Delhi Court April 2007 Judgments

Star Cable Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)11STJ164CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. The stay application has challenged the revisional order of the Commissioner, by which he had enhanced the penalty of Rs. 100/-imposed by the Asstt Commissioner under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 to Rs. 100/- per day subject to maximum amount of Rs. 48,010/-, which was the service tax payable.2. It appears that the Commissioner has over-looked the provisions of Section 80 giving discretion to the adjudicating authority while imposing the penalty. It is also evident from the order of the Assistant Commissioner that he had taken a lenient view against the noticee by exercising discretion given to him under Section 80. In this context, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held, in CCE, Bangalore v. Sunitha Shetty reported in 2004 (174) ELT 313 (Kar), that the Deputy Commissioner who exercised discretion conferred on him under Section 80 of the Act and not on an interpretation of Section 76 which mandated levy of penalty of Rs. 100/- per day for each day of the delay. The app...

Anurag Colour Lab. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)11STJ168CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. Heard both sides. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of the amount of service tax. The applicants were providing photographic service and are paying service tax in respect of service provided by the provider. The view of the revenue is that the cost of material is also to be added while assessing the liability under the service tax. We find on the same issue, the Tribunal vide stay order dt. 19.12.06 allowed pre-deposit the amount of service tax and penalty and ordered that out of turn appeal to be heard. In view of the above stay order, pre-deposit of service tax amount is waived. Stay petition is allowed. Registry is directed to list the appeal alongwith Appeal No. ST/487/06 which is already on list....

Raj Kumar S/O Sh. Premchand, Raj Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By MA No. 431/2006 applicants seek condonation of delay in approaching this Tribunal.2. Three applicants in this OA seek direction to Respondents to consider them for promotion to post of Fitter Grade-II from the date their junior, namely, Shri Dulichand was promoted, in terms of Para 228 of IREM Vol.I with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay & allowances. In the alternative, applicants seek direction to Respondents to consider them for stepping up their pay at par with their junior, i.e. Shri Dulichand, with all consequential benefits.3. Admitted facts are that applicants were appointed as Fitter on 3.12.1985, further promoted as Fitter Grade-II as well as Fitter Grade-I. Presently they are working as Fitter Grade-II in Delhi Division. For the first time in September 2002, Respondents issued seniority list of Fitter Grade-III wherein their names appear at Sl.Nos. 34, 32 and 33 respectively. The said seniority list revealed that Shri Dulichand, their junior, was...

Ct. Vijay Kumar S/O Shri Jagmal Vs. Commissioner of Police, Joint

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The present application has been filed by four applicants seeking quashing of order dated 28.2.2005 whereby applicants' increments were withheld, temporarily, for a period of one year. They have also sought quashing of order passed on their appeal of 24.5.2005 as well as order dated 3.9.2004 of the Enquiry Officer as illegal as also order dated 9.9.2005 for inclusion of applicants name on the secret list.2. The undisputed facts are that SI Shiv Kumar, Constable Hanif Khan, Constable Dalip Kumar and Constable Vijay Kumar were dealt departmentally under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 on the allegation that while posted at PS Pahar Ganj, Delhi on 8.7.2003 they had checked a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) Shri Avtar Singh S/o Shri Amar Singh Sandhu, R/o 93, New Deshmesh Nagar, Moga, Punjab (bearing Passport No. P-1936430) at 7.30 PM in Pahar Ganj Market, Delhi. They continued questioning and harassing him for several hours. Later, they went to his hotel, ...

Mukesh Garg S/O Shri B.B. Gupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. A major penalty of reduction for a period of four years with cumulative effect vide order dated 27.10.2004 and appellate order dated 18.5.2005, affirming the punishment are being assailed.2. Applicant, who has been earlier held guilty partly of the charge, when inflicted punishment, which was affirmed in appeal, filed OA No.1929/2002 before the Tribunal. An order passed on 30.5.2003 by the Tribunal on the ground that defence witnesses (DWs) were not allowed to be examined and the orders passed by the disciplinary authority (DA) as well as appellate authority are non-speaking, impugned orders have been set aside with remand back of the case to the enquiry officer (EO) from the stage of calling DWs.3. DW was examined who supported the claim of applicant. Thereafter, an enquiry report was submitted by the EO, holding the charges as proved, which culminated into a penalty order, which on being upheld in appeal, gives rise to the present OA.4. The charges against applicant are of creati...

K.K. Gagneja, Retd. Sr. Supdt. of Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant, a JTS officer, seeks from 10.12.2002, i.e., from the date of his regular promotion in JTS in Indian Postal Service Group 'A' in the pay scale of Rs. 8,000-13500, allowances under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' for the duties discharged on assumption of the post of STS, Group 'A' in the pay scale of Rs. 10,000-15,200/- till his superannuation on 31.1.2006.2. Learned Counsel of applicant has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Selvraj v. Lt. Governor, Port Blair and Ors. JT 1998 (4) SC 500 to contend that discharge of duties by an order on higher post would entail pay and allowances attached to that post as a difference.3. Learned Counsel would also contend by relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Bhagwan Dass and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.1987 (3) SLJ SC 93 to contend that applicant when doing same work as others, mere mode of recruitment when the duties discharges are identical, would not deny equal pay for equal work.4. Learned Cou...

Ravi Shanker Srivastava, Ias, S/O Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. As these OAs involve common facts and an identical question of law, are being disposed of by this common order.2. Rule 3 of All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 provides in Part-II suspension and its consequences. A member of All India Service can be placed under suspension where article of charges have been drawn up by the State Government or Central Government under Rule 3 (1) for a period of 90 days, which is to be reviewed and valid till 180 days at a time. Rule 3 (2) of the Rules provides, on detention for a period of more than 48 hours in official custody, for deemed suspension of a member of the Service and Rule 3 (8) provides that a member of the Service who has been suspended on account of investigation or trial relating to a criminal charge at the discretion of the Government may be placed under suspension until the termination of all proceedings to the charge. Rule 3 (7) and 3 (8) are reproduced as under: (7)(a) An order of suspension made or deemed to ...

Anil Thapar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By present OA, applicant has challenged order dated 14th September, 2006 and 20th September, 2006 passed by Respondents No. 1 & 2 respectively.2. Admitted facts are that applicant is an Officer belonging to P&T Accounts and Finance Telecom Wing Group-B (Gazetted) service of Respondent No. 1. On constitution of BSNL, his services were placed with it on 'deemed deputation basis without deputation allowance'.Respondent No. 2 is a Public Sector Undertaking & came into existence on conversion of a Govt. Department. On a dispute relating to non-grant of corresponding IDA pay scale to applicant's CDA pay scale of Rs. 7450-225-11500/- in the event of opting permanent absorption in BSNL/MTNL, 24 officials including applicant herein, preferred OA No.1420/2005.3. During pendency of aforesaid OA, M.A. No. 1671/2006 was preferred seeking stay of order dated 14.09.2006 whereby 7 Group 'B' Officers of Accounts and Finance Service, Telecom. Wing were treated to be deemed to have opted ...

Raghuvir Singh Akela S/O Shri Lala Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi Throug ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant, an erstwhile PGT (Graphics) has challenged the order dated 13.4.2005, whereby he has been reverted to the post of Drawing Teacher. Also assailed is promotion of respondent No. 4 as PGT (Graphics).2. The qualifications prescribed for the post of PGT (Graphics) provide that the candidate should be a Bachelor in Fine Arts with Graphic Specialization or Higher Secondary/Intermediate/Senior School Certificate Examination with minimum five years diploma in Painting/Commercial Art with Graphics as one of the subjects.Applicant, who fulfills the criteria applied for inclusion of his name in the eligibility list for the year 2000-2001 for the post of Lecturers, both in the discipline of Drawing and Graphics, whereas respondent No. 4 had not applied. A tentative eligibility list was circulated on 23.4.2001 inviting objections with a stipulation that separate forms should be used for different subjects. 100 objections received culminated into DPC held on 26.5.2001. Respondent No. 4...

Kapsch Metro Jv Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(2)CTLJ64(Del); 140(2007)DLT378; 2007(95)DRJ668

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. The respondent No. 2, National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) vide Notice dated 20th November, 2006 No. NHAI/CM/MTCS/2006-II invited tenders from established and reliable manufacturers/suppliers for the design, supply, installation, testing, commissioning and maintenance of state-of-the-art Toll Collection Systems at toll plazas on National Highway. 2. As per Clause 2.7.1 of the Tender Notice, the bidders were required to submit their proposals along with an application fee of Rs. 5000/- or US$ 125 and an Earnest Money Deposit (hereinafter referred to as 'EMD') of Rs. 10,000,000/- (Rupees Ten Million only) or US$ 25,0000 in the form of a demand draft/pay order drawn in favor of 'National Highways Authority of India' or any scheduled bank payable at New Delhi. It was further stated in the tender document that the EMD could also be in the form of a Bank Guarantee as per Clause 3.2.2 and the format specified in Section VIII of the document was to be valid for a peri...