Delhi Court January 2014 Judgments
Deepaindra Kumar, Ghaziabad (Up). Vs. Union of India Through the Secre ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-02-2014
G. George Paracken, Member (J). 1. The grievance of the Applicant is that the Respondents, in an arbitrary manner and in violation of the relevant provisions contained in Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, have not reviewed the order dated 03.02.2012. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, vide Annexure A-1 vide order dated 03.02.2012, the Applicant deemed to have been suspended from service with effect from 31.01.2012 in terms of sub-rule (1) and (2) of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for the reason that, vide FIR No.03/2012 dated 31.01.2012, a case was registered against him under Section 7(3) of POC Act and on his arrest on the same date, he was detained under judicial custody exceeding 48 hours. In the said order it was also stated that he will remain under suspension until further orders. In the subsequent Annexure A-2 order dated 24.04.2012, he was informed that the Review Committee at its meeting held on 23.04.2012 reviewed his suspension and observed he was earlier pl...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Duggal Gupta and Associates
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-02-2014
Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. 2. After hearing both sides, we find respondent is engaged in providing taxable services under the category of Insurance Auxiliary Services and are duly registered with the service tax department. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the deduction of actual expenses incurred by the respondent and reimbursed to them by their client. Commissioner (Appeals) has granted relief to the respondents, by relying upon a Chartered Accountant certificate, which stand duly verified by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Division, Chandigarh. The Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the respondents have duly discharge the onus of providing the documentary evidence and are entitled to deduction on account of expenses which have been reimbursed to them on actual basis, in terms of Board Circular No. V/11/1/01-TRU dated 09/07/01. 3. The Revenues only grie...
Tag this Judgment!C. Bheemanna Delhi Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary, New Delhi ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-02-2014
G. George Paracken, Member (J). 1. The applicant is aggrieved by the impugned Annexure A/1 letter of the respondents dated 30.8.2011 informing him that his letter dated 6.12.2010 regarding recovery of excess payment on withdrawal of NFSG was examined in consultation with its Legal Advisor who opined that the Honble Supreme Court decision in Syed Abdul Qadir and ors. vs. State of Bihar and ors. in Civil Appeal Nos.3351-3354 of 2003 dated 16.12.2008 is not relevant and therefore recovery of excess payment have to be effected from him. He has therefore been directed to deposit the excess payment amounting to Rs.70,248/- along with upto date interest. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant during the period from October 1992 to 31.4.1996 served as Joint Commissioner (Administration) in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (œKVS? for short) in the pay scale of Rs.4500-150-5700 (pre-revised) on deputation basis. On his reversion, he was posted back to his parent cadre, namely, t...
Tag this Judgment!Bhupinder Vashistha, Assistant Foreman, Delhi Vs. the Chairman-cum-man ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-02-2014
Ashok Kumar, Member (A): 1. The applicant has filed this OA to challenge the inaction of the respondents in not reviewing the cadre of Foreman which according to them has to be reviewed periodically after five years. 2. As per facts stated in the OA, the applicant had joined the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC in short) and after doing Diploma Course of four years in Electrical Engineering in 1989, he was appointed as Assistant Foreman vide order dated 04.02.1991 and was working on that post. Since then, he has not been given any promotion. He was entitled to be promoted against the post of Assistant Foreman under 50% quota, although initially he belonged to the cadre of workshop employees. That cadre consisted of Assistant Electrician, Mechanic, Welder, Bench Fitter etc. Such employees are also included in the feeder grade for being promoted to the post of Assistant Foreman, either from the promotion quota or from direct recruitment quota. Applicant states that there should be promot...
Tag this Judgment!Association of the Employees of Indian Institute of Mass Communication ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-02-2014
G. George Paracken, Member (J). 1. The grievance of the Applicants in this OA is nearly twenty seven years old. It has been pending adjudication first before the Honble High Court of Delhi and then before this Tribunal for the last nearly eight years. Before this Tribunal itself, this is a second round of litigation. The first Applicant in this case is the Association of the Employees of Indian Institute of Mass Communication (Registered) under Indian Societies Act, 1860. Clause 10(a) of its Articles of memorandum of Association of Respondent No.1 adopted in the year 1965 itself, provided for a Pension Scheme which reads as under:- (10) (a) to give pensions, gratuities or charitable aid to the teachers, staff and other employees or ex-employees of the Society or their wives, widows, children or other dependents. However, it was not introduced only for the reason that Ministry of Finance did not agree to make available the necessary funds. The second Applicant Shri Birbal is an employee...
Tag this Judgment!Cst, Delhi Vs. M/S. Menon Associates
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-02-2014
Rakesh Kumar, J. The respondent during the period of dispute i.e. from April, 2008 to Jan. 2009 were providing marketing services to their foreign principals based in UK, Italy and Australia, which involved marketing their Principals products in India and for this activity, they were getting commission. The respondent however paid service tax amounting to Rs.15,49,103/- on the marketing commission received by them during the above mentioned period of dispute. Subsequently, realizing that the services provided by them amounted to export of services in terms of Rule 3(1)(iii) of the Export of Service Rules, 2005, they applied for refund of the servicer tax paid by them. The refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 26.05.2010. Against this order of the Assistant Commissioner, the respondent filed an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide order-in-appeal dated 22.6.2011 allowed the appeal holding that the service of marketing of goods pro...
Tag this Judgment!D.K. Singh, New Delhi Vs. Delhi Jal Board and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-02-2014
Ashok Kumar, Member (A): 1. This Original Application has been filed by the applicant against the alleged discriminatory action of the respondents depriving him of the salary attached to the post of Chief Law Officer (CLO in short) as per the recruitment rules and as per the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Selvaraj Versus Lt. Governor of Island, Port Blair and Ors., 1998 (4) SCC 291. 2. Facts of the case are that applicant was appointed as Law Officer in 1994. The post of Chief Law Officer was created in the respondents organization on 14.07.2000 and in August 2000 since process for filling up the post was to take time, the applicant was made to work on the higher post. He later made representations from the year 2001 till 2010 for considering his case for promotion as Chief Law Officer and giving him the pay scale as attached to the post of CLO. Thereafter, in May 2011 he was granted 1st financial upgradation in the incorrect pay scale which was not even avail...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Indore Vs. M/S. Gupta and Company (Gopal Studio)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-02-2014
Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. Though the respondent have made a request for adjournment, but as we find the issue was covered by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Agarwal Colour Advance Photo System vs. CCE, Bhopal reported in 2011 (23) S.T.R. 608 (Tri. - LB), we proceed to decide the appeal itself. 2. After hearing the learned Departmental Representative and after going through the impugned order, we find that the issue required to be decided is as to whether the value of the inputs used in providing photography services are required to be included in the value of the services or the same is required to be excluded. Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Aggarwal Colour Advance Photo System vs. CCE, Bhopal (supra) has held that the value of the materials used in providing the services would form part and parcel of the total assessable value. As such, we...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Ralson (India) Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-02-2014
$~R-15 & 17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on :02. 01.2014 + W.P.(C) 137/1998 + W.P.(C) 143/1998 M/S. RALSON (INDIA) LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Sh. Anoop Sharma, Advocate. versus DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Sh. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel and Sh. Rohit Madan, Sr. Standing Counsel with Sh. Ruchir Bhatia, Jr. Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. These writ petitions challenge the legality of a notice issued under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), and pursuant thereto a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, seeking to reopen assessments of M/s Ralson (India) Ltd., the assessee/petitioner, for the assessment year 1990-91.2. For the assessment year 1990-91, the assessee filed a return of income on 31.12.1990, disclosing NIL income under Section 115J of W.P.(C)137/1998 & W.P.(C) 143/1998 Page 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited Vs. Cce, Raipur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-01-2014
Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. After hearing both the sides we find that the demand of duty of Rs.2,38,97,913/- stands confirmed against the appellant alongwith imposition of penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, for the period 10.09.2004 to 28.02.2005, by way of raising a show cause notice dated 22.06.2006. 2. As per the facts on record appellant is a public sector undertaking and entered into contracts with various steel plants for recovery, processing the scrap out of slag which arises in the factory of the steel plants. They were also to move the said recovered scrap from their production floors located in the plant itself for further use of the same by the steel plants. 3. The appellant were required to undertake the following activities in the steel plants of their clients. œ3. The appellant is first required to collect scrap mixed with slag from different places in the plant like BF Slag pit, Cast House, Ladle Repair Shop, Pig Cast Machine area. From the slag pit, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 73
- Next ›
- Last »