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.
Ranjana Jetley and Others Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Environment ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
1. The above applications were filed in NGT against the proposed widening of sectoral roads involving cutting of number of trees in front of National Media Centre (NMC). The Project Proponents stated to be involved in the project are Haryana Development Authority (HUDA) and DLF Ltd. The main contention of the applicants is that there will be significant air and noise pollution problems due to movement of traffic in the area due to cutting of trees which were acting as a buffer and reducing noise and dust pollution. Incidentally, an email was received by NGT from Haryali Welfare Society addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Haryana and the Copy was sent to NGT raising the similar issues pertaining to the cutting of trees by DLF/HUDA, which was treated as an Application no. 120/2013. Regarding this Application No. 120/2013, NGT passed the order restraining the Respondents from cutting/felling or uprooting any tree on the site in question on 2/08/2013. Besides these two applications,...
Madan Lal, Haryana Vs. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, New Delhi and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
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 (i). Quash the order dated 08/09.05.2012 (Annexure A-1) vide which the name of respondent no.6 as approved for appointment on regular basis as (Non-Teaching) Store Keeper at JNV, Kaulan, District Ambala despite being at Sl.No.2 of the merit list and without any refusal on the part of the applicant who has been placed at Sl.No.1 of merit by duly constituted Selection Committee, to join duty, by manipulation of norms of appointment / incorporation of unknown clauses not mentioned in the Circular displayed on notice board of Vidyalaya or sent to the Employment Exchange and against illegal order of appointment of respondent no.6 (to be produced by the respondents.) (ii).Direct the respondents to grant appointment to the applicant as Store Keeper at JNV, Kaulan, to applicant from due date being at Sl.No.1 of merit strictly in te...
Dpsc Limited Vs. West Bengal Electricity Regulatory
Court: Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
Rakesh Nath, Tehnical Member. 1. Appeal no. 217 of 2012 and Appeal no. 7 of 2013 have been filed by DPSC Ltd. against the orders passed by West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (œState Commission?) in determining the Fuel and Power Purchase Cost Adjustment for the FY 2009-10 and FY 2008-09 respectively. The issue in these Appeals is limited to the disallowance of the expenses of quality and quantity assurance incentive paid by the Appellant to its transporters of coal. 2. The Appellant is a generation and distribution utility operating in the Asansol-Raniganj belt of District Burdwan in the State of West Bengal. The West Bengal State Commission is the Respondent. The orders of the State Commission dated 30.06.2010 (Appeal no. 7 of 2013) and dated 04.06.2012 (Appeal no. 217 of 2012) are challenged in these Appeals. 3. The Appellant in order to ensure minimum quantity and quality of coal from its suppliers Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (ECL) has paid an incentive to its transport...
Public Trust, Mumbai and Another Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Environmen ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
P.B. 1. Misc. Application No.70/2014 is filed by S.S.I. (Small Scale Industrialists) seeking grant of re-start industries which have been allegedly closed down by the M.P.C.B. 2. Misc. Application No.71/2014 is filed by M.S.I. (Medium Size Industrialists) for re-start of the industry which is closed down as per order of the M.P.C.B. Common contention in both the Applications is that the Applicants do not discharged polluting effluents in river "Waldhuri" or river "Ulhas"and as such, their activities should not have been stopped by the M.P.C.B. They submit that their applications for allowing them to re-start the industries are not process by the M.P.C.B. nor they have been given hearing and due to consent. 3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 4. We cannot give approval nor can we express any opinion on merits about the nature of the effluents discharged by the present industries who have filed Misc. Applications. We may further clarify that it would be unfair to grant time...
Cce Vadodara-ii Vs. M/S. Panasonic Battery of India Co.Ltd. and Vice V ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. All these appeals are being disposed of by a common order as these appeals raise same question of law and facts and are inter-connected. 2. Filtering out unnecessary details, the fact that needs consideration by the Bench is whether the appellant M/s Panasonic Battery India Co. Ltd is eligible for refund of the amount paid in excess by them prior to 25.06.1999 for which there was a provisional assessment. 3. Ld. Counsel would submit that the issue was referred to Larger Bench in this very case and Larger Bench vide Final Order No.A/13672-13673/WZB/AHD/2013, dt.07.08.2013 has ruled in favour of the assessee and held that doctrine of unjust enrichment will not be attracted to the refund pertaining to the finalization of provisional assessment for the period prior to 25.06.1999. He would draw our attention to the said order. It is also his submission that the Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order on the ground that the first appellate authority has sanctio...
M/S J.K. Study Centre Vs. Cce Surat-i
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. This application is filed for waiver of pre-deposit of the amount confirmed as Service Tax liability. 2. On perusal of the records, we find that the appellant has deposited part amount of Service Tax liability, interest thereof and penalties imposed. Hence, we allow the application for waiver of pre-deposit of balance amounts involved and take up the appeal itself for disposal as the issue lies in narrow compass. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. 4. On perusal of the records, we find that the first appellate authority while passing the impugned order, had recorded the findings against the appellant in respect of some other appellant before him and subsequently by a corrigendum, replaced the entire findings. In our view, even the corrigendum which is issued, does not state the reasoning for setting aside the appeal filed by the appellant. In our view, both the impugned order as well as the corrigendum are non-speaking and needs to be set aside and the ma...
M/S. Shree Labdhi Prints and Another Vs. Commissioner of Central Excis ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
H.K. Thakur, J. 1. Appeal No. E/1461/2009-DB has been filed by main appellant M/s. Shree Labdhi Prints, Surat and Appeal No. E/1462/2009 has been filed by Shri Biren R. Vakharia, Partner of the main appellant. Both these appeals have been filed against OIA No. RKA/542-543/SRT-I/2009 dated 30.07.2009 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the OIO No. 154/ADJ/JC-VKS/OA/08-09 dated 30.12.2008. Under the OIO dated 30.12.2008 CENVAT credit of Rs. 10,53,855/- was disallowed to the main appellant along with charging of interest and an equivalent amount of penalty was also imposed upon the main appellant. A penalty of Rs. 1,05,385/- was also imposed upon Shri Biren H. Vekharia, Partner of the main appellant by the Adjudicating authority. 2. Brief facts of the case are that main appellant was availing CENVAT credit and utilizing the same for payment of Central Excise duty on clearance of their final products. On scrutiny of the ER-3/ ER-1 returns filed by the appellant and the CENVAT cr...
M/S. Metacon Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
Dr. D. M. Misra, J. 1. This is an Appeal filed against the Order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) dated 23.06.2007. 2. At the outset, ld. Advocate for the Appellant submits that aggrieved by the Order-in-Original No.02/2006A(Gr.4) dated 24.11.2006, communicated to them on 04.12.2006, they had preferred an appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on 19.12.2006. The ld. Advocate submits that instead of deciding the appeal, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has communicated to them, vide letter dated 13.07.2007, that the appeal filed against the said Order-in-Original No.02/2006A(Gr.4) dated 24.11.2006, was barred by limitation, as the same had not been filed within the time-limit of sixty days and the extended period of thirty days, as prescribed under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. The ld. Advocate submits that the Order No.02/2006A(Gr.4) dated 24.11.2006 had been received by them on 04.12.2006, and the appeal had been filed on ...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›