Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
P.S. DATTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, J. 1. M/S Tarini Infrastructure limited, a company under the Companies Act,1956 responded to the call of Narmada Water Resources, a statutory body under the Government of Gujarat for participation in the bids from private parties for building Small Hydro Power Generation Project in river Daman Ganga at Madhuban reservoir which is about 35 kilometres from Vapi in the district of Valsad, and was successful in getting its bid accepted and accordingly was awarded the Concession for building two Small Hydro Power Projects of 3 MW (2X 1500KW) and 2.6 MW ( 1X 2600 KW) at Daman Ganga. The ‘Bid Document’ was prepared and issued on 9.11.2006 by the Govt. of Gujarat. The Concession Agreement between the Narmada Water Resources and the appellant was executed on 27.8.2007 and the power plants were to be at a distance of 1km from each other and were to be connected to the nearest sub- station of the Respondent No. 1 Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. (GUVNL) whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The appellant who is a CHA has filed this appeal against the revocation of their CHA licence no. 11/2006 on violation of provisions of Regulation of CHALR 2004. 2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Ventura Alloys and Electronics (India) imported zinc ingots under Advance Licence Scheme. The appellant were assigned the work of clearance of the said consignment. It is the allegation that the said consignment was allegedly diverted to some other place in spite goods being transported to the importer. In this scenario, proceedings under CHALR 2004 were initiated against the appellant and their licences were suspended on 17.5.2005. The said suspension was revoked on the direction of the Hon'ble High Court. Thereafter proceedings under CHALR were initiated against the appellant. 3. The article of charge was that the appellant has violated Regulation 13(d) of CHALR, 2004 as the import clearance were made under advance licence scheme by M/s. Ventura Allo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
P.S. DATTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 7.9.2010 passed by the Gujarat State Regulatory Commission, the Respondent No.-3 herein whereby it held that the transmission line laid by the appellant, M/s Tarini Infrastructure Ltd. which was involved in the development of small and medium hydro electric projects in India from the switch yard at Madhuban Dam to Mota Pandha to be the line belonging to the Gujarat Electricity Transmission Corporation Ltd., the Respondent No.1 herein. The facts are these. 2. The Govt. of Gujarat issued a policy for promoting the development of hydel projects in the State. In terms of the policy, the Narmada Water Resources, a statutory body of the Govt. of Gujarat called for the bids from private parties for building small hydro generation projects in River Daman Ganga at Madhuban reservoir which is about 35 kms. from Bapi in the district of Valsad. The Daman Ganga dam is a major irrigation project across the river Daman...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
S.S. Kang Heard both sides. 2. The applicants filed these applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.14,60,340/-, interest and penalty. The demand is confirmed after denying cenvat credit in respect of grey fabric on the ground that the credit has been availed on the invoices issued by non-existent firms. 3. The contention of the applicants is that in the show cause notice, the Revenue relied upon the verification report dated 26.10.2005 by the jurisdictional central excise office, whereby it has been reported that the suppliers of the grey fabric had not filed monthly returns, hence the invoices on the strength of which credit has been availed by the applicant, the duty payment particulars cannot be verified. 4. The contention is that in reply to the show cause notice, the applicants submitted necessary information by way of certificates issued by the suppliers of grey fabric whereby the details of invoice number, the quantity of the goods, duty amount and particulars regard...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
S.S. Kang Heard both sides. 2. The applicant filed this application for condoning the delay of 94 days in filing the appeal. The contention of the applicant is that the applicant filed appeal against the adjudication order along with application for waiver of dues and the Commissioner (Appeals) directed the applicant to deposit 50% of the duty and penalty for hearing of the appeal. As the appellant had failed to comply with the conditions of the stay order, the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The applicant tried their level best to arrange the amount so that the same be deposited as per the stay order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the papers were given to the Advocate, Shri C. Subba Reddy, and he had undergone a surgery of his eye for diabetic retinopathy. As he recovered from the surgery, the appeal was filed. In view of the reasons explained, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The applicant a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
P.S. DATTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, J. 1. The review petitioners are one set of appellants in a batch of 10 appeals being No. 57 of 2008, 155 of 2007, 125 of 2008, 45 of 2010, 40 of 2010, 196 of 2009, 199 of 2009, 163 of 2010, 6 of 2011 and 144 of 2010. It is the last appeal as mentioned above wherein the present review petitioners were the appellants (Appeal No.144of 2010). This batch of 10 appeals was decided by a comprehensive and consolidated judgment on 11.1.2012 by this Tribunal and 22 issues involved therein were decided. Of them, the issue no.11 was “whether the Commission was justified in disallowing rebate?” 2. This issue was decided by this Tribunal with the following reasoning which we quote herein below:- 54. The question of withdrawal or discontinuance of rebate has been agitating the industrial consumers right from the tariff of FY 2007-08. With regard to this issue there has been, however, no positive affirmative indication by this Tribunal in Appeal No. 4 of 2005...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
P.S. DATTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, J. 1. A volley of questions while deciding the four appeals arise: a) whether the Commission can determine or enhance the bulk supply tariff at a flat rate applicable to different licensees in their respective areas of distribution? ,b) whether the parameters laid down in section 61 of the Act should not be followed?, c)whether, more particularly, criteria such as costs, expenses, availability of power, consumer base, consumer mix, efficiency of operations, financial viability of each licensee, distribution loss, geographical position which would vary from licensee to licensee should not have been considered?, d) whether there can be a uniform increase of bulk supply tariff applicable to the different licensees, e) whether in revising the bulk supply tariff the consumers of different licensees have really subsidized the consumers of the Kerala State Electricity Board?, f) whether there can be a provisional hike in bulk supply tariff as done by the Kerala S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
P.S. DATTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, J. 1. The Tata Power Company Limited which is owning four Hydro Power Stations and thermal power stations at four different places having total generation capacity of 2027 MW apart from having a segregated distribution business has preferred this appeal being aggrieved with the order dated 29.09.2010 passed in connection with case no. 37 of 2010 by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission, respondent no. 1 herein, whereby it refused to quash four letters dated 16.05.2010, 18.05.2010, 12.06.2010 and 30.06.2010 issued by the Maharashtra State Load Dispatch Centre, Kalwa, the respondent no. 2 declining thereby to schedule and dispatch 160 MW and 100 MW of appellant’s generation capacity which the distribution division of the appellant had contracted to procure through a Power Purchase Agreement to meet the load requirements of its consumers in its licensed area, and also refusing to pay compensation to the appellant on account of the losses sai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. This review application has been moved by the applicant on 10th April 2012, against the judgment passed by this Tribunal on 21st July 2010, under Rule 18 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Rules, 2008. He has also concurrently moved miscellaneous application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1965 read along with Section 22 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 for condoning of delay of near about 20 months in filing the review. 2. The main issues agitated by learned counsel for the applicant were that the summary court martial finished in a brief span of 10 R.A. No.16/2012 in T.A. No. 515 of 2009 Satyaveer Singh Vs. UOI and Ors. minutes which was inadequate to even complete the bare formalities necessary in completion of the SCM. It was argued that the Honble Supreme Court had time and again commented on this issue that due application of mind is necessary at all levels. It was argued that the same issue was raised before the Honble Tribunal and that has not been given due weightage...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
P.S. DATTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, J. 1. When the appeal was being heard continuously for a number of days the learned counsels for both the parties would for the sake of convenience and also, of course, in lighter vein term the appeal as a ’good will’ case because the whole gamut of the appeal centres round the question whether the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission, the respondent no.1 herein, was legally justified in making some alleged adverse criticisms against the appellant, namely Reliance Infrastructure Limited, a company under the Companies Act, 1956 in its 4-page order dated 9th September, 2010 passed in case no 121 of 2008. 2. Maintainability of the appeal in its present form and prayer has been no doubt, questioned by the Commission which we will advert to at the appropriate place ; for the present the essence of the order as has been expressed in paragraph 7 thereof is reproduced below after which we will revert back to the background of the case in...
Tag this Judgment!