Delhi Court August 2007 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Monga Brothers, Sanjay Gupta and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Revenue has preferred these three appeals against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 4.7.2005 to the extent that it had set aside the penalties, which were imposed by the adjudicating authority on these respondents.2. The respondent Monga Brothers Ltd. was engaged in manufacturing articles of iron and steel and was availing cenvat credit facility in respect of inputs and capital goods used in the manufacture of the finished goods. The respondent Mr. Rajiv Gupta was the Managing Director and the other respondent Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Director in the said company. When the Revenue officers visited the factory premises of the respondent company, it transpired on physical verification of stock of raw materials and finished goods, that there was a shortage of 76.055 MT of non-alloy ingots valued at Rs. 8,06,487/- involving cenvat duty of Rs. 1,29,038/-. It was also found that there was a shortage of 69 MTs of rounds involving cenvat duty of Rs. 1,40,054/- as well as also a sh...

Mohan Singh Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2008)DMC156

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.FIR. No. 641/2006Under Sections 304B/498A/34 IPCP.S. Tilak Marg1. Petitioners, father and son have approached this Court for relief. Whereas the son, Harinder Singh seeks bail, father seeks anticipatory bail.2. Harinder Singh is in judicial custody since 18.9.2006.3. It is not in dispute that a challan has been presented and a charge has been framed against the petitioners under Section 498A/306 IPC. It is also not in dispute that pertaining to the order framing charge, a revision petition is pending in this Court where the prayer made is that a charge needs to be framed under Section 304B IPC.4. Thus, position as of today would be that the petitioners would be entitled to a consideration of the matter as if they are charged under Section 498A/306 IPC.5. Conscious of the fact that considering the menace of dowry a charge even under Section 306 IPC is a serious offence, I have proceed to embark the journey with extra care and caution.6. Gurpreet Kaur was married to ...

Mawana Sugar Works Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(123)ECC67

1. The appellant has challenged the order of the Commissioner dated 19.07.2005 rejecting its remission claim in respect of 1741.80 qtls.molasses for the season of 2000-01 made by their letter dated 30.11.2001.2. After hearing both sides and going through the record, it appears that the shortage found was less than 2% of the total quantity. The shortage is worked out on the basis of the material on record at 0.72%.The Commissioner has rejected the remission claim on the ground that, the appellant had not taken adequate precaution to safeguard the goods.He observed that, the appellant did not show that the loss that occurred was unavoidable and was not caused due to carelessness on their part. He further relied upon the Trade Notice No. 206/84 dated 01.12.1984 of the Meerut Commissionerate for holding that, there was failure on the part of the appellant to comply with the procedure/conditions laid down therein.3. Both the above grounds given by the Commissioner for rejecting the appella...

Kartik Infotech Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of amount of Service Tax and penalties. The demand was confirmed on the ground that the applicants are running a computer training institute.The contention of the applicant is that they are not running the computer training institute but they are providing vocational training in respect of repair of computers as well as repair of mobile phones and vocational training institute are exempted from payment of Service Tax vide Notification No. 24/2004 dated 10.9.04. The applicant also relied upon the stay order passed by the Tribunal in the case of Sunwin Technosolutions Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE 2007 (5) STR 114 where the demand was raised on the same ground.3. In the present case, as the applicants were imparting vocational training in respect of repairs of computer as well as phones, prima facie, the applicant had "a strong case, therefore, the pre-deposit of amount of Service Tax and penalties are waived. Stay petitions are allow...

Sh. M.P. Mahawar S/O Sh. G. Lal 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 impugned orders of the respondents dated 13.12.2006 and 08.01.2007 [Annexure-A (Colly.)], whereby he was transferred from Office of Registrar General, India (Headquarter) [ORGI (Hqrs.), for short] to DCO, Rajasthan and was subsequently relieved.2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as Artist with the respondents on 29.04.1993. His post was subsequently re-designated as Senior Draftsman. Vide order dated 06.12.2006 (Annexure-D), the respondents revised the allocation of Draftsman and Senior Draftsman in their organization and thereby reduced the number of Senior Draftsman in ORGI (Hqrs.) from seven to five. This was followed by the impugned order dated 13.12.2006 (supra) whereby the applicant was transferred to the office of DCO, Jaipur (Rajasthan). The applicant submitted representation dated 20.12.2006. However, he was relieved, vide impugned order dated 08.01.2007 (supra). His repr...

Sh. Radhey Shyam, J.E. (Elect.) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA the applicants, who are Junior Engineers (Electrical) [JE (E), for short], belonging Scheduled Caste category, have sought promotion as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) [AE (E), for short] by virtue of their having appeared in Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE, for short), 2002, in place of private respondent Nos. 4 and 5, belonging to general/other category, against the vacancies for the year 2001-02, and quashing of the orders of respondents dated 17.03.2003, 16.03.2005 and 17.03.2005 [Annexure P-1 (Colly.)], with consequential benefits.2. Brief facts of the case are that LDCE, 2002 for promotion from Junior Engineer (Civil & Electrical) [JE (C/E), for short) to Assistant Engineer (Civil & Electrical) [AE (C/E), for short] held on 25.08.2002 was conducted by Central Public Works Department (CPWD, for short) for the vacancies for the year 2000-01 and 2001-02. On the basis of examination and merit, the result was declared on 17.03.2003 (Annexure-1...

Hem Raj S/O Sh. Murari Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA the applicant has sought quashing and setting of impugned order dated 28.02.2006 whereby his services were terminated under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 (Rule 5(1), for short) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 (Temporary Service Rules, for short).2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was initially engaged as Casual Labour (Waterman) from 19.10.1993 to 23.11.1994 upon being sponsored by the Employment Exchange. He was further similarly engaged from 12.07.1995 to 31.12.1995. However, on 31.12.1995, his status was changed to that of contract labour and he continued as such till September, 1996. The applicant filed OA No. 179/1996, which was decided in his favour, vide order dated 07.04.1997. Thereupon, the applicant was issued Office Order No. 199/1997 dated 08.09.1997 (Annexure A-2) whereby he was appointed as Casual Worker with a temporary status w.e.f. 03.07.1997. Vide order dated 28.12.2005, the applicant was appointed as Casual Wor...

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

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA the applicant has sought quashing of the Charge Memo dated 23.07.1997 as well as the consequent disciplinary proceedings initiated against him.2. The brief facts of the case are that while working as Inspector (Customs & Central Excise) in Delhi a Charge Memo for major penalty, dated 23.07.1997 was served upon the applicant alleging violation of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (Rules of 1964, for short). The applicant was earlier placed under suspension on 05.02.1993 in connection with the investigation of aforementioned allegations, which was ultimately revoked on 29.05.2003 on the request of the applicant. An Enquiry Officer (EO, for short), was nominated to hold the inquiry, and preliminary hearing was held on 09.03.1998, in which the applicant requested the EO for appropriate directions to the Presenting Officer for supplying relied upon documents as mentioned in the Charge Memo. The relied upon documents were supplied to the applicant on 08.06.1998....

Atlas Cycles (Haryana) Ltd. Vs. Atlas Products Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 146(2008)DLT274; LC2007(3)57; 2008(36)PTC269(Del)

ORDERS5. We would be committing a grievous and unpardonable error if we fail to keep in mind that it is an interim Order which is under challenge before us. Interim Orders are always subject to change or modification at the final stage of the suits. The ambit of interference by appellate Courts has been succinctly demarcated in the following passage from U.P. Coop. Federation Ltd. v. Sunder Bros. : AIR1967SC249 :8. It is well established that where the discretion vested in the court under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act has been exercised by the lower court the appellate court should be slow to interfere with the exercise of that discretion. In dealing with the matter raised before it at the appellate stage the appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of the discretion under appeal solely on the ground that it had considered the matter at the trial stage it may have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by t...

D.T.C. Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2007(115)FLR444]; 2008(2)SLJ59(Delhi)

Hima Kohli, J.1. By way of the present petition, the DTC seeks issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to set aside the judgment and order dated 25th September, 1991 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court whereunder it was held that though the enquiry conducted by the DTC was fair and proper, however the punishment imposed by it on the respondent workman was reduced from termination of service, to that of warning only and the DTC was accordingly directed to reinstate the workman with continuity of service and full back wages.2. Facts of the case are that the respondent workman got employed with the DTC in May 1973 and was brought on monthly rate of pay basis in November, 1974. On 3rd June, 1988, while the respondent workman was performing his duty on Bus No. 1218, Route No. 445, his bus was checked by the checking officials and it was found that the respondent workman was going to Alaknanda via DDA Kalkaji, whereas as per the duty allotted to him, he was supposed to ...