Kolkata Court May 2014 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
M/S. Mercury Exporters and Manufacturing P. Ltd and anr Vs. Punjab Nat ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-2014
ORDER SHEET GA No.1600 of 2014 APO No.177 of 2014 WP No.353 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE M/S.MERCURY EXPORTERS AND MANUFACTURING P. LTD & ANR Versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANR BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA Date : 20th May, 2014. (Vacation Bench) Appearance: Mr.Debnath Ghosh, Adv.Mr.C.K.Dutta, Adv.Mr.Provat Sil, Adv.for the petitioneRs.Mr.Siddhartha Banerjee, Adv.Mr.Victor Datta, Adv.for the respondents. The Court : The appeal is directed against an order of May 6, 2014 by which the writ petition has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioners remedy under Section 17 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 would be available at the appropriate stage. The writ petition was directed against a notice dated February 22, 2010 issued by the bank in exercise of its authority under Section 13(4) of the said Act. 2 The b...
M/S. Sai Sulphonates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kol ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-2014
Dr. D. M. Misra, J. 1. This is an application for waiver of predeposit of duty of Rs.6,70,289/- and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. At the outset, the ld. Consultant appearing for the Applicant, has submitted that the Appeal has not been decided on merit by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), but dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He submits that the demand has been confirmed against them alleging that they have issued 16 (sixteen) Nos. of Debit Notes in favour of the customers in addition to the prices charged against respective invoices. He submits that the said allegation of the Department was incorrect inasmuch as the said Debit Notes were issued for short realization of the amount paid by the customer against each invoices. He has placed reliance on a Chartered Accountants Certificate dated 06.04.2011 in support of his claim. However, he has fairly conceded that the sai...
M/S. United Chloro Paraffins Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, K ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-2014
1. This misc. application is filed for early hearing of the stay petition. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Consultant Shri A.C. Tikadar for the applicant submits that during the pendency of the present stay application, the Department has recovered an amount of Rs.8.75 Lakhs (approx.) from the applicant by way of adjusting the sanctioned rebate claims. He submits that the Ld. Commissioner has not decided the issue on merit but dismissed the appeal on the ground of non-compliance with the direction of pre-deposit. The Ld. Consultant brought to our notice that the present issue involves classification of the manufactured products and the dispute has been set at rest by the Circular issued by the Board bearing No. 950/1/2011-CX dated-01.08.2011. He submits that the stay application be heard early. 3. The Ld. A.R. for the Revenue has not disputed about appropriation of the said amount of Rs.8.75 Lakhs against outstanding dues adjudged in the impugned order. He also agrees that the issue has not ...
M/S. Kabita Refractories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr of Central Excise, Bolpur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-2014
DR. D.M. Misra, J. 1. This is an application filed seeking waiver of pre-deposit of excise duty of Rs.24.35 Lakhs and equal amount of penalty imposed under Rule 173Q of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11AC of CEA, 1944. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Consultant Shri S.P. Siddhanta submits that during the relevant period 1986-87 to 1991, January, 2001 to June, 2001, October 2002 to October, 2006, the applicant had used broken bricks received free from the raw materials supplier and recycled it and supplied refractory bricks to the raw materials suppliers. The value of the raw materials received free viz. broken bricks had been determined adopting comparable prices of other manufacturer without considering the actual prices, therefore, the valuation arrived at by the Department is incorrect. He further submits that the Ld. Commr.(Appeals) has not decided the issue on merit but dismissed their appeal for default in payment of pre-deposit amount of Rs.12.00 Lakhs. He subm...
Abhoy Chandra Bakshi Vs. Commr. of Service Tax, Kolkata
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-2014
DR. D.M. Misra, J. 1. This is an application filed seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs.57.90 Lakhs and penalty of equal amount imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act and Rs.5,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The Ld. Chartered Accountant for the applicant submits that the entire service charges on which demand has been confirmed relates to Repair and Maintenance of Roads/High Ways. He submits that the period involved in the present case is from 2005-2006 to 2006-2007. He submits that in view of the retrospective amendment, vide Section 97 and 98 of the Finance Act, 2012, no Service Tax is leviable on the Repair and Maintenance service of roads. 3. Per contra, the Ld. A.R. for the Revenue submits that the applicant had not presented himself during adjudication proceedings. He has no objection in remanding the case to the Commissioner for deciding the issue afresh. 4. After hearing both sides, we find that the appeal itself could be disposed off at t...
M/S. Shyam Sel and Power Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, B ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-2014
Dr. D.M. Misra, J. 1. This is an Application seeking waiver of predeposit of duty of Rs.2.22 crore and equal amount of penalty imposed under Rule 15(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 2. Ld. Advocate for the Applicant submits that during the relevant period i.e.August, 2010 to December, 2010, the Applicant had availed the CENVAT Credit on various itmes viz.,angles, channels, beams etc. as inputs, being used in the fabrication/manufacture of various machineries, which are capital goods, and in turn, installed and used in the factory for processing/manufacturing the finished goods namely, Sponge Iron. He submits that they had furnished a Chartered Engineers Certificate dated 10.04.2011, whereby they had furnished a detailed working of receipt, use of the said angles, channels, beams etc. in the manufacture of capital goods in their factory and also its use in the structurals. He submits that they had themselves calculated the quantity of such steel items that were used in the structura...
M/S. Adyant Education Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, and S. T ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-2014
DR. D.M. Misra, J 1. Heard both sides. 2. We find that the appellant had filed the present appeal against the interim order of the Ld. Commr. (Appeals) who has directed them to pay the entire amount of service tax confirmed dispensing with pre-deposit of interest and penalty. Against the said interim order, the appellant has filed an appeal before this Tribunal. 3. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the appeal is still pending before the Ld. Commr. (Appeals) and the appellant have come against the interim order passed under Section 35F of CEA, 1944 which should not to be entertained by this Tribunal, as it is not an order unser Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. 4. We find from the impugned order that the Ld. Commissioner has issued a direction to the appellant for pre-deposit of the service tax amount. The Appeal filed before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 is yet to be decided. In the result, we do not find merit in the appeal filed by the appellan...
M/S. Tiratna Enterprise Vs. Commr of Central Excise, Dibrugarh
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-2014
DR. D.M. Misra, J. 1. This is an application filed seeking waiver of pre deposit of Service Tax of Rs.6,32,048/- and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Advocate Shri Devaraj Sahu for the applicant submits that they have already deposited an amount of Rs.4,04,295/- before issuance of show cause notice. He submits that the Ld. Commr. (Appeals) has rejected their appeal on the ground of delay in filing the appeal before him. Explaining the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. Commr. (Appeals), he submits that the applicant had handed over all the papers to him in December, 2009. He submits that as there was shifting of his residence and in the process of such shifting, the Appeal papers were bundled with some other files and therefore, could not be traced and the appeal was filed late resulting into delay of two months and twenty days. He submits that in support he has filed an affidavit before the Ld. Commr. (Appeals)...
Naba Kumar Sarkar Vs. Eastern Coalfields Limited and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-2014
GA No.667 of 20143 AP No.11 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction NABA KUMAR SARKAR Versus EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 16th May, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Partha Ghosh, Adv.Ms.Sanchita Barman Roy, Adv.The Court : The application, GA No.667 of 2014, is in aid of AP No.11 of 2008 which is a request under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In AP No.11 of 2008, an order was made on February 14, 2008 referring the request to the Chief Justice to appoint an arbitrator. In the practice that was followed in this Court prior to a Supreme Court directive arresting the same, the Judge taking arbitration matters had to process the request under Section 11 at the initial stage but the naming of the arbitrator was left to be done either by the Chief Justice or another Judge designated by the Chief Justice. Since it is evident that the arbitrator has not been named, GA No.667 of 2014 and AP...
Devshar Fashion Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Diamond Shipping Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-2014
TA No.87 of 2014 T No.173 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDIANRY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Devshar Fashion PVT.LTD.Versus Diamond Shipping Co.LTD.& ORS.Before: The Hon'ble Justice I.P.MUKERJ.Date: 16th May 2014 Appearance: Mr.Abhrajit Mitra, Advocate Mr.Jishnu Chowdhury, Advocate Mr.S.K. Singhi, Advocate Mr.Joydeep Guha, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Promit Kr. Roy, Advocate Mr.Asok Bhowmik, Advocate for D.I.The Court: An affidavit of service is on record. The essential parties, the fiRs.and fifth defendants, have accepted service. Others have refused. Mr.Roy appears for the fiRs.defendant. The fifth defendant is unrepresented. The facts of this case are identical to TA No.74 of 2014 connected with T. No.163 of 2014 (Maskara Infrastructure PVT.LTD.versus Diamond Shipping Co.LTD.& Ors.).except that in this case the fiRs.defendant claims to have made the entire payment and other charges received from the plaintiff to the fifth defendant. In their absence this position is uncon...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »