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.
M/S. Ushama Dyeing and Printing Mills Vs. Cce Surat-i
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-08-2014
H.K. Thakur, J. 1. This stay application and appeal have been filed by the appellant with respect to OIA No.CCEA-SRT-I/SSP-276/2013-14, dt.06.08.2013 upholding the OIO dt.06.03.2012 passed by the adjudicating authority. Both the lower authorities have held that as per the provisions of Notification No.19/2000-CE, dt.01.03.2000, appellant was required to file an option regarding re-determination of annual capacity of production on the basis of actual production, which was not filed by the appellant. Accordingly, it was held by the first appellate authority that appellant was required to pay duty @ Rs.3 lakhs per chamber under Compounded Levy Scheme under Section 3A(4) of Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Shri M.N. Saiyed (Consultant) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued on 11.03.2014 that the required declaration under Notification No. 19/2000-CE was filed with the appropriate authority (the Deputy Commissioner, C.Ex., Division III, Surat I Commissionerate), and a copy of the same was...
M/S. Tata Motors Ltd and Another Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Port), K ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-2014
Dr. I.P. Lal, J. 1. These Applications are filed by M/s.Tata Motors Ltd. seeking waiver of Customs duty of Rs.21,88,78,406/-, penalty of Rs.2.00 Crores imposed on them under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 and confiscation of the imported goods with option to redeem the said goods on payment of the redemption fine of Rs.10.00 Crores under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 and by M/s. Caparo Engineering India Ltd. for waiver of penalty of Rs.1.00 Crore imposed on them under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s.Tata Motors Ltd. imported dies and fixtures against the EPCG licence No.0330020330 dt.12.06.2008 and EPCG licence No.0330021693 dt.24.10.2008 claiming benefit of concessional rate under Notification No.64/2008-Cus dated 09.05.2008. It appeared from the investigations conducted by the officers of DRI that the said dies and fixtures were removed at the premises of M/s.Caparo Engineernig India Ltd. as per letter of intent dated 2...
Oudh Finance and Investments Private Limited Vs. Securities and Exchan ...
Court: SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Decided on: Apr-08-2014
J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer (Oral) Misc. Application No. 39 of 2014 There is delay of 625 days in filing the appeal. By Miscellaneous Application, appellant seeks condonation of said delay. For reasons stated in the application, delay is condoned. Miscellaneous Application is disposed of accordingly. Appeal No. 56 of 2014 1. This appeal is filed to challenge the interim order dated April 25, 2012 passed against the appellant by the Whole Time Member of Securities and Exchange Board of India (œSEBI? for short) whereby ad-interim order passed on September 21, 2011 has been partially modified and the partially modified order has been continued until further orders. Since no further action is taken thereafter till date, present appeal is filed. 2. Counsel for the respondent states that without going into the merits of the case, appeal can be disposed of by directing the respondent to pass final order in a time bound manner. He submits that the respondent is willing to issue a sh...
M/S. Sjlt Textiles (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2014
1. Heard both sides and perused the records. 2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn classifiable under Chapter 52 of the CETA, 1985. During the period from 19.10.2005 to 24.5.2006, the appellants cleared the old and used capital goods to their other units on payment of duty on the transaction value. The adjudicating authority held that the appellant is liable to reverse the entire credit originally taken on the impugned capital goods at the time of removal as per Rule 3(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 3. I find that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE Vs. Navodhaya Plastic Industries Ltd. 2013-TIOL-1773-CESTAT-MAD-LB, following the decision of the Honble Madras High Court in the case of CCE Vs. Rogini Mills Ltd. 2011-TIOL-05-HC-MAD, held that reversal of CENVAT credit of 2.5% for each quarter of an year from the date of taking of CENVAT credit. 4. In my considered view the matter should be examined in the light of the Larger Bench of the Tr...
B. Nagendra Baliga, Karnataka Vs. the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalo ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Decided on: Apr-07-2014
B.S.V. Murthy, J. 1. All the stay applications and appeals taken up in this order, have come up before us because the appeals have been rejected on the ground that the appellants did not fulfill the conditions of stay orders. 2. After hearing all the appellants and the departments representatives, it was found that in all these cases, the decisions have to be taken which can be very briefly summarized. Therefore, we consider it appropriate that a common order is passed. 3. Before we proceed, it is necessary to take note of the submission made by the learned A.R. who submitted that the decision of Honble High Court of A.P. in the case of M/s Hira Ferro Alloys Ltd. Vs CC,CE andST [2014-TIOL-334-HC-AP-CX] may be considered. He drew our attention to the conclusions of the Honble High Court wherein Honble High Court has laid down certain guidelines for considering the requirement of pre-deposit. Paragraph 12 onwards of the Honble High Courts decision are relevant and are reproduced below:- ...
C.C.E. and S.T. Ahmedabad-iii Vs. M/S. Sejasmi Industries India Pvt. L ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-07-2014
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. All these appeals are filed by the revenue against OIA No. 268 to 300/2013(Ahd-III)/SKS/Commr.(A)/Ahd, dt. 09.10.2013 and OIA No. 129 to 266/2013(Ahd-III)/SKS/Commr.(A)/Ahd, dt. 27.09.2013. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. On perusal of the records, we find that both the impugned orders are passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Ahmedabad in respect of the rebate claims filed by the respondent. We at the outset like to record that the revenue is pursuing legal remedies at a wrong forum by filing these many appeals before us. Suffice to say that before filing all these appeals, the concerned officers should have looked in to provisions of Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the exercise of the department in filing these appeals is an exercise in futile, before this forum. Provisions of Section 35B(1) First Proviso and clause (b) of such First Proviso, specifically debars the Tribunal from entertaining an appeal which is in respect of rejectio...
Ramesh Dutt, Chamba (Hp) Vs. Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ne ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
Decided on: Apr-07-2014
(Oral). Rajwant sandhu, member (A) 1. This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:- "8. Impugned orders dated 19.01.2010 (Annexure A-1) and 08.03.2010 (Annexure A-2) be set aside and the applicant be re-instated in service with all the consequential benefits." 2. Written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein preliminary objection has been taken that under Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, an application is not to be admitted unless the applicant has availed of the remedies available to him under the relevant Service Rules for the redressal of his grievance. In this case the applicant had not availed the remedy of filing revision petition and had approached the Tribunal directly inspite of withdrawing the earlier OA No.445/HP/2012 on the same issue. 3. When the matter came up for consideration today, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he would a...
M/S. Sampre Nutritions Ltd Medchal, A.P. and Others Vs. M/S. Cadbury I ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Decided on: Apr-07-2014
B.S.V. Murthy, J 1. In these three appeals, issue involved is common and therefore, all the appeals are taken together for decision and a common order is being passed. 2. In the case of M/s Sampre Nutritions Ltd., appellant is seeking condonation of delay of 96 days in filing the appeal. The reason given is that the appellants were shifting their Registered office from Secunderabad to Medchal. According to the appellant, because of this, there was misplacement of files and they were able to recover a copy of the order on 27.1.2014. However, learned A.R. submitted that the Order-in-Appeal was sent to the factory address only and therefore, COD application may be rejected. 3. After hearing both sides and considering the submissions that their registered office was shifted from Secunderabad to Medchal in the first week of July 2013 and during the course of shifting the premises, the files were mis-placed and the appellant was able to recover a copy of the impugned order only on 27.1.2014....
M/S. Sampre Nutritions Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excis ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Decided on: Apr-07-2014
B.S.V. Murthy, J. 1. In these three appeals, issue involved is common and therefore, all the appeals are taken together for decision and a common order is being passed. 2. In the case of M/s Sampre Nutritions Ltd., appellant is seeking condonation of delay of 96 days in filing the appeal. The reason given is that the appellants were shifting their Registered office from Secunderabad to Medchal. According to the appellant, because of this, there was misplacement of files and they were able to recover a copy of the order on 27.1.2014. However, learned A.R. submitted that the Order-in-Appeal was sent to the factory address only and therefore, COD application may be rejected. 3. After hearing both sides and considering the submissions that their registered office was shifted from Secunderabad to Medchal in the first week of July 2013 and during the course of shifting the premises, the files were mis-placed and the appellant was able to recover a copy of the impugned order only on 27.1.2014...
Cc (Prev.) Jamnagar Vs. M/S Lucky Steel Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-07-2014
H.K. Thakur, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against OIA No.160/ JMN/2006, dt.25.09.2006 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Jamnagar. 2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s Lucky Steel Industries Bhavnagar (Respondent in the present appeal) imported 48.57 MT of old and used railway tracks and declared the same as Railway Tracks Scrap (HMS) under the Bill of Entry filed for clearance of the imported goods. On examination, the goods were found to be used steel rails. Opinion from an expert was obtained who opined that the strength of the imported material was poor and that these railway tracks could not be re-used and have only scrap value. The adjudicating authority held that goods imported are re-rollable and classified the same under CTH 7302. It was further held that imported goods are restricted items as per Para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009 (Vol.I) and are liable to confiscation under Section 111 (m) and Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The ad...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »