Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Ashok Jindal: These appeals are filed by the appellant against the confirmation of demand against them under the category of Cargo Handling Service. 2. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant on the ground that the appellant is a service provider under the category of Cargo Handling Service and is liable to pay service tax on the activity of transporting passengers and goods by their aircrafts. 3. It is the contention of the Revenue that as the appellant are transporting cargo from one destination to another, therefore, they fall under the category of Cargo Handling Service. The show cause notices were adjudicated and impugned demands were confirmed against the appellant. 4. Shri J.H. Motwani, learned counsel for the appellant appeared before us and submitted that in their own case, on the identical issue for the same period, the issue came up before the Ahmedabad bench of this Tribunal and vide order reported in 2008 (11) STR 645 (Tri.Ahmd) held that the activity of transporti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. Petitioner by this petition has prayed that the Respondents may be directed to consider the request of the Petitioner for immediate discharge from service so that he can assume the charge of new appointment as early as possible. The Petitioner was enrolled in Indian Air force on 18th November 1996 as a Radio Fitter. From 1997 to 2008 he performed his duties in the various Units with sincerity and dedication. 2. Since the Petitioner was completing 15 years of service in November 2011 and was entitled to seek discharge by joining any other government service, he in response to the advertisement published by Uttar Pradesh Middle Education Service Selection Board in the Times of India dated 15th January 2009 applied for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) through proper channel after obtaining proper permission of his Commanding Officer in accordance with Air Force Order No. 14 of 2008 while posted with 505 SU, AF and the application of the Petitioner was forwarded to Respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa: 1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. I have heard Shri Sanjay Jain, ld. AR appearing for the Revenue and Shri Sudhir Malhotra, ld. Advocate appearing for respondents. 2. It is seen that respondents who are engaged in the manufacture of non-alloy steel ingots availed Modvat credit to the tune of Rs.2,58,455/- during the period 28.02.2000 to 06.12.2000 on the strength of invoices received from registered dealers namely M/s Adhunik Ferro Alloys and Nepa Steels India. The said two dealers had purchased the materials from Tata Iron and Steels Co. Ltd. (TISCO). 3. Proceedings were initiated against the respondents for denial of Modvat credit on the ground that the vehicle nos. mentioned in the invoices issued by TISCO are registered as scooters, tractors and motorcycles which were not capable to transport quantum of such huge scrap shown in the respective invoice. As such it was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Shri S.S. Kang, Vice President Appellants filed these appeals against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in manufacturing of Readymade Garments falling under Chapter 62 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and export of the same. During the period in dispute, the appellants made export of Readymade Garments and filed a refund claim under the provisions of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 54/2001-CE (NT) dated 29.6.2001 claiming refund of accumulated deemed credit on excisable goods i.e. Readymade Garments exported under Bond. 3. The Notification No. 54/2001 dated 29.6.2001 allows the deemed credit @ 20% of duty of excise leviable under Central Excise Act on the final products, which were cleared thereunder. The notification further provides that the credit shall be allowed to the manufacturer of the final products without production of documents evi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
A.K. Mathur, Chairperson 1. Petitioner vide this petition has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order (findings and sentence) dated 29.04.2009 of the court martial and order dated 25.06.2009 of the Chief of Naval Staff in judicial review of the proceedings of the trial by court martial of the petitioner. 2. Petitioner joined the Indian Navy in July, 1987 as a Cadet in Naval Academy, INS Mandovi, Goa. He passed from the Naval Academy after successfully completing his training. He stood first in his course and was awarded Presidents Gold Medal. He was commissioned as a Sub Lt on 01.01.1989. He opted for Aviation and joined Air Force Academy, Dundigal, Hyderabad in July, 1989 for flying training. Petitioner successfully completed his flying training and he stood first in the said flying training. After his flying training, he became a Naval helicopter pilot and continued to fly Chetak. At the material time, he was serving in the Indian Navy with the rank of a Commander and borne ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
ORDER (ORAL) : Justice S.C. Sharma, Acting Chairman : The instant OA has been instituted for the following reliefs:- “A)To direct the respondent to:- a)to stop the further deductions of Rs.1000/- per month from the Pension of the applicant immediately and to refund the illegal deductions made w.e.f. 18.3.2011 continuously every month as against the orders passed by the disciplinary authority was only the token cut of Rs.1000/- which covers the period from 18.2.2011 to 17.3.2011 only. The respondent be further directed to say the interest on the amount illegally withheld till date at the rate of 18% per annum till payment and to pass any other or further order, directions or relief in favour of the applicant and against the respondent which this Hon’ble court may deem just and proper under the circumstances of the case To award the costs of the present petition in favour of the applicant and against the respondents.” 2. Pleadings of the parties in brief are as follows....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa: 1. After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri Sudhir Malhotra, ld. Advocate appearing for the respondent and Ms. Renu Jagdev, ld. AR appearing for the Revenue, I find that the appellant imported goods on 30.08.2000 and 30.09.2000 under the claim of benefit of Notification No.34/97 in terms of DEPB scrip purchased by them from one Beni Exports. 2. During the course of investigation, it came to light that Beni Export has procured the said DEPB scrip on the strength of forged/substituted shipping bills. Accordingly DEPB scrip were cancelled ab-initio by the Joint Director of Foreign Trade on 24.10.01.3. By the time, the DEPB scrip were cancelled, the import had already taken place. In view of the above, proceedings were initiated against the appellant by way of issuance of Show Cause Notice (SCN) dtd. 31.10.02 proposing confirmation of demand of duty of Rs.1,29,089/- on the ground that imports stand made on the basis of DEPB scrip which were ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
ORDER Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) 1. 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.3832/2010 is taken as a lead case. 2. Applicant has challenged order dated 28.9.2011 (page 18) whereby it was decided by the Chairman, National Technical Research Organisation (hereinafter referred to as NTRO), to repatriate him to his parent department with immediate effect. He has also challenged order dated 19.11.2011 whereby his request for continuing them in NTRO has been rejected. He has further sought a direction to the respondents to reconsider his recruitment on a direct recruitment basis or in the alternate direct the respondents to continue the period of deputation until absorption takes place. 3. The brief facts, as stated by the applicant, are that an advertisement was issued by the respondents on 7-13 Apr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Ashok Jindal: The appellant are in appeal along with stay application for staying the impugned demands under the impugned order wherein their appeal has been dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 194 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. After hearing both the sides, we observe that the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the stay order dated 19/12/2011 without going into the merits of the case. Therefore, considering the submissions made by both the sides, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit and are of the opinion that the matter should go back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the stay application on merits and thereafter pass an appropriate order. 3. We have gone through the stay order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein the appellant has challenged the jurisdiction of the Commissioner who has adjudicated the matter, in view of the situation where they have obtaine...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Shri S.S. Kang, Vice President Heard both sides. 2. Appellant filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise whereby a demand of Rs.30,45,573/- is confirmed with interest and penalty is also imposed. The demand is confirmed after denying the benefit of Notification No. 10/97-CE dated 1.3.1997. 3. The appellant is engaged in manufacture of cables. During the period from 1998 to March, 2002, the appellants cleared various consignments of cables to Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, INSAT - Master Control facility, Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre of Indian Space Research Organization by availing the benefit of Notification No. 10/97-CE. 4. A show-cause notice was issued on 2.5.2003 alleging suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty and for denial of the benefit of notification. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand by invoking extended period of limitation on the ground of mis-decla...
Tag this Judgment!