Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Contempt petitions dismissed over promotion quota dispute within Central Excise and Customs</h1> <h3>All India Assn. of Cen. Exc. and another Versus RS. Gujral and others</h3> The court dismissed the contempt petitions alleging breach of a court order regarding promotion quotas for different cadres within the Central Excise and ... Cadre of Superintendents of Central Excise - three cadres were then having the ratio of 6:1:2 for promotion to Group A posts which have been subsequently revised and the new quota is in the ratio of 13:1:2. The new quota is made applicable prospectively - petitioners contend that this direction implies a retrospective application of the revised formula on the quota for each cadre, since the promotions effected in the meanwhile were on an ad hoc basis - Held that:- The submission made on behalf of the petitioners is erroneous as the order did not state anywhere that the quota when changed will apply retrospectively. At best it could be said that according to the petitioners the implementation was not in conformity with the directions of this Court passed on 3.8.2011, but there is no disobedience, whatsoever, of the directions in making the newly formed quota applicable prospectively. All that the order dated 3.8.2011 says is that the ad hoc promotions made in the meanwhile will abide by the final decision to be taken by the Department in terms of Office Order.There is no direction to apply the new quota retrospectively. The contempt petitions are accordingly dismissed. Issues:1. Alleged breach of court order regarding promotion quotas for different cadres.2. Interpretation of court directions on the application of revised promotion quotas.Analysis:1. The judgment addresses two contempt petitions filed alleging breach of a court order dated 3.8.2011 regarding promotion quotas for different cadres within the Central Excise and Customs departments. The petitioners from the Superintendents of Central Excise and Superintendents of Customs (Preventive) cadres claimed that the revised promotion quotas were not implemented retrospectively, leading to non-compliance with the court's directions.2. The court noted that the initial promotion ratio for the three cadres was 6:1:2 and was subsequently revised to 13:1:2, applicable prospectively. The petitioners argued that the ad hoc promotions made during the interim period should have been governed by the revised quota retrospectively. However, the respondents contended that the court order did not mandate retrospective application of the new quota, and compliance was only required for final decisions post the order date.3. The court examined the language of the court order and concluded that there was no explicit direction for retrospective application of the revised promotion quotas. The order merely stated that ad hoc promotions should abide by final decisions as per the office order. The court agreed with the Union of India and intervenors, emphasizing that the new quota was meant to apply prospectively, and there was no disobedience of the court's directions by the respondents.4. In the absence of a specific directive for retrospective implementation of the revised promotion quotas, the court dismissed the contempt petitions, ruling that there was no contempt of the court's order dated 3.8.2011 by the respondents. The judgment clarified the scope of compliance with court directions and the prospective application of revised promotion quotas, settling the dispute regarding the interpretation of the court order in the context of promotion ratios for different cadres within the departments of Central Excise and Customs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found