Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
V.J. TALWAR TECHNICAL MEMBER, J. 1. The Appellant No. 1 – Rajasthan Steel Chambers is an association of industries. The Appellant No. 2 is a Non Governmental Organization which has been established in the year 2010. The Appellant No. 3 appears as an individual and is a retired employee of erstwhile Rajasthan State Electricity Board. The Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (State Commission) is the 1stRespondent. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (Distribution Licensee) is one of the distribution licensees in the state of Rajasthan and is the 2nd Respondent herein. 2. On 4.1.2011 the 2nd Respondent Distribution Licensee filed a Petition for determination of its Annual Revenue Requirements and revision of Retail Supply Tariff under Section 62 and 64 of the Electricity Act for the Financial Year 2011-2012. In accordance with the provision of Section 64(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Electricity Board published the abridged form of its application inviting object...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
S.S. Kang Common issues are involved, therefore, we take up them together and dispose of them by this common order. 2. Appellant filed these appeals against the impugned order whereby the refund claim of the appellants were rejected. 3. The appellants are engaged in the processing man made fabrics. During the period in dispute the annual capacity of the stenters were determined by the competent authority. Consequential to the determination of the annual capacity of two show cause notices were issued demanding duty. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. S.P.B.L. Ltd. reported in 2002 (146) ELT 254 (S.C.). Revenue had not challenged the adjudication order whereby the proceedings for demand of duty were dropped. Subsequently, the appellant filed refund claim in respect of the differential duty paid. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim and the rejectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
S.S. Dhillon, Member. 1. This petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking quashing of the Summary Court Martial (SCM) proceedings of 27th June 1992 as well as the rejection orders dated 27th June 1992 and 2nd January 1993 and 17th September 1993 whereby his mercy petitions under Section 164 of the Army Act were dismissed. 2. The Petitioner was enrolled in the Army as a Sepoy on 26th December 1974. After serving in the Army for 17 years he was chargesheeted on 22nd June 1992 and was Court Martialled on 27th June 1992 for an offence under Sections 36D and 40 (a) of the Army Act. The charge sheet is as reproduced below: CHARGE SHEET The accused NO. 7768790M (subs) Nk/MP Rohtas of 101 Area Provost unit is charged with:-First Charge Army Act Sec40(a)Using criminal force to his superior officer In that he, at field, on 18th June 1992 at 2040 hours when JC-153477L Sub (MP) Om Prakash Senior JCO of his unit ordered No. 7768158 F Hav (MP) S.N. Mehto to place him under close arrest start...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
ORDER (ORAL) Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) In both these OAs since the facts are common, even the counsel representing both the parties are common, therefore, with their consent both the OAs are being disposed of by a common order. For the purpose of narrating facts, OA No.1758/2011 is taken as a lead case. 2. In OA 1758/2011, applicant was served with a charge sheet dated 1.9.2012 with the following allegations:- “ Shri Jai Bhagwan while working as DMS-II Sec.D/SSB during the year 2010 committed irregularities as under:- He failed to maintain his stock properly. The details of shortages found in his stock as a result of Account Stock-Verification are as under:- “Table” By the above act of omission and commission, he failed to maintain absolute integrity, displayed lack of devotion of duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Railway Servant thereby contravened Ruled 3.1 (i), (ii) and (iii) of Railway Services (C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
S.S. Kang Heard both sides. 2. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals). 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Motor Vehicle and four cars were cleared directly to their customers i.e. the Nuclear Power Corporation of India. The vehicles were cleared under the excise invoices showing the payment of duty after reducing the dealer’s retail price to the extent of Rs.8000/- as the dealer’s margin. 4. The motor vehicles are cleared in the year 1999-2000 and show cause notice was issued on 7th August 2002 demanding duty by invoking the extended period of limitation on the ground of suppression. The case of the Revenue is that as the motor vehicles are cleared directly to the customers. Therefore there is no question of reducing Rs.8000/-per car as dealer’s margin. 5. The applicants argued on merits as well as submitted that the demand is time barred as applicant filed neces...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
