Delhi Court January 2008 Judgments

Joga Singh S/O Shri Jassa Singh Vs. State of Delhi Through Chief

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this O.A., applicant has sought a direction to Respondents to alter his date of birth as 11.10.1948 instead of 12.06.1947 as recorded in his Service Book after quashing letter dated 31.12.2006.2. It is submitted by applicant that he was initially appointed as Constable in B.S.F. w.e.f. 27.06.1968 and subsequently absorbed as Constable in Delhi Police w.e.f. 1.4.1969. In his Service Book, his date of birth is recorded as 12.06.1947. However, it was only in the year 2005 that he came to know from his father that he was born after partition. Therefore, he went to the Village where he was born and was able to get a birth certificate, according to which his date of birth was 11.10.1948 (page-9). Therefore, he immediately gave an application along with the aforesaid birth certificate on 24.02.2006 to the respondents for changing his date of birth in the records. However, vide letter dated 13.12.2006, his request was rejected without any reasons (page 14). Since he was due to retire on...

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Usha Puri

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Respondent had taken a group medical insurance policy from the appellant which covered the benefit till 30.9.1999 i.e. till the respondent attained the age of 70 years. In the year 1993 the respondent and her husband got themselves insured under the mediclaim policy of the appellant. In the same year respondent had fallen twice in her house and suffered injury and pain in both her knees. She was examined by Dr. Ashok Raj Pal who advised replacement of both the knees joint in June 2000. The operation was carried out at Sita Ram Bhartia Institute of Science and Research on 26.6.2000. The respondent paid a sum of Rs. 3,03,150. She also paid post-operated treatment. 2. The appellant repudiated the claim of the respondent on the ground of non-disclosure of pre-existing disease by the respondent which in terms of exclusion Clause 4.1 disentitles the respondent from reimbursement of medical expenses. Consequently the respondent filed the instant complaint bef...

Prabhu Narayan and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)12STJ386CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. On hearing both the sides on application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 52 482 together with interest and penalty of Rs. 100/- per day, Rs. 1000/- and amount equal to tax confirmed under the provisions of Section 76, 77 And 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 respectively, I find that it is possible to dispose of the appeal at this stage and hence I proceeded to decide the appeal after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit.2. The period of dispute is April, 2001 to December, 2004 and the Service Tax is confirmed on the appellant herein on the ground that they are providing the services of Manpower Recruitment Agency. There is no dispute that the appellants were engaged in providing labour to the various companies including M/s. Shri Krishna Rolling Mills (Jaipur) Ltd. on contract basis. They were not recruiting manpower for anyone. There is no dispute that prior to 16.5.2005, the definition of 'Manpower Recruitment Agency' did not include supply of manpower and it is only...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. BahraIn Telecom

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. On hearing the Learned DR and perusing the records (none appears for the respondents inspite of notice), I find prima facie, strong case for stay of the operation of impugned order has been made out for the reason that prima facie activities carried out by the respondents herein, namely, selling new mobile connections and re-charge coupons (bucks) belonging to M/s. Spice Communications (P) Ltd. amounts to rendering of "business auxiliary services" in light of decision of Apex Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 2006 (2) S.T.R. 161 (S.C.).2. I, therefore, grant the prayer for stay. The stay application is, accordingly allowed....

Smart Chip Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)13STJ43CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. This application for stay has been filed by the appellant in respect of the Order-in-Original No. 05/Comm/ST/2007 dated 01.06.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal. In terms of the impugned order, the appellant is required to pre-deposit the following amounts so that the appeal can be heard.2. Learned Advocate who appeared on behalf of the appellants stated that the appellants had entered into a contract with M/s Madhya Pradesh State Transport Department on a turnkey basis for automation of the entire Transport department so that driving licence and registration cards can be issued in the form of smart card. He referred to the agreement entered and specially the scope of the contract and pointed out that on going through the entire contract it would be clear that the service rendered by them definitely falls within the scope of Information Technology service which is excluded from the scope of business auxiliary service defined in the Finance Act, 1994. He said ...

Global Tour-n-travels Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)10STR429

1. None appears for the applicant in spite of notice and hence I heard learned DR and perused the records.2. In this case, the applicants were rendering the services as tour operators. They were also providing services to other tour operators and raising bills in the name of others. They did not charge service tax in the bills on the ground that service tax was paid by the other tour operators who were hiring the taxis. There is no proof of payment of service tax by other tour operators during the period in dispute.There is no dispute that service tax is payable and, therefore, in the absence of any proof of payment of service tax by anyone, either by the appellants themselves or by the tour operators, no prima facie case for waiver of tax is made out. Since the amount of service tax is only Rs. 9,655/-, I direct the applicant to deposit above said amount of service tax within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order and on such deposit, pre-deposit of penalty sha...

H.E.G. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(127)ECC175

The appellants filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the credit in respect of M.S. plates, Steel plates, and angles was denied on the ground that the same are used for fabrication of certain components of the plant and machinery which is immovable property. The case of the Revenue is also that the items in question per se neither components nor spares or accessories of the capital goods.2. The contention of the appellant is that the goods in question are used in fabrication of the parts and components of the plant. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sponge iron and plant requires regular maintenance and to keep the plant in working condition the worn out parts are replaced. The appellants relies upon the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of UOI v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. reported in 2007 (214) ELT 510 (Raj.). The contention is that in this case the benefit of credit availed on MS/SS plates used for maintenance of plant was allowed. The appeal fi...

Dev Anand Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Dev Anand, Assistant Post Master General (Vigilance), Delhi Circle, the applicant herein, through present Application filed by him under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, calls in question order Annexure A-1 issued in September, 2007 vide which the applicant on account of his involvement in a criminal case and in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings to be initiated against him, was placed under suspension in view of the provisions contained in sub-rule (1) of rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules of 1965).The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the President, by general or special order, may place a Government servant under suspension, where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending, or where, in the opinion of the authority aforesaid ...

Jia Ram S/O Shri Bandhoo Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant was compulsorily retired from post of Assistant Station Master Grade Rs. 4500-7000 w.e.f. 20.10.2005 on 20.102005. He claims disciplinary proceedings were illegal and based on 'no evidence....Applicant's appeal was later rejected vide a speaking order on 25.1.2006. This is in violation of Rule 22 (ii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.2. Applicant was appointed as Token Porter, a Group 'D' post on 4.4.1975 in the Operating Department, Northern Railway, Moradabad Division. Due to hard work and requisite training he was promoted to the post of Assistant Station Master. On 19.11.2004, he worked on night shift duty on Leave Reserve under the Traffic Inspector, Hardoi. The station was a double line section, i.e. having two cabins one on each side of East and West (each manned by a Cabin Master) to regulate the movement of trains. On a wintry night this distance is restricted to about 5 mtrs. The cabin masters are fully responsible for giving clear lines to ...

Daya Nand Sharma, Retired Danic Vs. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi,

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this O.A., applicant has sought a direction to the respondents to release his retiral benefits including gratuity and leave encashment with interest after quashing order dated 21.5.2007.2. It is stated by the applicant that he was working as Assistant Registrar (NW-II) in the Office of Registrar of Cooperative Society. In the year 2005, CBI registered a case/FIR in connection with alleged illegal irregularities in revival of defunct Co-op. Group Housing Societies in Delhi against a number of persons including the applicant.Applicant was due to retire on superannuation on 31.03.2006 and accordingly cheques for a sum of Rs. 6,06,959/- towards his pensionary benefits were issued to him on 29.2.2006.3. On 29.03.2006, prosecution sanction was issued by the Directorate of Vigilance, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, against the applicant and same day he was put under suspension vide order dated 28.03.2006 (page 12). Vide letter dated 31.03.2006, he was directed to return the cheques and the same...