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. Unipacks (India) Vs. C.C.E. and S.T. Vapi
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-07-2014
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. These two stay petitions are filed for the waiver filed by the applicant which after hearing both sides, we find that appeals could be disposed of at this juncture. Accordingly, we dispose of the stay petitions and take up the appeals for disposal. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. Vide final order no.A/10563/WZB/AHD/2013, dt. 17.04.2013, this bench dispose bunch of appeals, by directing the appellant to deposit entire amount of duty of an amount i.e. Rs.1,04,431/- and report compliance on 21.05.2013 before the first appellate authority. The appellant herein acting smart interpreted the order of the Tribunal in his own way and deposited the amount on 05.07.2013 and intimated the compliance to the first appellate authority, who correctly dismissed the appeals for non-compliance of the pre-deposit ordered by the bench. In the first blush, we would have not interfered, but keeping in mind the interest of justice, we prima facie condone the delay in maki...
M/S. Simpson and Co. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chennai Ii
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 IC Engines and parts. They removed the used capital goods without payment of duty. Subsequently, they reversed the entire amount of credit originally taken on the said capital goods under protest. The appellants filed a refund claim of the duty which has been rejected by the adjudicating authority. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the appellants removed the capital goods under Rule 3(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and the expression removed as such used in the said Rule would apply and the appellant is required to reverse the entire credit originally taken at the time of receiving the capital goods. 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 C...
M/S. Sanathan Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce Vapi
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-07-2014
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. This appeal is directed against OIO No.16/DEM/VAPI/2011, Dt.07.06.2011. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant herein was charged with the availment of Service Tax credit on the common inputs which are used by them in the manufacturing activity. It was also noticed by lower authorities that the appellants are manufacturing dutiable product POY and were also manufacturing the cotton yarn on which Nil rate of duty was paid by availing exemption under Notification No.30/2004-CE, dt.09.07.2004. It was also noticed that since the appellant did not maintain separate accounts for the services consumed for dutiable and exempted products, they were liable to pay the amount which is equivalent to 8% or 10% as the case may be, of the value of exempted goods cleared from the factory premises. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant. The appellant contested the entire allegations made in the show cause notice on the ground that the ap...
Desh Raj, Faridabad Haryana Vs. Union of India Through the General Man ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
Raj Vir Sharma, Member (J). In this Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following relief: (i). That the Honble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 18.10.2011 declaring to the effect that the same is illegal, arbitrary and based on wrong facts and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to reconsider and to grant the compassionate allowance to the applicant as per rule-65 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 or previous pension rules from the date of removal from service with all consequential benefits including the arrears of back period pension. (ii).That the Honble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order directing the respondent to release the GPF amount to the applicant with interest. (iii).Any other relief which the Honble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant along with the cost of litigation. 2. Brief facts of the applicants case run thus: The app...
M/S. Maheshraj Chemicals Pvt Ltd Vs. Cce. Ahmedabad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. This appeal is directed against OIA No. OIANo.116/2012(Ahd) CE/ MM/Commr(A)/Ahd dtd 30.03.2012. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are the appellant herein had filed a refund claim/rebate with the Drawback Authorities. On pre audit of claims it was noticed by the authorities that the appellant had filed the declaration to the effect that they had not availed Cenvat Credit on the Inputs. The officers of the Central Excise, Ahmedabad visited the premises of the appellant and conducted search and withdrew the papers; on scrutiny of which it transpires that the appellant had claimed Drawback as well as Cenvat Credit on the Inputs. Jurisdictional Ahmedabad Central Excise officers informed the appellant that they cannot do so. The appellant deposited an amount of Rs 10 lacs by a cheque, which was deposited into Governments accounts despite the issue of cheque was deposited in the month of April 2007, no further action/activity was initiated by the revenu...
M/S. National Conductors Vs. Cceandst, Daman
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. These two appeals are directed against OIA No. SRP/111-112/DMN/ SDMN/2011-12 dated 5.9.2012. Since the issue involve in this two appeals arise out of the same impugned order, they are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that during the course of preventive checks in the appellants unit it was observed that the appellants had received goods from their principal manufacturers for carrying out job work. The appellants, instead of clearing goods manufactured out of the said raw materials received from their principal manufacturers, cleared their own manufactured finished goods under the cover of job work challans to the principal manufacturers during period from 15.05.2007 to 01.11.2007. A SCN dated 21.07.2011 was issued to the appellants demanding duty of RS 12,66,230/- under Sec. 11A of Central Excise Act, 1044 (hereinafter referred to as CEA) on their own challan alongwith interest under Sec 11AB of CEA and imposition of Rules...
