Tribunal Court April 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.
The India Cements Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
1. After hearing this matter at length, I find that the appeal may be decided at the stage of stay petition hearing. Accordingly after disposing the stay application, the appeal is taken up for hearing. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The relevant facts of the case in brief are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of cement and availed Cenvat credit of Rs.15,58,483/- in 1996 on MS Channels, MS Angles, CHN Channels and Transformer Oil. By the adjudication order, the adjudicating authority denied the credit on these items as they are not treated as capital goods. Ultimately, the Tribunal by Final Order No.1226/10, dated 16.11.2010 remanded this matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the matter afresh and give a finding as to whether the impugned goods have been used as capital goods or as components of capital goods and thereafter passed a fresh order on the question of admissibility of Modvat credit/Cenvat credit. By the impugned order, Commissioner (...
Harbans Singh, Jallandhar Vs. Union of India Through the General Manag ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
Uday Kumar Varma, Member (A). 1. Applicant Harbans Singh has filed the present Original Application praying for the following reliefs:- "i). That the respondents be directed to release the interest @ 18% on the delayed payment of gratuity w.e.f. 1.5.2008 i.e. till the date of actual payment. ii). That the respondents be directed to release the recovered amount of Rs.8175/- from the salary of the applicant for the month of April, 2008 without disclosing any reason along with interest; iii). That the applicant be extended the benefit of the Railway Board Orders No. F(E)III-94/PNI/28 of 1.11.1994. The applicant, who retired from the service of the respondents on 30.4.2008 after rendering more than 35 years of service, has filed the instant OA for claiming interest on DCRG amount for releasing the same on 6.2.2013. This is the second round of litigation by the applicant for claiming interest on the amount of DCRG as in the earlier OA No.1149/PB/2011 filed by him, the applicant has also cla...
M/S. Aarkey Mills Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Serv ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
1. Heard both sides and perused the records. 2. The relevant facts of the case in brief are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Cotton Grey Fabrics and duty was levied on 01.04.2003. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs.9,81,585/- along with interest and penalty for the period May, 2003 to June, 2003 on the ground that they have cleared the goods without payment of duty. The appellant paid the entire amount of duty along with interest and penalty 25% of duty within one month from the date of receipt of the adjudication order. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order. 3. The learned Consultant fairly submits that as the case is old one, they are not contesting the demand of duty on merit subject to their claim of benefit of exemption notification. He submits that they have paid the duty erroneously on the basis of the Notification No.7/2003-CE, dated 01.03.2003 without considering the amendment to the Notification No.38/2003-CE, dated...
Cceandst, Ahmedabad Iii Vs. Tec Papers Pvt Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
H K Thakur, J. 1. The present appeal, filed by the Revenue, is directed against the Order in Appeal No.167/ 2006 (Ahd-III) CE/ DK/ Commr (A) dated 29.09.2006, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-II), Central Excise, Ahmedabad. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Preventive Officers intercepted one truck carrying Ordinary Duplex Board on 20.03.2004 under the cover of invoice number 173 issued by the respondent. As the original serial number of the invoice was found cancelled and a new serial number 173 was written on the invoice, the Preventive Officers visited the factory premises of the respondent to ascertain genuineness of the invoice. On verification, the officers found that the pre-authenticated invoices bearing serial number from 172 to 177 were still lying blank and unused in the records of the Respondent. During the course of physical verification of finished goods in the respondents factory, a shortage of 15,000 Kg of Ordinary Duplex Board, involving central e...
Cce., Ahmedabad Vs. M/S. Om Sai Engg Works and Others
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
H.K. Thakur, J. 1. As the issues involved in the following appeals filed by the Revenue are the same, these are being taken up together for disposal through this common order: S. No.Appeal No.RespondentAgainst Order in Appeal No. Passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Rajkot.1.ST/ 441/ 2012Om Sai Engineering Works, Bhavnagar77/ 2012/ (BVR)/ COMMR (A)/ RBT/RAJ2.ST/ 440/ 2012Sonthalia Steel Rolling Mills, Bhavnagar73/ 2012/ (BVR)/ COMMR (A)/ RBT/RAJ3.ST/ 439/ 2012Himalaya Enterprise, Porbandar74/ 2012/ (BVR)/ COMMR (A)/ RBT/RAJ4.ST/ 516/ 2012Sajini Leads and Fabricators, Veraval85/ 2012/ (BVR)/ COMMR (A)/ RBT/RAJ5.ST/ 438/ 2012Municipal Corporation, Porbandar75/ 2012/ (BVR)/ COMMR (A)/ RBT/RAJ 2. Briefly stated the facts relevant for disposal of the appeals are that the respondents were liable to pay service tax during the financial year 2005-06 to 2009-10 but they failed to pay service tax for these periods. Show cause notices were issued to them in the year 2010/ 2011 by invoking extended...
Bharati Hexacom Limited Vs. Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commissio ...
Court: Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
Surendra Kumar, JM. 1. The present Appeal has been filed under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against the Order dated 11.12.2012 passed by the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter called the State Commission) in Petition No. RERC/332/2012, whereby the petition filed by the Appellant-Petitioner under Section 142 read with Section 146 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for the unauthorized action of Respondent No.2 “ Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd in charging tariff for the Telecom Towers of the Appellant as per the Non-domestic category instead of the Industrial Category under the tariff order of the State Commission, has been dismissed holding that the Base Transceiver Station (BTS) Towers of the Appellant-petitioner do not fall under the mixed load category as claimed by the Appellant under the tariff order passed by the learned State Commission. 2. In the beginning, it is very necessary to elucidate about the term BTS Towers. The BTS stands for Base Tra...
M/S. Srf Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-ii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
1. Heard both sides and perused the records. 2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Nylone Tyre Cord Fabric classifiable under Chapter 59 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In the instant case, there is a demand of interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act on payment of differential duty on revision of the cost of production. The learned Consultant Shri Srinivasan fairly submits that the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune Vs SKF India Ltd., reported in 2009 (239) E.L.T.385 (S.C.) decided this issue against the assessee. He submits that in some cases they paid excess amount of differential duty on which no interest is payable. He submits that an opportunity may be given to requantify the demand of interest on the basis of actual amount payable after adjusting the excess duty paid on price revision. He submits that the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh Vs Pfizer ...
M/S. Ronald Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd. Vs. Cceandst Vadodara I
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
HK. Thakur, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against Order-in-Appeal No. Commr (A)/ 89/ VDR-I/ 2012, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs, Vadodara on 16.02.2012 and issued on 21.02.2012. 2. The issue involved in these proceedings is non-payment of interest on alleged delayed payment of rebate claim made by the Revenue to the appellant. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed rebate claim of Rs. 10,27,242/- under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 with the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division-I, Vadodara on 29.04.2010, which was sanctioned but appropriated towards the appellants arrear liability of Rs. 51,87,010/- (Duty Rs. 25,93,505/- + Penalty Rs.25,93,505/-) plus interest vide Order-in-Original No. Reb/ 200-280/ Ronald/ Div-I/ 10-11 dated 28.07.2010 despite the appellant having filed Appeal along with Stay Application with the CESTAT against Order-in-Appeal No. Commmr. (A)/ 253/ VDR-I/ 2009 dated 28.10....
Tamil Nadu Power Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation Lt ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
Pradip Kumar Das, Judicial Member. 1. The appellant is a Govt of Tamil Nadu Enterprise registered with the Service Tax authorities under "Banking and other Financial Services'. They filed a refund claim on 28.4.2004 for Rs.12,48,187/- on the ground that they paid the tax at 8% instead of 5%. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim and ordered it to be deposited with the "Fund" as per Section 11B (2) of Central Excise Act,1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order. 2. On perusal of the adjudication order, it is seen that the appellant took a stand before the adjudicating authority that the appellant had collected this amount from M/s.Tamil Nadu Electricity Board @ 8% for the services rendered during 1.4.2003 to 30.5.2003. Subsequently, they have refunded the amount to TNEB which was originally collected in excess and filed the refund claim. Both the authorities below rejected the refund claim following the de...
M/S. Everest Composites Pvt.Ltd Vs. Cce Vadodara-i
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. This appeal is directed against OIA No.Commr(A)/248/ VDR-I/2012, dt.30.04.2012. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The relevant facts that arise for consideration, after filtering out the unnecessary details are that the appellant herein is registered with the authorities under Service Tax regime and is engaged in rendering the services of construction of residential complex. During the period October 2004 to March 2008, it was noticed that the appellant had short paid the Service Tax and did not indicate the same in the ST-3 returns. Show cause notices dt.16.07.2009 and dt.08.09.2009 were issued to the appellant. During the interregnum period, it seems that the appellant had paid the entire amount of Service Tax liability and interest thereon. The adjudicating authority, after following the due process of law, confirmed the demands raised with interest, disallowed CENVAT Credit and imposed penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 199...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »