of pay fixation and arrears and grant of any other relief, such as interest on the arrears to which the applicant is found entitled to in the eye of law and equity.3. The facts in brief are that on the basis of IAS Etc. Exam 1974, applicant joined service in the grade of Assistant Civilian Staff Officer (now re-designated as Section Officer) on 2...

Ex-ct. Jagveer Singh, S/O Head Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The present OA is filed against order dated 6.5.2006 passed by respondent whereby applicant was dismissed from service under Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India. His appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 28.7.2006/1.8.2006. (i) to quash and set aside order dated 6.5.2006 passed by respondents dismissing applicant from service. (ii) to quash and set aside order dated 28.7.2006/1.8.2006 passed by respondents. (iii) the respondents may be directed to reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits.3. The facts in brief are that applicant was selected as Constable in Delhi Police in 1994 and performed his duties to the satisfaction of his superiors. The impugned order dated 6.52006 reads as follows: Ct. Jagveer Singh No. 4304/DAP (PIS No. 28030235) posted in 5th Bn. DAP has been involved in a serious misconduct. The brief facts of the case are that on Shri Dharmender S/o Shri C.S. Soni, H. No.84, Guru Angad Nagar Extn., Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110 092. T...

Shri Amar Singh S/O Late Sh. Mam Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA the applicant has sought quashing and setting aside of the appointment of respondent No. 3 to the post of Senior Research Officer (Project Appraisal) [SRO (PA), for short] with a direction to the official respondents to promote the applicant to the said post.2. The bare facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as Small Industries Promotion Officer through Union Public Service Commission (UPSC, for short) in the office of the Development Commissioner, Small Scale Industries on 18.02.1983. Subsequently, on 25.04.1988, the applicant was appointed as Research Officer (RO, for short) against a reserved post for Scheduled Castes through UPSC in the Backward Class Division of the Planning Commission. Thereafter on 13.11.1992, the applicant was promoted as SRO on ad hoc basis in the PEO (Social Development) of the Planning Commission. The applicant was later transferred/posted as SRO (ad hoc) on 27.12.2002 in the Project Appraisal and Management Division (PAMD, for...