Delhi Court May 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 14 of about 157 results (0.019 seconds)Cce, Jaipur-i Vs. M/S Art Asia
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-10-2010
Per D.N. Panda: The Respondent is absent today. 2. Learned DR points out that in terms of para 8 of the First Appellate order, the matter had gone back to the learned Adjudicating Authority for decision afresh in the light of observations in para 7 of the impugned order. But he has no information whether the re-adjudication has been done. In the meantime, whether re-adjudication has been done is not on record. As an abundant caution, let the adjudicating authority first decide the issue remanded to him and thereafter whether cause of action arises can be looked into for redressed before appropriate forum. 3. Hearing Revenue and considering fair suggestion on course of action, it would be proper to send the matter back to the learned adjudicating authority for the matter to receive its logical conclusion. It is ordered accordingly. Therefore, Revenue’s appeal is accordingly infructuous being premature for which the same is dismissed with the aforesaid observations....
Tag this Judgment!Havildar Ashok Kumar Singh Versus Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-10-2010
1. The applicant filed a writ petition (civil) No. 9792 of 2009 in the Honble Delhi High Court praying that orders of his discharge which was initiated vide movement order dated 20.6.2009 (Annexure P-2) be quashed and he be granted two years extension of service. The same was transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal 5.11.2009 on its constitution. 2. The brief relevant facts are as under that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 06.7.1985. He was awarded 7 days RI for committing an offence under Army Act Section 40 (a) on 2.10.1995 for using criminal force against a superior officer (Annexure P-3). He was denied 2 years extension of service vide order of his discharge dated 20.6.2009 (Annexure P-2) in view of Army HQ policy dated 21.9.1998 (Annexure 5) which debars extension of service to persons for specified category of offences. The applicant contends that another Army HQ promotion policy dated 10.10.1997 (Annexure P-4) prohibits promotion for three years for the same offences....
Tag this Judgment!Rakesh Kumar and Another. Vs. Parsavnath Developers Ltd. and Another
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2010
M.L. Sahni, Presiding Member: 1. Complainant No. 1 is a prasticing Advocate and complainant No. 2 , is his wife. They booked two shops with the OP in Parsavnath Kaushambhi Mall in Ghaziabad (UP) at a total cost of Rs. 15,03,500 for shop No. FA-7 and Rs. 15,09,514 for shop No. 46 F-8 and paid a total consideration of Rs. 28,62,363 for both the shops, after raising loan from ICICI Bank Ltd., 2. On receiving communication dated 8.7.2009 from the OP that the shops were ready for possession, it was revealed that the construction was not on time, as per the agreement, for which the OP were liable to pay a compensation @ 10 per sq. ft. every month to the complainants. 3. The complainants have also alleged that the OP are guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for number of reasons detailed in the complaint. 4. We have heard the complainant No. l in person at the admission stage for himself and on behalf of his wife the complainant No. 2. When asked to satisfy us as to how t...
Tag this Judgment!Sepoy Vijay Pal Singh Versus Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2010
1. The applicant filed a writ petition (civil) No.10985 of 2006 in the Honble Delhi High Court praying that the orders dated 07.09.2004 by which he was discharged from service with effect from 31.10.2004 (Annexure P-1) and order dated 12.12.2004 (Annexure P-9) by which his representation for revocation of premature retirement was rejected, be quashed and he be reinstated in service with all consequential relief. The same was transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal on 9.11.2009. 2. The brief relevant facts are as under. That the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 15.3.2000. In August 2004 the applicant was sanctioned 10 days leave to enable him to bring his wife to the duty station since government accommodation was allotted to him. Subsequently this leave was cancelled on the grounds that he had availed his full entitlement of leave for the year 2004. The applicant however maintains that he was entitled to 30 days advance of leave from the forth coming year (ie 2005). The applican...
Tag this Judgment!The J.K. Sugar Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut Ii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2010
Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 29/CE/MRT II/2007 dated 1.3.07. 2. Heard both sides extensively. 3. The appellants imported raw sugar in February, 2005 through Kandla Port. Raw sugar has arrived at the port in loose condition in containers. The appellants procured duty paid PP woven bags falling under Chapter sub-heading 39.2390 and used the said bags for packing imported raw sugar at Kandla Port Area. The appellants transported the packed raw sugar to the factory and stored them till they were issued for further processing and the processed sugar was cleared on payment of duty. The appellants took credit of Central Excise duty paid on PP woven bags used for packing the raw sugar imported. The original authority in pursuance of the show cause notice dated 22.11.05 held that they are not eligible for the credit and accordingly, ordered recovery of duty of Rs.77,813/- along with interest and imposed equal amount as penalty. Commiss...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd.Vs. Commissioner of Central ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2010
Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 20/CE/MRT II/2008 dated 28.1.08. The original authority denied the Cenvat credit amounting to Rs.4,43,053/- mainly on the ground that the documents were not produced before the adjudicating authority for verification. He also imposed penalty of Rs.30,000/- on the appellant. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order of the original authority. 2. Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that no specific documents were sought for by the department while issuing show cause notice. However, she fairly concedes that the documents in the form of invoices which are sought to be introduced in support of their defence running to more than 200 pages could have been produced before the original authority so that dispute could have been possibly resolved at his level. She seeks an opportunity to produce this evidence before the original authority and therefore, seeks remand of the proceedings. 3. Learned S...
Tag this Judgment!Hav M Sudalaimuthu Versus the Chief of Army Staff and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2010
1. The applicant had submitted a writ petition (civil) No. 331 of 1998 in the Delhi High Court to consider the applicant for promotion to Naib Subedar with effect from 8.3.1996 with consequential benefits and for quashing the punishment order dated 4.4.1996 by which he was awarded Severe Reprimand. The same was transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal on 28.10.2009. 2. The brief relevant facts of the case are as follows. That the applicant was enrolled as Sepoy in the Army on 27.10.1975. He was promoted to the rank of Havildar. While posted in 159 General Hospital (159 GH) he was working as NCO in charge of ration store. The applicant was approved to the rank of Naib Subedar (Nb Sub) vide AMC Record letter dated 29.2.1996 with effect from 8.3.1996. This promotion was withheld by 159 GH vide order dated 11.3.1996 on the plea that disciplinary action was contemplated against him. 3. It is further stated that on 7.3.1996 the applicant was charged with wilful issuance of ten litres of ke...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise, Raipur Vs. M/S. Indo Lahiri B ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-05-2010
Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal by the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 26/RPR-I/2007 dated 31.1.07. 2. Heard both sides extensively. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the officers visited the factory premises of the respondent on 19.11.03; they found the RG I and raw material register completed only upto 15.9.03. The officers directed Shri Pradeep Agrawal MD of the Company to declare the stock of inputs and finished goods physically lying in the factory premises as on 19.11.03 and apparently he submitted a statement based on other records maintained by them. Physical stock of finished goods namely, MS ingots was ascertained and found to be 39.402 MT which was short by 15.928 MT compared to stock declared by him. The value of the short found goods is Rs.2,03,926/-. The respondents paid the duty on the short found goods on the very same date. Certain other private records including the records maintained in the form of consumption slips, produc...
Tag this Judgment!Wg Cdr I.S. Lamba Versus Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-05-2010
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 by writ of certiorari, the order dated 10.01.2002 may be quashed and respondents be directed to furnish the correct attachment orders with Air Headquarters. He also prayed that the respondents may be directed to issue him the no demand certificate and to release him the pending retirement benefits. 3. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of present petition are that petitioner is an outstanding and renowned horseman, winning many laurels for the Country. He was commissioned in the Indian Air Force in the year 1972 after completing his training at NDA. In the year 1989, he was posted at Directorate of Adventure, Air Headquarters, New Delhi in Adventure Cell. He was allotted a Government accommodation D-II, C-18, Moti Bagh, New Delhi by C.A.O. which was occupied by him on 17.03.1993 (fore noon). He received a message on ...
Tag this Judgment!Sepoy Ashok Kumar Versus Union of India Through Its Secretary Govt of ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-05-2010
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Summary Court Martial (hereinafter referred to as SCM) award of 27.12.1997 given to him by his Commanding Officer wherein he was dismissed from service. He also seeks quashing of the impugned order of 19.10.2004 passed by the Chief of the Army Staff, rejecting his statutory petition under section 164 (2). The petitioner also seeks to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. 2. The background of the case is that the petitioner absented himself without leave for a period of 42 days and was charged for this offence under section 39(a) of Army Act and dismissed from service. 3. The primary facts pleaded by the petitioner were that during the Court Martial proceedings, he has not signed on the plea of guilty and that the SCM was conducted with undue haste and completed within a period of a little over one hour. The fact that he has not pleaded guilty vitiates the complete SCM proceedings. Furthermore, completing the SCM in a matter of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »