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.
Tribunal at Its Own Motion Vs. the Secretary Ministry of Environment a ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
1. In the Bhopal edition of daily newspaper 'Times of India' dated 10th April, 2013 a news item was published on the front page under the caption "Dolomite mining a threat to Tiger corridor in Kanha - Foresters want ban on mining in Mandla District". Considering the gravity of the news item suo- motu cognizance was taken by this Tribunal and notice was issued to the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 on 10th April, 2013 with a direction to place on record the particulars of Mining Leases (in short 'ML') mentioned in the news item. In response to the above notice, the Respondent No.5, Madhya Pradesh State Pollution Control Board (in short 'MPPCB') submitted reply dated 29th April, 2013 stating that the officials of the MPPCB inspected the Dolomite mines in Mandla District and monitored the Ambient Air Quality (in short 'AAQ') in different locations where Consent to Operate the mines was granted to 36 ML holders. Out of 36 mines, 26 mines are having valid Consent to Operate and during the inspection...
Ashwini Kumar, Noida Vs. Union of India Through Its Secretary, New Del ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
(Oral). G. George Paracken, Member (J). 1. The applicant has filed this Original Application challenging the impugned Memorandum dated 14.03.2014 issued by the M/o Finance, Department of Economic Affairs. According to the said memorandum, sanction has been accorded by the President under sub-clause (i) of Clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension Rules, 1972 for instituting departmental proceedings against him. Accordingly, they proposed to hold an inquiry against him in accordance with the procedure laid down under Rule 14 and 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. 2. The brief facts of the case are that while the applicant was General Manager in the Naval Armament Depot, M/o Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, he took voluntary retirement from there w.e.f. 10.08.2006. Thereafter, he joined Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Ltd. (SPMCI for short) and from there also he superannuated on 31.01.2013. Thereafter, the Respondent No.1, namel...
P.C. Misra, New Delhi Vs. Anil Goswami Secretary to Govt. of India Min ...
Court: Tribunal
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...
Paresh Bhojani Vs. Cce Vadodara
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. When this appeal was called, ld.Counsel submits that penalty of Rs.5 lakhs has been imposed on the appellant who was ex-partner of M/s Nit Hari Industries, Vadodara. Ld.Counsel further submits that Shri Paresh Bhojani has expired on 09.01.2014 and in support of the same, he produces a copy of death certificate issued by Vadodara Municipal Corporation.2. On perusal of the said death certificate, I am of the view that since the appellant is no more, any penalty imposed on him which is of personal nature, abates. This ratio is laid down by the Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Al Jabel Ali Exports and Imports Vs CC Cochin 2001 (137) ELT 220 (Tri-Che.). 3. In view of the foregoing, the impugned order to the extent it imposes penalty on this appellant is set aside and the appeal is allowed....
M/S. Enbee Education Centre Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Cce Vadodara
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.Commr.(A)/16/VDR-I/2012, dt.11.01.2012. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. Filtering out the unnecessary details, the facts of this case are that the appellant herein is providing the output services under the category of commercial training and coaching services and to that extent are registered and also discharging appropriate Service Tax liability. During the course of audit, it was noticed that the appellant during the period December 2003 to September 2008, had availed the CENVAT Credit on the basis of invoices issued by courier company. On further investigation in detail, show cause notice was issued denying them the benefit of CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid on courier services on the ground that the said services were availed by them for carrying out documents, applications etc which is not a taxable service. Both the lower authorities have held that since the services of courier were availed for non-ta...
Sh. Satya Prakash, Dehradun Vs. the Secretary to the Govt. of India, N ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A). This review application has been filed for review of our order dated 13.03.2013 by which we had dismissed OA-253/2012. The respondents have opposed the review application on the ground that the review applicant has not pointed out any error in the judgment but is only trying to re-argue the matter. Each of the grounds taken by the review applicant along with our findings thereon are discussed as hereunder:- (i). The review applicant has stated that the Tribunal took on record written arguments on behalf of the respondents after hearing arguments of both the parties and reserved its order, thereby denying an opportunity to the applicant to rebut the submissions made by the respondents in their written arguments. He has stated that this has caused great prejudice to him. In our opinion, this ground is totally baseless. It is common practice in the Courts to hear the arguments of both sides and also take written arguments from the parties. In this case after ...
M/S Sanghi Industries Vs. Cce Rajkot
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 the impugned order wherein the first appellate authority has set aside the demand of interest raised on the appellant on the ground that the interest cannot be demanded from the appellant by invoking extended period but has confirmed the penalty imposed under Section 76 of Finance Act, 1994. 2. Ld.Counsel submits that the appellant is contesting the issue only on the ground that if the appellate authority has come to the conclusion that no interest is leviable by invoking extended period, the same finding will apply for setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 76. He would draw my attention to the decision of this Bench in the case of Royal Travels Vs CCE Vadodara 2011 (21) STR 31 (Tri-Ahmd). 3. Ld.Departmental Representative reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. 4. After hearing both sides, I find that the issue involved is regarding penalty which has been upheld by the first appellate authority. Undisputedly, t...
Salim Khan Vs. Union of India Through Its Secretary
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
1. These two applications were registered in the National Green Tribunal, Central Zonal Bench, Bhopal on transfer from the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal seat at Jabalpur where they were dealt in Writ Petition Nos. 15467/2010 and 7405/2013 and on transfer, they were registered as Original Application Nos. 38/2014 and 34/2014, respectively. Since the issues involved in both the petitions filed before the Hon'ble High Court are identical, these two OAs are taken up together for hearing and decided together. The facts in the present cases in a nutshell are as follows : - 2. Both the Applicants are residents of Village Premtala, Post Bagra, Tehsil Babai, District Hoshangabad, Madhya Pradesh. They claim that they are social workers and environmentalists deeply concerned with the larger public interest especially with reference to the environmental and ecological issues and they strive for protection of environment and forest. They stated that in the year 1980, the State Gov...
M/S. Texcel International (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
1. The applicant filed this application for condoning the delay of 73 days involved in the filing of the appeal. 2. The learned counsel on behalf of the applicant submits that they received the impugned order on 16.10.2012. He submitted that their Senior Manager Shri Ramakrishnan who was in-charge of the factory had submitted his resignation on 22.6.2012 and thereafter he was under some stress and he was relieved from employment with effect from 19.2.2013. It is submitted that on 24.3.2013, the central excise officers informed them that the impugned order was issued against them. After searching the file, they found that Shri Ramakrishnan had received the order but no step was taken. Ultimately, the appeal was filed on 4.4.2013 with a delay of 73 days. He submits that there is no negligency or inaction on the part of the applicant and the delay was caused due to the Senior Manager had not placed the impugned order before the management. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in th...
M/S. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
1. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture Boiler, Boiler Components, Valves and Valve parts etc., classifiable under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants opted for provisional assessment of duty under Rule 9B of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944/Rule 7(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for the supply of finished goods on the basis of different contracts. By order dated 28.09.2005, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise finalised the provisional assessment and held that the appellant is liable to pay differential duty of Rs.15,90,704/- in terms of Rule 7(3) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 2001/Rule 7(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and held that the appellant is eligible for refund. But the refund was rejected as it is hit by doctrine of unjust enrichment. 2. The learned ...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »