Delhi Court February 2008 Judgments

Cce Vs. Laxmi Trading Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)14STT313

1. This is an appeal filed by the Department. Heard the learned Departmental Representative. We have perused the written submissions filed on behalf of the respondent.2. The respondent has undertaken a series of activities like mining, loading, transporting and unloading of limestone from the mines belonging to ACC on the basis of a contract entered into with them. The Commissioner (Appeals), after taking into account the evidence placed before him, came to a conclusion that the appellant raised bills for transportation of lime stone and the work of loading/unloading was incidental to the transportation of lime stone and accordingly dropped the demand of Rs. 36,799/- and set aside the penalty imposed by the original authority.3. Learned Departmental Representative submits that out of Rs. 70.05 per MT received by the respondent Rs. 49.01 per MT relates to mining activities, Rs. 8/- per MT is for loading of lime stone etc. He contends that inasmuch as Rs. 8/- per MT is clearly identifie...

JaIn Colour Lab Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appellant is engaged in the business of developing and printing colour photographs. The case of the appellant is that in order to provide the service it purchases paper and chemicals which is included in the gross amount charged for the service and as that part of the service amounts to sale, service tax is not payable on it. It is said that for the remaining part of the service the appellant is already paying service tax on the basis of taxable value arrived at after deducting the cost of chemicals and papers used in developing and printing colour photographs. It is said that in similar cases, (Jain Brother v. CCE, Bhopal (ST/7510/06) this Tribunal has granted full waiver in view of the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Agrawal Colour Photo Industries v. Asstt. Commr. of Customs and Central Excise, Jabalpur (M.P.) 2007 (8) STR 3 (M.P.). Reliance was placed on the said order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which was passed relying on a decision of the Supre...

R.S. Malhotra, Ex-chemical Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant, who retired on voluntary retirement on 31.1.2006, impugns respondents order dated 30.3.2005, whereby an amount of Rs. 19,765/- has been recovered from his gratuity on account of transfer TA/DA, effected on 22.9.2000.2. Brief factual matrix transpires that applicant was transferred to Vadodara from CRCl, New Delhi on promotion as Chemical Examiner Grade-II in October, 1997. When a request was made on health grounds, with reminders, it culminated into a transfer order to CRCL, Delhi on 22.9.2000.3. On the basis of a complaint made by one Shri I.C. Varshney on 28.4.2004 vide letter dated 30.3.2005 the earlier order passed on 18.10.2000, where transfer of applicant was a regular transfer, it was modified to transfer on his own request, without entitlement of TA/DA.Recovery of TA/DA post retirement gives rise to the present OA.4. Learned Counsel of applicant would contend that respondents Establishment Order No. 9/98 dated 27.3.1998 states that those officials who have not co...

Davender Verma, S/O Late Ajeet Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Its

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant belongs to the Indian Statistical Service. The grievance highlighted is with reference to the disinclination shown by the respondents in the matter of not granting him promotion to the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG). This is in spite of the circumstance that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) had recommended him for promotion on 17.08.2006. It is stated that the ACC had approved his candidature. Twenty-four officers junior to him as well as some seniors have already been promoted to SAG on ad hoc basis. He could not have been, therefore, subjected to discrimination.2. The applicant submits that but for the circumstance that he was on foreign assignment, he would have been promoted to the said grade along with his colleagues. He had been available for promotion from 01.06.2007, after his foreign assignment. His representations submitted from time to time were not being properly attended to, the first of which was sent on 07.05.2007 intimating the respondents...

Arun Kumar Gupta Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(101)DRJ395; 2009(235)ELT454(Del)

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1.The petitioner being the working partner of one M/s Shri Balaji Oversees, a partnership firm registered in Mumbai dealing in the business of export till 2003 seeks an anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the said 'Code') for alleged violations of provisions of Customs Act, 1962 (in short the said Act).2.The brief facts relevant for disposal of the present application are that the petitioner during the period from June 2002 to Jan 2003 exported certain consignments covered under 8 shipping bills wherein the shipping bills covered under Seriall number 1-4 were made to Dubai from Bombay in Dollar value which were assessed by the Customs authorities and thereafter the drawback amount @ 12.25% was credited into the account of the petitioner and the remaining 4 consignments were exported under Repayment of State Credit Scheme (popularly known as the Rupee-Rubal Agreement) for which also the drawback back amo...

Sh. Sudhir Diwan Vs. Smt. Tripta Diwan and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 147(2008)DLT756; I(2008)DMC481

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.2.2007 disposing of an application filed by the wife claiming maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Rs. 10,000/- per month has been directed to be paid by the petitioner to his wife.2. The wife is admittedly working as a stenographer in the District Courts and is drawing a gross monthly salary of Rs. 24,516/- as of November 2006. Deductions per month are Rs. 5,185/-. In other words the wife has a take home income of about Rs. 19,000/-.3. Two children, a son and a daughter were born to the parties. The son was born on 17.2.1988. The daughter was born on 22.6.1994. Technically, the son being major, petitioner is entitled to urge that he is not responsible to pay any money for the upkeep of the son.4. But I note that the son is still a student and his mother is spending money for his upkeep.5. I would be expanding on this a little later.6. With respect to the income of the husband, the Matrimonial ...

Rahdey Shyam Bansal Vs. B.S.E.S. Rajdhani Power Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 148(2008)DLT462

ORDERS. Muralidhar, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') challenges an order dated 14th March, 2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma, Delhi ('Special Judge') under the Electricity Act, 2003 ('Act') in Criminal Complaint No. 217 of 2005 whereby the application filed by the Petitioner under Section 152 of the Act for compounding the offences was dismissed. 2. The brief facts are that the Petitioner resides at premises bearing No. 119-C, 6 Lane, Central Avenue, Sainik Farm, New Delhi and states that he was drawing the electricity through the captive power plant installed by his brother. It is further stated that the wife of the Petitioner had applied for electricity connection on 23rd June, 1997 but till date the electricity connection has not been installed. On 24th August, 2005 the officials of the BSES Rajdhani Power Limited ('BRPL') visited the premises of the Petitioner and it was found that he was illegally...

Govt. of Nct of Delhi and anr. Vs. Shri Ran Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 150(2008)DLT399

Reva Khetrapal, J.1. By this common judgment and order, we propose to dispose of two appeals filed by the Government of NCT of Delhi through the Settlement Officer (Rural) against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated March 04, 2004.2. The facts relevant to the disposal of the aforesaid appeal as they emerge from the records of the case are that Shri Jai Dayal and Shri Bhim Singh, sons of Siri Chand, who were the predecessors in interest of the appellants herein, were Delhi Colonists, i.e., parties who were possessing land in Delhi which was taken over by the British Government for the construction of the capital city of Delhi, and were allotted land in Punjab. On representations made by them, it was decided that some lands should be set apart for them within the State of Delhi to satisfy their claims. Shri Bhim Singh accordingly received allotment of 10 SAS 8 units in village Barwala for which Sanad Nos. 16 and 34 dated 20th December, 1958 and 28th November, 1967 we...

Smt. Mukesh and ors. Vs. Shri Bharat Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 149(2008)DLT114; 2008(101)DRJ362

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Appellants had filed a suit for partition and injunction alleging that they were the daughters of late Shri Khem Chand. They imp leaded their 3 brothers and their sister as defendants 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively. It was stated in the plaint that the suit land measuring 4.5 kila in Khata No. 88/54 in the revenue estate of Village Mundla Khurd, Tehsil Najafgadh, Delhi was owned by their father and on his death the sons and the daughters each acquired 1/6th share in the suit land. On said basis, alleging that no partition had been effected, partition was prayed for.2. In the written statement filed by the defendants 1, 2 and 3 i.e. the brothers, it was stated that Khem Chand expired on 10.6.1993 and as per the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 succession to the holding being governed under Section 50 thereof, as sons, they alone were entitled to succeed to the holding since their sisters were married. Thus, entitlement of the plaintiffs was denied. It was stated that on ...

National Mineral Developmnet Corporation Vs. Government of India and o ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(101)DRJ339

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In the present proceeding, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges the validity of the approval of the Union Government (hereafter 'the Union'), Ministry of Mines, given under Section 5(1) of Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter the 'MMDR Act'), for granting a prospecting license for iron ore over an area of 2500 hectares in Deposit No. 1 of Bailadila Reserve Forest, Tahsil Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada, Chattisgarh in favor of M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd., the third respondent for 2 years by invoking provisions of Section 11(5) of the MMDR Act, through letter dated 14th February 2007. 2. The Petitioner, the National Mineral Development Corporation, is a Government of India owned Public Sector enterprise engaged in mining operations throughout India. On 25th April 1991, it applied for prospecting license (hereafter referred to as 'PL') for Iron ore in Bailadila Deposit No. 1 ...