Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
P.S. DATTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The three appeals preferred by Tata Power Company Ltd. are being disposed of by this common Judgment and order in view of the fact that though the three appeals are directed against three separate orders passed by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission the issues in respect of the three appeals are common and accordingly a common treatment is deserved. The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission is the sole respondent in all the appeals. 2. Appeal No. 17 of 2011 is in relation to the transmission business of Tata Power Company Ltd. which filed Case No.97 of 2009 for approval of truing up for Financial Year 2008-09, Annual Performance Review for Financial Year 2009-10 and Aggregate Revenue Requirement for Financial Year 2010-11 in respect of which the Commission passed an order dated 3.9.2010 which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal. 3. Appeal No. 18 of 2011 is in relation to the generation business of Tata Power Company Lt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Chandigarh Bench Chandimandir
N.P. Gupta By this petition, the petitioner claims to be granted disability pension for 20% disability, with benefit of rounding off, from the date of invalidment, for life. A prayer is also made for quashing of any orders, copies of which have not been supplied, rejecting the disability pension claim. A direction is also claimed declaring the Invaliding Medical Board proceedings as arbitrary, illegal and colourable exercise of power as it does not state reasons in writing as to how they have come to the opinion and just merely by saying `Yes or `No, is not enough in view of the provisions of Medical Services Regulations on Principles of Natural Justice, as if no reasons are given, then the report of Medical Board would itself be ex-facie perverse and arbitrary. Other ancillary reliefs have also been claimed. The necessary facts alleged are that the petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Navy on 17.08.1963, and was found medically fit in all respects in the medical category AYE, as well...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
RAKESH NATH, TECHNICAL MEMBER 1. This Appeal has been filed by M/s. Aditya Cement challenging the order dated 8.11.2011 of the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission (“State Commission”) interpreting the various provisions of the State Supply Code regarding Notice of Availability of Supply by the distribution licensee to the consumer. 2. The State Commission is the Respondent no. 1. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd., the distribution licensee, is the Respondent no. 2. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under: 3.1 The Appellant is a mini steel plant. On 19.4.2007, the Appellant and the erstwhile Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board executed an agreement for High Tension supply of 980 kVA at a voltage of 33 kV to the Appellant. The Appellant also deposited the required charges for executing line work and extension of mains. 3.2 On 14.2.2008 the work relating to extension of mains at 33 kV upto the Appellant’s premises was completed by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
1.1.Appeal No. ST/330/2009 is by the party against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 10/2008 (H-I) ST dated 28.11.2008. Considering the nature of dispute involved, I waive pre-deposit and proceed to take up the appeal for final hearing. 1.2.Appeal No. E/168/2009 is by the department against the same order of the Commissioner (Appeals). This appeal was not listed today and on being pointed out by the learned Superintendent (AR), the appeal was taken up for final hearing with the consent of both sides. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Appellants were issued a show-cause notice dated 30.04.2008 proposing to deny the credit of Rs. 1,15,278/- on services of rent-a-cab and consequently proposing demand. The appellant contested the demand stating that the rent-a-cab services has been used only in relation to business activities connected with manufacture and sale of the final products. Original authority did not accept this submission and denied the credit and consequently confirmed demand a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
ORDER I.A. no. 223 of 2012 has been filed by Solar Semiconductor Power Company (India) Pvt. Ltd., the Appellant for stay against any coercive action being taken by Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. (“GUVNL”) under the Power Purchase Agreement dated 30.4.2010 entered into between them for sale of power from Solar Power Project of the Appellant during the pendency of the Appeal. 2. The Appellant is a Solar Power Project developer. The State Commission is the first Respondent. GUVNL, the procurer of power, is the Respondent no. 2. 3. The facts of the case are as under: 3.1 The State Commission by its order dated 29.1.2010 decided the tariff for procurement of power from Solar Power Projects by the distribution licensees in Gujarat. The control period decided for the tariff was two years i.e. upto 28.01.2012. 3.2 The Appellant entered into a PPA dated 30.4.2010 with the Respondent no. 2 for sale of power from its 20 MW Photovoltaic Solar Power Project being set up in Kutch region ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 55/2009 (V-I) ST dated 27.05.2009. 2. None appears for the appellant. However there is a written submission filed on behalf of the appellants received on 27.07.2012 and the same has been taken into account. Heard the learned Superintendent (AR) for the respondent. 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the appellants are transporters and they are registered for providing taxable services under the heads ‘Cargo Handling Services’, ‘Customs House Agent Services’ and ‘Steamer Agent Services’. On scrutiny of the ST-3 returns for the period from April 2006 to September 2006, it was noticed that the appellants have short paid service tax amounting to Rs. 1,64,326/- and that during the period from June 2006 to July 2006 the assessee has also utilized credit of Rs. 3,09,866/- which was in excess of the credit which was available as balance. On this being pointed out, the amount equal to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT
Introduction The issues arising in this petition centre round interpretation of the proviso appended to Schedule IV of the Telecommunication Interconnection Usage Charges (10th Amendment) Regulations, 2009 as also some of the terms of agreements entered into by and between the parties hereto. Background Facts 2. Certain facts are admitted. Indisputably, the parties had entered into agreements providing for transmission of SMS on diverse dates. Some of the agreements provided for payment of SMS charges at the rates of 30-40 paise per SMS, as would appear from those dated 16.4.2003, 21.10.2003, 10.11.2005 and 04.9.2008, the last being in respect of the service areas of Assam, Jammu and Kashmir and North-East providing for SMS charges originating from either party and terminating in their respective networks at the rate of 30 paise per SMS. On the same date, however, another agreement was entered into by and between the parties hereto, the relevant clauses whereof read as under :- ̶...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Chandigarh Bench Chandimandir
L.T. Gen. N.S. Brar (Retd) This writ petition filed in the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court is taken up on transfer to this Tribunal under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. The petitioner was enrolled in the Army on 13.02.1936 and was discharged as a Havildar on 14.02.1957 on completing terms of engagement. He was granted service pension wef 15.02.1957 for 21 years pensionable service. He was re enrolled in the Territorial Army (TA) on 11.03.1958 and was discharged as superannuated wef 11.09.1968 on attaining the age of 50 years, He had rendered 10 years and 142 days of embodied service in the TA. The petitioner states that the service rendered with the TA is reckonable towards enhanced pension under Regulation 121(a) read with Regulation 289 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961. These, as also Section 2(1)(e) of the Army Act, have been reproduced in the petition as under 121. Pensioners re-employed in a service capacity otherwise than in an emergency. (a)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
The appellants are in appeal against the impugned orders where the refund claims were dismissed on the ground that the same have not been filed within one year of the duty paid. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are 100% EOU. During the course of their manufacturing activity, they have availed credit on inputs and input services. After manufacturing the goods, they exported the goods. These facts are not in dispute. Initially, the SCNs were issued to the appellants for reversal of the CENVAT credit availed both on inputs and input services as they are not eligible for the same. The said dispute was settled by the Commissioner (Appeals) in favour of the appellants holding that appellants are eligible to avail CENVAT Credit on the input and input services on 28.1.2009. Thereafter, the appellants filed refund claims on 13.8.2009 and 5.11.2009 respectively for the period April 2007 to September 2008. The refund claims were denied as time-barred as per clause (6) of Notificat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
P. K. Malhotra (Oral) 1. PG Electroplast Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 came out with an initial public offer (IPO) in September, 2011. The scrip of the company was listed on the National Stock Exchange of India Limited and Bombay Stock Exchange on September 26, 2011. 2. Securities and Exchange Board of India carried out investigations into the alleged irregularities in the IPO and trading of the scrip of the company. During the course of investigations, the Board prima facie came to the conclusion that the appellants, which is an investment company and carrying on the business of dealing in securities, and its directors have traded in the scrip of the company and it placed buy order at a price higher than the available sell order price in the system with the intention to increase the price of the scrip. Pending further investigations, the Board passed an ex-parte ad-interim order on December 28, 2011 against various entities including the appellants. By th...
Tag this Judgment!