Delhi Court April 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 19 of about 223 results (0.021 seconds)B.S.N.L. Vs. Cce, Lucknow
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
PER S.K. GAULE; None is present for the respondents despite notice. Heard Shri V.K. Saxena, learned Jt. CDR. 2. The applicants have not produced clearance from COD. Accordingly, the Stay application as well as appeal are dismissed for want of COD clearance. The applicants are at liberty to apply for restoration of appeal and the stay application as and when COD clearance is obtained....
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Cement Corpn. of India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
PER S.K. GAULE; Heard Shri V.K. Saxena, learned Jt. CDR. None is present for the respondents despite notice. 2. This is Revenue’s appeal against P.S.U. The applicants have not produced clearance from COD. Accordingly, the Stay application as well as appeal are dismissed for want of COD clearance. The applicants are at liberty to apply for restoration of appeal and the stay application as and when COD clearance is obtained....
Tag this Judgment!Station Master, NizamuddIn Railway Station and Another Vs. Asthana and ...
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Barkat Ali Zaidi, President (Oral): 1. The facts of the case are that the complainants/respondents for 8.10.2005 had booked two berths from New Delhi to Mumbai in A/C III in August Kranti Rajdhani. When they reached the station they found the coach in which berths were booked had developed some defects and the reservation was therefore cancelled. The complainants alleged that they requested the Train Superintendent to make an alternative arrangement in some other coach, as they had some urgent business on 9.10.2005 at Mumbai but of no avail and they had to travel therefore by air. 2. The complainant filed a complaint before District Forum with a prayer that the appellant/OP be directed to refund a sum of Rs. 2,970 towards the price of the tickets and also the difference of the amount spent in travel by air and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 towards compensation. 3. OP opposed the claim and filed written statement pleading that the coach was cancelled due to mechanical defect. The railway had ma...
Tag this Judgment!Sh.Ram Janam Singh Versus Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The present petition has been transferred from Honble Delhi High Court to this Tribunal on its formation. 2. Petitioner by this petition has prayed that findings of appeal medical board dated 31.12.2007 may be quashed and respondents may be directed to grant 60% disability pension to him from the date of his discharge i.e. 15.06.1999 with interest. 3. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of present petition are that petitioner was enrolled in the Air Force as Airman on 12.04.1971. At the time of induction in service, he was found medically fit. He was again subjected to thorough medical examination on 16.01.1981 to assess his medical fitness to perform Flight Gunner duties and he was found medically fit and he was put in medical category A1G1. He was promoted from time to time and finally he was promoted to the rank of Master Warrant Officer as a Flight Gunner. Petitioner developed some medical problem and as a result of this, he was declared permanently unfit for flyin...
Tag this Judgment!Sep Ram Chandra Versus Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. Applicant by the present original application has prayed that impugned Intelligence Head Quarters of MOD (Army), Adjutant Generals Branch letter dated 29.05.2009 and Defence Security Corps Records letter dated 16.06.2009 may be quashed and respondents may be directed to pay the disability element of pension at the rate of 50% and service element as applicable with 12% compounded rate of interest. 2. Brief facts which are relevant for the disposal of present original application are that applicant was re-enrolled in D.S.C. on 07.09.1988 and he was a service pensioner of Bengal Engineer Group. Due to arduous and prolonged hours of duty, he developed cervical spondylosis in April, 1990. He was placed in medical category CEE (temp) which was made CEE permanent (P) with effect from 01.04.1991. Despite this low medical category CEE (P), he was not given any sheltered appointment. He requested for light duties as per his health condition but his request was ignored. Therefore, he applied ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S M.M. Dyeing and Finishing Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Ludhiana
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per. Rakesh Kumar :- The appellant are manufacturers of processed knitted fabrics of man made fibre/yarn, chargeable to Central Excise Duty under sub-heading 6002.93 of the Central Excise Tariff. The dispute pertain to rate of duty on the processed knitted fabrics of man made yarn/fibre during the period from 1/9/02 to 31/3/03. During this period, while the Appellant were clearing these fabrics on payment of concessional rate of duty of 12% advalorem under Sl. No. 16 of the table annexed to the exemption notification No. 14/02-CE dated 1/3/02, while according to the Department, the concessional rate of duty was not applicable for the reason that the processed fabrics had been made out of the fabrics on which the appropriate central excise duty and AED (GSI) had not been paid as per the condition of the exemption, as in terms of Sl. No. 14 of the table annexed to the Notification No. 14/02-CE, dated 1/3/02, unprocessed fabrics are fully exempt from duty and accordingly the Appellant was...
Tag this Judgment!Ex. Warrant Officer V.M. Raval Versus Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The applicant vide this original application has prayed for quashing of the impugned order of Government of India dated 19th July, 1989 and 26th July, 2006. He has also prayed that respondent No. 1 to 3 may be directed to grant him status of "Ex-Serviceman and consequential benefits flowing therefrom. 2. Brief facts of the case are that applicant was enrolled by the PandT Department and thereafter volunteered to be transferred to the Armed Forces in the Army Postal Service (APS). He served the Army for two tenures from 1955 to 1958 and again from 1966 to 1970. Thereafter, he went back to PandT Department from where he was subsequently superannuated. On 20.06.1995, he applied for grant of status of "Ex-Serviceman which was denied to him vide office memorandum on 26th July, 2006. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Government of Indias policy letter dated 28th February, 1989 cannot be made retrospectively since the applicant had retired in the year 1970. The ru...
Tag this Judgment!Col. H.S Yadav (Retd), S/O. Shri Badlu Ram Versus Union of India Throu ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the show cause notice dated 26th July 2007 as well as the Army HQ letter of 9th August 2007, whereby the respondents seek to invoke Section 123 of the Army Act to attach the petitioner with the Army, even after his retirement, in order to pursue disciplinary action against him. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to withhold the disciplinary proceedings, if any, against him. 2. Having been commissioned in the Army Education Corps on 10th June 1978 and having served for 29 years, on the eve of his retirement on 31st July 2007, the respondents have chosen to harass the petitioner by issuing him a show cause notice on very flimsy and unsustainable grounds and also to attach him with the Army, so that disciplinary action could be taken against him. The petitioner, during his unblemished service of 29 years, has served in various prestigious appointments in the Education Field which include five years as an Ass...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E., Kanpur Vs. M/S. Syndicate Food Products
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal by the Department against the order of the Commissioner No. 146/CE/APPL/KNP/2008 dated 31.3.2008. 2. Heard both sides. 3. When the officers visited the factory premises on 21.12.04 and verified the stock, they found that there was shortage of 16 bags containing 1,15,200 pouches of pan masala Gutkha valued at Rs. 1,15,200/- involving duty of Rs.35,251/-. Shri Manoj Srivastava, Accountant of the firm admitted the shortage and submitted that the some stock was cleared by mistake from the factory premises by the factory staff without cover of invoices. The statement was not retracted. On the other hand, the respondent paid the duty involved on 23.12.04. The original authority, in pursuance of show cause notice issued, confirmed the demand of duty of Rs.34,560/- and also imposed penalty of Rs.35,251/- under section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the penalt...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Usha Stud and Agricultural Farms (P) Ltd. Vs. Cc, New Delhi
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per D.N. Panda: Both sides are coming with rival submissions on the very service of the Show Cause Notice. Revenue’s pleading is that appropriate service of the Show Cause Notice was done. Grievance of the appellant is that no proper service has been done on the assessee. A clarification has been filed by Revenue today about the manner of service of the notice. Ms. Seema Agarwal, Advocate without vakalatnama mentioning on behalf of Shri Prabhat Kumar, ld. Counsel engaged in this case for arguing the matter stating to file memo of appearance in the course of the day, points out that the show-cause notice was served by post. She has no further instruction to state to whom it was served. But she prayed time for appearance by Shri Prabhat Kumar, learned Counsel in view of his pre-occupation in Court No. I of Tribunal today. 2. Revenue serves copy of the clarification received from the concerned officer on Miss Agarwal, ld. Counsel and undertakes to hand over this document to Shri Pra...
Tag this Judgment!