P.C. Misra, New Delhi Vs. Anil Goswami Secretary to Govt. of India Min ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
(Oral). Syed Rafat Alam, Chairman. 1. By means of this Application, the applicant has prayed for initiating contempt proceeding against the respondents for deliberate violation of the Tribunals order dated 13.09.2013 in OA No.1175/2012. 2. We have heard the applicant who appeared in person and Sh. R. N. Singh, learned counsel for respondents. The applicant vehemently contended that the Tribunal gave a positive direction to consider the application for grant of compassionate allowance u/r 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 but the respondents without applying their mind, by a cryptic order dated 04.03.2014 rejected the same. He submits that the respondents never called upon the applicant asking for details of his assets, etc., which could have been furnished for appropriate decision in the matter. 3. On the other hand, Sh. R. N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-contemners relying upon the judgment of Apex Court in J. S. Parihar vs. Ganpat Duggar and Ors. [AIR 1997 S...
M/S. Jk. Synthetics Ltd and Others Vs. Cc. Kandla
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. These appeals raise a common question of law hence they are being disposed of by a common order. 2. Relevant facts that arise for consideration are all the appellants herein (who are categorized as Importers and their employee, Tank Storage Terminal and their employees, CHA and their employees, Authorized Signatories for CHA etc) are held liable for penalty under the provisions of Sec. 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962 on the ground that they had engaged in defrauding of Customs Duty to the exchequer. On an investigation, it was noticed by the authorities that Shri Malleshwar Rao and Shri Jayesh were engaged in forging the signatures of the cashier of the Customs Dept. on the TR6 challans and forging signatures of Customs Officers on the reverse of photo copy of the duplicate copy of Bill of Entry and cleared consignments from the tank terminals. The modus operandi of Shri Malleshwar Rao to forge signature of the cashier of Customs on TR6 challans against the demand ...
Sh. Vijay Kumar Saxena, New Delhi Vs. Union of India Through Its Secre ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A). 1. The issue in this case is whether the applicant is entitled to get pay scales of Rs. 4000-6000/- and Rs. 4500-7000/- from due dates as benefits under the second ACP and third MACP respectively instead of the scales of Rs. 3200-4900/- and Rs. 4000-6000/- granted to him by the respondents. 2. Facts of the case are that the applicant joined the respondents on the post of Semi-skilled Fitter on 13.07.1976. He was promoted as Fitter (Domestic Appliances) on 15.03.1990. He superannuated from that post on 29.02.2012. Admittedly, the following hierarchy of posts exists in the department:- S.S.F. (Refrigeration) Fitter (Refrigeration) Fitter (Domestic Appliances) Mechanic (Refrigeration) Assistant Chargeman (Refrigeration) Chargeman (Regrigeration) The applicant was promoted as Fitter (Domestic Appliances) after which there was no promotional avenue available to him. 3. The respondents have stated that since the post of Fitter (Domestic Appliances) was an isolate...
Deepak F Shah and Others Vs. Cce. Ahmedabad I and Another
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
H.K. Thakur, J. 1. The following three appeals are directed against common Order-in-Appeal No. 136-139/ 2007 (Ahd-I) dated 30.03.2007, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I), Central Excise, Ahmedabad-I :- (i). Appeal No. E/ 777/ 2007 has been filed by M/s Shree Chem Intermediates, Ahmedabad. (ii). Appeal No. E/ 778/ 2007 has been filed by Shri Deepak F. Shah, Partner of M/s Shree Chem Intermediates. (iii). Appeal No. E/ 798/ 2007 has been filed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Ahmedabad-I. 2. As all the above three appeals are based on the same facts, therefore, these are being taken up together for final disposal through this common order. 3. The relevant facts of the after filtering out unnecessary details are that: (i). On 23.03.2001, Central Excise Officers visited the factory premises of M/s Shree Chem Intermediates (hereinafter referred to as Shree Chem main appellant), a manufacturer of DASA (4.4 Diamino) and other dyes, and detected shortage of finished goods involving cen...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »