Delhi Court August 2007 Judgments

Cce Vs. Autolite India Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(122)ECC261

1. The Revenue has appealed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) made on 26.5.2005, holding that the respondent was eligible to pay duty in accordance with the Notification No. 2/95-CE dated 4.1.1995. It was held that the respondent had already deposited duty before the issuance of the show cause notice, but claimed benefit of the Notification No. 2/95. As regards the recovery of interest, it was held that, since the duty was paid before the issuance of show cause notice, interest was not recoverable in view of the decision of the Tribunal in G.K. Steel (CBE) Ltd. v. CCE, Coimbatore reported in 2002 (53) RLT 1065. As regards the penalty, it was held that no penalty was imposable under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. The learned Counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection against the maintainability of the appeal by contending that the opinion formed by the Committee of Commissioners under Section 35B(2) that the order of the Appellate Commissio...

Madhya Pradesh Consultancy Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The Misc. application seeks permission to present additional materials. The same is allowed.3. Service Tax demand has been made against the appellant by treating the services provided to various Govt. agencies as Management Consultancy and Engineering Consultancy service.4. We have been taken through relating to the engagement. It is seen that the nature of the work is field evaluation and data collection about various projects launched by the Govt. like afforestation.Prima-facie, we are of the view that there is no Management Consultancy or Engineering Consultancy in the performance of such services.5. Tax demand is not prima-facie sustainable. Stay application is allowed and recovery stayed till the disposal of the appeal....

Ranvir Singh S/O Late Shri Chhotey Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through th ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant impugns respondents orders dated 10.8.2004 and 16.11.2005, whereby his name for the post of Chief Goods Supervisor has been deleted from the panel. Also assailed is interpolation of seniority and consequent reversion.2. Applicant was promoted on selection as a Goods Supervisor on 14.12.1998, whereas Shri Shashi Kumar, respondent No. 3 (R-3), who was a Goods Driver, was declared unfit as Driver and was deployed on alternate job of Goods Supervisor in June 2001. On impart of training he joined as Head Goods Clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 on 16.7.2001/26.9.2001, whereas Shri Bijender Singh, respondent No. 4 (R-4) was promoted in the grade of Rs. 5000-8000 on 1.1.1994, giving him the benefit of reservation. He was also promoted in the grade of Rs. 5500-9000 on 14.12.1998 under reservation, whereas Shri Harnam Singh, respondent No. 5 (R-5) was selected as Commercial Inspector and was transferred to the seniority unit. On 1.11.2003 restructuring orders have been passed...

Shyam Lal S/O Late Shri Ant Ram and Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through t ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA the applicants have sought a direction to the respondents to upgrade their pay scales from Rs. 6500-10500 to Rs. 7500-12000, w.e.f. 21.04.2004, with consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances.2. The brief facts of the case are that prior to the 5th Central Pay Commission (CPC, for short), there was a cadre of Supervisor, Grade-I in the office of respondent No. 4 and other offices in the Income Tax Department. The 5th CPC examined and recommended that the cadre of Supervisor, Grade-I, should be re-designated as Administrative Officer, Grade-III (Group-B Gazetted). The said recommendation was accepted by the respondents and, vide order dated 16.02.1999, Supervisor, Grade-I, working in Delhi were re-designated as Administrative Officer, Grade-III (Group-B Gazetted), w.e.f. 15.02.1999. All the applicants have been working as Administrative Officer, Grade-III (Group-B Gazetted), with effect from different dates from 1999 to 2005.3. The 5th CPC recommended ...

Sh. Onkar Singh S/O Sh. Naurang Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. As the facts involved are identical and issues raised are common, both these cases are being disposed of by this common order.2. In both the OAs, applicants impugn orders dated 31.08.2006 (Annexure A-1) and 04.09.2006 (Annexure A-2) vide which they have been transferred along with posts and the same have been issued purportedly on administrative ground.Applicant (Onkar Singh) has challenged the aforesaid orders on the ground that the same have been issued as a punishment on account of false and fabricated complaint made by the Union officials against whom the applicant had been protesting for sexually harassing a widow worker (Smt. Kamlesh). However, the orders are punitive and have been issued by Respondent No. 2 without giving any reasonable opportunity to the applicant, or holding any departmental proceeding.Applicant, who was working as a Helper Khalasi under Respondent No. 2 in a satisfactory manner, had taken a stand against one powerful Union leader Sh. Mehboob Khan against ...

Smt. Savita Malhotra W/O Late Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through th ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA, applicant impugns Railway Board's order of 17.3.2003 wherein her representation assigning seniority in accordance with para 312 of IREM Volume I was rejected.2. Briefly, the facts are that applicant was appointed as LDC in RDSO, Lucknow, on compassionate grounds, due to sudden death of her young husband. Subsequently, at her own request, she was transferred to Railway Board's office at Delhi on specific terms and unambiguous conditions which included that she would be considered for absorption after one year, subject to passing the prescribed typewriting test.3. At the outset, before arguments began, Shri A.P. Sahay, counsel of the respondents raised a preliminary objection that this case was barred by limitation. He contended that applicant was given appointment on compassionate grounds, without passing qualifying examination etc.and given an ad hoc appointment order on 20.8.1983 on special terms and conditions. After accepting appointment in 1983 she worked at Lucknow...

Sonu and ors. Vs. Mcd and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2007Delhi251

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner seek quashing of the advertisement dated 25-1-2005, issued by respondent No. 1 and 2. They also seek a writ of mandamus or direction to the MCD, 'for awarding contract for removal of dead animals by amongst the enlisted contractors with right on the final product.'2. On a point of background, it may be noted that an advertisement dated 25-1-2005 titled, 'Expression of Interest for Operating Rendering Plant-cum-Carcass Utilization Centre it Ghazipur,' was published by MCD in the Times of India. By that advertisement, the MCD invited an 'Expression of Interest' from interested parties for operating the said rendering plant, as well as for removal of dead animals within the limits of NCT, with the right to the final products of the rendering operation such as, bone meal, fat, skin, hides, etc. The relevant extract from the advertisement is reproduced for facility of reference:Municipal Corporation of Delhi is establishing a fully ...

Sandeep Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2007(115)FLR664]; 2008(2)SLJ378(Delhi)

T.S. Thakur, J.1. Late Smt. Rani Arora was working as a Switch Board Operator (CSBO) Group-Ill in the Signal Regiment of the Indian Army. She died in harness on 3.2.1987 leaving behind two minor children including the petitioner herein. An application for a compassionate appointment against a Group C post was filed by the petitioner in the year 1999 after he attained majority. Since this application did not evoke any response from the respondents, he filed C.W.P. No. 8818/2003 in this Court for a mandamusdirecting the respondents to consider his request which petition was eventually Sdisposed of by this Court by an order dated 11.5.2005 with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim for a compassionate appointment on merits in accordance with the scheme that envisages such appointments.2. The petitioner's case was pursuant to the above direction considered by a Board of Officers on 11.7.2005 against one of the 10 vacancies available with the Army by reason of th...