S.S. Kang 1. Heard both sides. 2. Appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Philips brand ‘steam irons’ falling under Chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellants on the ground that the appellant suppressed the fact that the cost of moulds used in the manufacture of the plastic parts is being borne by M/s Phillips India Ltd (Domestic Appliances and Personal Care Division) (hereinafter referred to as M/s PDAP for short). As the appellants were clearing the finished goods to M/s PDAP, thus the same is additional consideration flowing to the appellants. 4. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty. The appellant filed appeal and the same is dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. The contention of the appellant is that the appellants were procuring the raw materials suc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
S.S. Kang Heard both sides. 2. Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. The brief facts of the case are that respondents are engaged in the manufacture of goods ‘laminated non woven fabrics’, and the respondents were classifying the goods under chapter 56 of the Tariff which was not notified under the modvat scheme. The demand of differential duty was confirmed by re-classifying the goods under chapter 39 of the Tariff. The respondents made a request to grant credit in respect of the duty paid on inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of goods as goods are classified under Chapter 39 of the Tariff and the same is covered under the modvat scheme at that time. The adjudicating authority allowed the benefit of modvat credit. The Revenue filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dismissed the appeal. 4. The contention of revenue is that the show cause notice was is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
BY CHAIRPERSON: 1. Petitioner by this petition has prayed for issuing directions to the Respondents to quash and set aside the age criterion fixed in Para 149 of the Regulations for the Army (1987) duly amended by Ministry of Defence Policy letter dated 4.5.1999, especially in the light of Army HQ letter dated 1.1.2010 so as to meet the ends of equity, justice and fairplay. Petitioner has also prayed to issue directions to the respondents to immediately send the applicant for NCC course and promote the applicant at par with his batchmates and pay all consequential benefits. 2. Petitioner was enrolled on 26.9.1986 as a Sepoy and with passage of time he was promoted to the rank of Naik and Havildar. However, since January, 1995, he is Havildar but he has not been promoted to Nb. Sub. despite qualifying in his promotion cadre in the first attempt, because he was considered overage for promotion on 6.4.2010 after having attained the age of 46. Petitioner aggrieved by this filed the presen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
BY CHAIRPERSON: 1. Petitioner has already expired and an application to this effect has been filed by MA no. 98 of 2012 for deleting his name and substituting the name of his wife Mrs. Bhanu Bhatt and son Vivek Bhatt. Ordered accordingly and the name of the petitioner may be deleted and in the place of that, names of his wife and son may be substituted. 2. Petitioner by this petition has prayed that proceedings of Court Martial held at Ramgarh after retirement of the petitioner from 6.4.1996 to 30.5.1996 may be quashed and respondents may be directed to restore his loss of seniority by 8 years for the purposes of pension. It is also prayed in the interest of justice that petitioner may be compensated for keeping him under close arrest after his retirement from 31.12.1995 to 04.10.1996. 3. The petitioner joined the National Defence Academy Khadakvasala in 1959 after meeting all the parameters laid down by the Govt. of India from time to time. He completed the training at NDA and IMA, D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
S.S. Dhillon, Member. 1. Petitioner by this petition seeks setting aside of the impugned order of Army HQ dated 21st May 2009 whereby Respondents have supposedly complied with the Honble Delhi High Court order of 21st January 2008. The Petitioner seeks consequential extensions, promotions and benefits. 2. The Petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army on 8th May 1979 as a driver in the Army Service Corps for an initial period of 17 years. The Petitioner was posted on 10th December 1988 to Branch Recruiting Office Belgaum. On 21st May 1989 while serving at Belgaum, he was sent on duty to the Zonal Recruiting Office Belgaum for collection of question papers. The Petitioner reached Bangalore on 22nd August 1989 and after collection of the sealed box containing the question papers, started back for Belgaum on the same day and reached his Unit on 23rd August 1989 and handed over the sealed box containing the question papers to the authorities. Subsequently the authorities realised that the...
Tag this Judgment!