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.
Gaylord Commercial Company Limited Vs. Securities and Exchange Board o ...
Court: SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer (Oral) 1. After hearing counsel on both sides we had pronounced in the open Court that the appeal is dismissed for the reasons to be recorded separately. Accordingly, we propose to record reasons for dismissing the appeal. 2. This appeal is filed to challenge order passed by the Adjudicating Officer (œAO? for short) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (œSEBI? for short) on January 15, 2014 whereby penalty of Rs.2 lac has been imposed upon the appellant under Section 15A(b) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (œSEBI Act, 1992? for short) as the appellant had failed to make annual disclosures in respect of the holdings of the promoters or persons having control over the appellant company. 3. It is not in dispute that for the year 2007 due date for making disclosure under regulation 8(3) of (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 (œSAST Regulations, 1997? for short) was April 30,...
M/S. Lathia Industrial Supplies Co. Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Cce Ahmedabad-ii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. When this matter was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellant nor is there any request for adjournment. However, when the order was being dictated, a fax from Advocate Shri Dhaval K. Shah is produced seeking adjournment in the matter. Since the there is no Vakalatnama of Shri Dhaval K. Shah in this matter, we dismiss the application filed by Advocate Shri Dhaval Shah, seeking adjournment. 2. Since the matter is coming up for second time, we take up the Stay Petition for disposal in the absence of any representation from the appellant.3. Ld. Departmental Representative submits that the appeal is not maintainable as the first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal for filing the appeal belatedly i.e. beyond the 90 days of receipt of the Order-in-Original. He draws our attention to Para 3 of the impugned order. 4. On perusal of the records, we find it so. Since the issue involved lies in narrow compass, after disposing the Stay Petition, we take up ...
Power Tech Vs. Ultra Dimensions and Another
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
B.S.V. Murthy, J. 1. Even though different orders are under challenge, the issues are somewhat similar in all the three cases. The appellants are rendering services to Ship Building Centre, Naval Dockyard at Visakhapatnam. All the services rendered by them are for the submarine being built by SBC. The types of activity undertaken based on the quantification to show-cause notice and based on the statements can be briefly explained as under: Fabrication of pipe spools/trunkings, SS and TI pipe welding and general activities like fabrication, welding, bending etc. Revenue has taken a view that the appellants have rendered Erection, Commissioning and Installation services to the SBC while undertaking these activities. The demands have been raised invoking extended period and penalties have been imposed. The amounts involved in the 3 appeals are as under: Sl. No. Appeal No.Amount involved (Rs.)1.ST/1362/2011 Service Tax Rs. 4,80,20,640/- and Rs. 11,03,130/- u/s 73(2) of the Finance Ac...
M/S Bfl Udyog Vs. Cce Vapi
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. When this Stay Petition was called, after hearing both sides, we find that the appeal itself can be disposed of as it lies in narrow compass. Accordingly, after disposing the Stay Petition, we take the appeal for disposal. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The first appellate authority has directed the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs.10 lakhs for hearing and disposing the appeal on merit. The appellant has filed an application for modification of said stay order which was also dismissed by first appellate authority. Having not complied with the order, the first appellate authority has rejected the appeal. 4. We find that the issue involved in this case is regarding the interest on the amount reversed by the appellant on being pointed out by Audit party as regards CENVAT Credit availed on capital goods. At this juncture, we are unable to go into the merits of the case. Accordingly, we are of the view that the appellant should be put to some ...
M/S. Furnace and Foundry Equipment Company Vs. Commissioner of Central ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-09-2014
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. When this application for condonation of delay was called out, none appears on behalf of the appellant. There is application filed by the appellant seeking minimum 45 to 60 days for appointing advocate as the earlier advocate has withdrawn from the case. 2. On perusal of the records, we find that no such communication is on record. We find that his matter i.e. application for condonation of delay was filed on 01.10.2013 and the matter got listed for disposal on 29.01.2014, on which date none appeared and the bench Sue-Moto adjourned the matter for hearing on 25.03.2014. On 25.3.2014, the assessee requested for adjournment which was granted and the matter was listed for today. The reasons for seeking adjournment today are also not very convincing hence, we decline the adjournment request and take up the application for condonation of delay for disposal on merits. 3. Heard the learned departmental representative. 4. On perusal of the records, it transpires that the ...
M/S. Shreeji Shipping Vs. C.C.E. and S.T. Rajkot
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-09-2014
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. These two appeals are disposed of by a common order as they raise the same issue and are in respect of the very same assessee. 2. The relevant facts, after filtering out unnecessary details appellant herein registered themselves with the service tax department on 23.01.2003 as a cargo handling agent and discharging the service tax on the value of stevedoring, unloading and loading charges. An investigation was carried out and various statements were recorded and on scrutiny of the documents which were resumed, it was noticed that appellant have not paid service tax on the entire charges collected by them for various several services like lighterage and local transportation within the port and they have not paid service tax on stevedoring, unloading / loading of cargo in relation to export cargo. Coming to such a conclusion, that services of lighterage of cargo from ship to the berth and transportation of goods and in port area as rendered by the appellant are in r...
Tata Power Company Limited Vs. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Comm ...
Court: Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on: Apr-09-2014
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson. 1. Tata Power Company Limited (Transmission) is the Appellant herein. 2. The Appellant in this Appeal has challenged the Tariff Order dated 30.3.2013 passed in the Petition filed by the Appellant Transmission Company seeking for the approval of The True-Up for the Financial Year 2011-12 and ARR for the Second Control Period from FY 2012-13 to FY 2015-16. 3. The short facts are as follows: (a) The Maharashtra State Commission issued MERC Tariff Regulations, 2005 on 26.8.2005. After prolonged public consultation, the State Commission notified the MYT Regulations, 2011 repealing 2005 Regulations on 4.2.2011. (b) On 23.2.2011, the State Commission issued Removal of Difficulty Order in view of difficulty arising in adhering to the timeline specified in the Regualtions. (c) On 25.3.2011, the State Commission directed all the Licensees and the Generating Companies to submit their MYT Business Plan and MYT Petition for the Control Period from the Financial Ye...
Cce, Chennai Iv Vs. M/S. India Gypsum Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-2014
1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the adjudication order was set aside. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The issue involved in this case is whether the respondents are eligible to avail CENVAT credit for the service tax paid on freight for outward transportation from the place of removal during the period March 2006 to June 2007. The learned AR for Revenue reiterates the grounds of the appeal. He relied upon the decision of the Honble Calcutta High Court in the case of CCE Vs. Vesuvious India Ltd. 2013-TIOL-1038-HC-CAL. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the decision of the Honble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE, Bangalore Vs. ABB Ltd. 2011 (23) STR 97 (Kar.) and the decision of the Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE Vs. Parth Poly Wooven Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (25) STR 4 (Guj.). 4. I find that the Honble Karnataka High Court, after considering the decision of the Larger Bench...
M/S. Bell Ceramics Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and S.T. ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-09-2014
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. When this stay petition was called out, we find that the appeal itself could be disposed of at this juncture hence, after allowing the application for the waiver of pre-deposit of amounts involved, we take up the appeal for disposal. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. On perusal of the records it transpires that the issue involved in this case is regarding eligibility to avail the benefit of Notification Nos. 5/2006-CE and/or 2/2008-CE. The appellant has availed benefit of Notification No. 5/2006-CE, while the department is of the view that subsequent availment of benefit of Notification No. 2/2008-CE is not permissible. 4. Learned Counsel was correct in stating that on an identical issue, the case of Savana Ceramics, this Bench vide final order No. A/10178/2014 dated 04.02.2014 has allowed the appeal at the stay stage itself. We reproduce the ratio which is in Para 4 of the said order:- 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. As the issue l...
M/S Informatics India Ltd. Bangalore Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax B ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Decided on: Apr-09-2014
B.S.V. Murthy, J 1. Even though only stay application is listed today, after hearing both sides and going through the records, we find that the matter, in any case, has to be remanded. Therefore, the requirement of pre-deposit is waived and the appeal is taken up for final decision. 2. In this case, service tax has been demanded from the appellant on the ground that the appellant has received Event Management Service during the period from May 2005 to February 2009. It was submitted that other than giving the definition of event management service and indicating the amounts paid to the persons abroad for the services, no details have been considered and there is no discussion as to why the services received by the appellant have to be considered as event management by the original authority. We find it to be so. Further we also find that the claim of the appellant that their employees were sent abroad for attending the seminar, training, etc. and no evidence has been produced by Revenu...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »