Delhi Court January 2014 Judgments
Y.P. Singh Vs. Union of India Through General Manager Northern Railway ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
G. GeorgeParacken, M(J) 1. The Applicant in this Original Application is aggrieved by the Disciplinary Proceedings initiated against him which culminated in his removal from service with effect from 02.02.2010. 2.The brief facts of the case are that vide Memorandum dated 20.04.2009, Shri P.K. Jain, Sr. Commercial Manager(DB), the Competent Authority proposed to hold enquiry against the Applicant under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. The Article of Charge framed against him was as under:- œA preventive check was conducted by vigilance on 14/01/2008 in the office of the CCM/IT, NR, IRCA New Delhi. During the vigilance check Sh. Y.P. Singh, ERS/CO/PRS, IRCA, NDLS was found responsible for under noted lapses- He was held responsible for misusing of his privilege pass no.048217 dated 10.10.2007 as secured the reservation twice on 18.11.07 and 4.01.08 on the strength of same privilege pass number 0482 vide PNR No.244-4069056 and 250-7535718 once in f...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Delhi-iv Vs. M/S. Mahindra Stiller Auto Trucks Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
Ms. Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), revenue has filed the present appeal. I have heard Shri B.B. Sharma, appearing for the revenue, and Shri K. Sharma, appearing for the respondent. 2. As per facts on record the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Material handling Equipment and and were availing the Cenvat credit of duty paid on the inputs, received by them under cenvatable invoices issued by the registered dealer i.e. M/s. Bhagwati Trading Company, Faridabad. Certain investigation were conducted at the end of the registered dealer and a view was entertained that no inputs were supplied by M/s. Bhagwati Trading Company and only invoices were issued. Accordingly, based upon the said investigation, proceeding were initiated against the respondent for recovery of alleged in admissible Cenvat credit of Rs. 2,12,950/-. The said credit was confirmed against them by the original adjudicating authority along with imposition of p...
Tag this Judgment!Harish Kumar Mehta Vs. Union of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A): 1. Following relief has been sought in this O.A.:- (a) Pass an order or direction to the Respondents Department to grant regular promotion to the applicant to the post of Dy. Director from the date of occurrence of the vacancies i.e. 5.3.2004, not from the date of holding of DPC i.e. 29.3.2007 and further (b) Pass an order or direction directing the Respondents to consider the name of the applicant for promotion to the post of Joint Director by holding Departmental Promotion for approving and recommending the name of the applicant to the said post under the existing Recruitment Rules as of date with all consequential benefits. (c) pass any other and further order which this Honble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. During the course of the arguments, applicants counsel conceded that as far as Relief-(a) is concerned the same is time barred. Hence, he has himself agreed not to press the same. Thus, this O.A. has been ...
Tag this Judgment!Varun Kumar Shukla and Others Vs. A.K. Jain, G.M and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
Oral Order: G. George Paracken, Member (J): 1. This Contempt Petition has been filed by the petitioners alleging non-compliance of the Order of this Tribunal dated 8.1.2013 in OA No.116/2012. The operative part of the said Order reads as under:- œ11.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the entire documents on record. First of all, we shall say that OA No. 1562/2010 and connected cases (supra) relied upon by the Respondents has no relevance in this case. The issue considered in the said case was regarding the crucial date for eligibility to be considered for the Junior Telecom Officers (JTO) for appearing in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for promotion under 33% quota for the vacancies in the post of Sub Divisional Engineer (Telecom). That is not the issue in the present case. Issue in the present case is whether notional service awarded to the Applicants can be considered as the regular service in their case for fulfilli...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Jaipur - Ii Vs. Roopa Ram Suthar
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
G. Raghuram, J. 1. Heard learned Departmental Representative for the appellant/ Revenue. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent/ assessee. 2. Revenue preferred these appeals against the common order dated 31/10/08 passed by the learned Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur II allowing two appeals preferred by the respondents/assessees. In substance, the order of the appellate Authority results in sanction of refund of Rs. 67,646/- and Rs. 90,580/- in favour of the respective respondents. 3. Assessees claimed refund of specified amounts as representing excess service tax remitted by them during February 2001 to January 2004, on the ground that in terms of abatement Notification No. 15/2007-ST dated 04/04/07 issued under Section 11C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 readwith Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, there was an abatement of service tax liability and only service tax on 40% of the gross value received for having provided tour operator service was liab...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E., Jallandhar, (Hq. at Chandigarh) Vs. M/S. SachIn Processors
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by C.C.E.(Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. I have heard Shri UK Srivastava, Ld. Departmental Representative appearing for Revenue and Shri Sudhir Malhotra, Ld. Advocate appearing for respondents. 2. As per facts on record, the respondents are engaged in the manufacture/processing of Velvet/Corduroy cloth. The demand of duty of Rs.13,15,227.30 was confirmed against them on the allegations and findings of clandestine clearance of goods under pseudo cover of private challans/bailing slips of their principal manufacturer M/s. J.K. Woollen and Silk Mils, (M/s. JKWSM), who is engaged in trading of such goods. It is seen that after due adjudication, the demand was confirmed along with imposition of penalties. The said orders were challenged by the respondents before the Tribunal, who vide their Final Order No.A/1064/02-NB(D), dated 27.09.2002, set aside the confirmation and remanded the matter to the lower authorities for fresh decisions...
Tag this Judgment!Anju Vs. Ashish Kumar
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
Oral Order: G. George Paracken, Member (J): 1. This Contempt Petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance of the Order of this Tribunal dated 7.12.2012 in TA No.76/2012. The operative part of the said order reads as under:- œ5. In view of the above position, we allow all the aforementioned MAs and dispose of the respective OAs/TAs by this common order, with a direction to the respondent-DSSSB to reexamine the cases of the applicants herein in the light of the aforesaid judgment. If their cases are covered by the same, they shall be recommended for appointment subject to fulfillment of other necessary conditions, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the recommendations from the DSSSB, the user department under the GNCT of Delhi shall also consider them for appointment under them, within the next one month thereafter. We also make it clear that if the applicants succeed, they shall be given all consequenti...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Mangalam Cements Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. and S.T., Jaipur-i
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. The short issue involved in the present three stay petitions is as to whether the appellant is entitled to avail the CENVAT credit of duty paid on welding electrodes and gases used for repair and maintenance of plant and machinery. The lower authorities have denied the credit on the ground that the said activity cannot be held to be an activity associated with the manufacturing process and as such cannot be called as cenvatable input.2. I find that the issue is no more res integra and stands settled by the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh and also by Hon'ble High Courts of Rajasthan and Karnataka. In the latest decision of the Tribunal in the case of Samruddhi Cement Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Indore [2013 (297) E.L.T. 562 (Tri. Del.)] has considered an identical issue and the entire case law including the contra-judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and has come to the conclusion that the duty paid on the items used for repairs and maintenance would be av...
Tag this Judgment!V.K. Gulati Vs. New Delhi Municipal Corporation Through Its Chairman
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
Sudhir Kumar, Member (A): 1. This case was first filed by the applicant as a Writ Petition before the Honble Delhi High Court as Civil Writ Petition No.4672/2002, and Rule D.B. was issued by the Honble High Court on 05.08.2002. Later on, by the orders of the Honble High Court dated 16.09.2009, the case was transferred to this Tribunal, and registered as TA No.1473/2009. At one stage, on 10.01.2012, a submission was made at the Bar that the matter was under re-consideration of the respondents, because of which the final arguments were deferred, but later, on 10.04.2012, it was informed that the case of the applicant had been found to have lacked merit, and had been rejected up to the highest level in the respondent-authority, and the matter was not being reconsidered now. Therefore, the case was listed once again for hearing of arguments. At one stage, the learned counsel for the respondents had been asked to report about the action taken in respect of one Shri A.K. Goyal, against whom ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagat Ram Vs. General Manager Northern Railway and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
G. George Paracken, M(J): 1. The Applicant is aggrieved by the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him vide Memorandum dated 26.08.2009 which ultimately resulted in the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 21.03.2011 removing him from service and the appellate order dated 13.04.2011 rejecting his appeal 2. The brief facts of the case are that vide Memorandum dated 26.08.2009, the Applicant was proceeded under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. The Article of Charge against him was as under:- ARTICLE-I Sh. Jagat Ram S/o Shri Shiv Ram, Gateman under SSE/P-Way/JHI produced false declaration of date of birth as 5-12-1958 and fathers name as Shri Shiv Ram in the shape of affidavit submitted on 25.4.89. However as verified from school authorities where he studied, his date of birth is recorded as 5-3-1944 and fathers name as Shri Shiv Lal (as certified by the Head teacher, Govt. Primary School, Mohalkhera, Jind, Haryana, where he studied in class ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- Next ›
- Last »