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.
Joseph Sebastian Prekash, Thiruvananthapuram Vs. Commissioner of Centr ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Decided on: Apr-28-2014
B.S.V. Murthy, J. 1. When the appellant was on his way to Dubai via Thiruvananthapuram International Airport on 19.8.2003, a search was conducted which resulted in seizure of foreign currency consisting of US Dollar, British Pound, Euro, U.A.E Dirhams, totally valued at Rs.10,93,470.20 as per the prevailing exchange rate. The appellant had not declared the same and admitted the fact. Thereafter proceedings were initiated which has culminated in absolute confiscation of the currency since the same was not declared, was in excess of the limit imposed by the RBI for export of foreign exchange from India by passengers travelling abroad. An appeal was filed by the appellant and the Commissioner (A) upheld the confiscation of the currency and enhanced the penalty from Rs.25, 000/- to Rs.50, 000/-. 2. The matter has been coming up frequently before this Tribunal for hearing. The appellant had submitted the written submissions in July 2011 and again submitted the same on 21.5.2012 with a requ...
M/S. Rsr Infra Works (India) Pvt. Ltd, Godavari Vs. Commissioner of Ce ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Decided on: Apr-28-2014
B.S.V. Murthy, J. 1. The learned counsel on behalf of the appellants gave us the details of demand and his submissions in the form of a table which is reproduced below. œTABLE? The contract is a composite contract with different activities, some of which do not fall under site formation service. Demand made under a different classification of the service provided. Taxable but under works contract service and option to pay under composition scheme shall be allowed. The demand is barred by limitation since the appellant is under bona fide belief that the service provided to government organization is not taxable. Rs.6,01,987/- 2. Heard both the sides and considered the records. As regards the first submission that the site formation work relates to roads, on going through the contract, we find that prima facie this is correct. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the submissions made in this regard have not been considered, the agreement has not been examined in detail and the claim...
M/S. Gulf First Petro Products India Pvt. Ltd. Kerala Vs. Commissioner ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Decided on: Apr-28-2014
B.S.V. Murthy, J. 1. Even though only stay application has been listed, on going through the records and hearing both the sides, we reached the conclusion that the impugned order is not sustainable and nothing else is left for consideration at a later stage and therefore we decided to allow the appeal itself at this stage. 2. The appellant imported base oil for clearance on 9.7.2009 and 15.7.2009 under Bills of Entry. The Custom House Laboratory, Cochin after conducting the test suggested that the matter may be referred to Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL), New Delhi, since the laboratory did not have the technical literature to explain as to what exactly are the goods. Thereafter, the CRCL, New Delhi in the report indicated that the imported item was blended with additives and hence is appropriately classifiable as lubricating oils other than base oil. Based on this report, the adjudicating authority passed an order for reclassification of the goods as lubricating oil and reje...
Indian Wind Energy Association Vs. Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Comm ...
Court: Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
Rakesh Nath, Tehnical Member. 1. The present Appeal has been preferred by the Indian Wind Energy Association against the order dated 17.8.2012 passed by the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (œState Commission?) in a suo-motu Petition no. 1219 of 2012. 2. The Appellant is an Association of wind energy generators. The State Commission is the Respondent no. 1. Gujarat Energy Development Agency, the nodel agency of the Government of Gujarat for development of renewable energy sources in the State is the Respondent no. 2. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. (œGUVNL?) the holding electricity company and procurer of bulk power on behalf of the distribution licensees is the Respondent no. 3. Respondent no. 4 to 14 are the distribution licensees. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under: a) The State Commission issued the GERC (Procurement of Energy from Renewable Sources) Regulations, 2010 specifying the Renewable Purchase Obligation (RPO) of the distribution licensees and ot...
Dish Tv India Ltd Vs. Espn Software India Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
Kuldip Singh: 1. The issues that arise for consideration in this petition are the terms and conditions of the Reference Interconnect Offer (RIO) offered by the respondent to the petitioner and their compliance and conformity with applicable Interconnect Regulations and Tariff Order. The prayer in this petition, inter-alia, is to direct the respondent to make the necessary changes/amendments in its Reference Interconnect Offer including clause 5.6 and 8.2 thereof, so as to bring the same in compliance, and in conformity, with the applicable Interconnect Regulations and the Tariff Order. 2. There is a history of litigation between the parties and in order to understand the present dispute, it is necessary to go into the same briefly. The petitioner is a Direct to Home operator in India providing TV signals to the subscribers. The respondent is the sole and exclusive distributor of the following six TV channels :- 1. ESPN 2. Star Sports 3. Star Cricket 4. ESPN HD 5. Star Sports HD 6. Star...
M/S. Camex Reality Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Cst Ahmedabad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
H.K. Thakur, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against OIA No. 289/2011(STC)/K.ANPAZKHAN/Commr.(A)/ Ahd, dt.21.11.2011. The issue involved in these proceedings is that the appellant did not pay the Service Tax on renting of immovable property in view of litigation going on in the Delhi High Court in the case of Home Solution Retail India Ltd Vs UoI [2009 (14) STR 433 (Del)]. When the issue was settled by the High Courts, appellant paid the entire Service Tax of Rs.2,14,403/- along with interest of Rs.60,667/-. It is now the case of the appellant that no penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 should be imposed. 2. Shri Jigar Shah (Adv.) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that appellant had specifically mentioned in their ST-3 return for the relevant period that appellant had stopped payment of Service Tax in view of Delhi High Courts order and hence there cannot be any intention to evade payment of duty and as per Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 n...
industrial Area Manufacturers Association and Others Vs. Uttar Pradesh ...
Court: Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
1. The Applications in IA No.92 of 2014 and IA No.97 of 2014 have been filed by the Applicants who were the Appellants and Interveners in Appeal No.243 of 2012, seeking for a clarification of the final judgment dated 28.11.2013 rendered PER HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M. KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, CHAIRPERSON by this Tribunal to the effect that the Interim Order passed by this Tribunal on 26.11.2012 in the Appeal holding that the Tariff Order dated 19.10.2012 would come into effect from 1.11.2012 instead of from 1.10.2012 has merged with the final judgment dated 28.11.2013 in the Appeal. 2. The short facts are as under: (a) In the Petition filed by the Respondent (Distribution Licensee) praying for fixing the Annual Revenue Requirement and the Tariff for the Year 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13, the State Commission passed the Tariff Order on 19.10.2012 giving effect to the Order retrospectively from 1.10.2012. (b) Challenging this Order, the Association of Steel Rolling Mills and Furnaces and Others, the...
Vijay Singh, Gurgaon (Haryana) Vs. Balaji Grit Udyog (Unit- I and Unit ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
DR. P. Jyothimani (Judicial Member): 1. The Appellant in the present appeal was the original complainant before the Haryana State Pollution Control Board (HSPCB) and the Respondent No. 3 before the Appellate Authority. He has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal against the order of the Appellate Authority dated 20.12.2013 under Section 31-B of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981 and Section 35-B of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974. 2. The Impugned order of the Appellate Authority was passed in the appeal filed by respondent no. 1, the project proponent, under Section 28 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 and Section 31 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981. By such appeal he challenged the order of the HSPCB dated 31.03.2013, in and by which the State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) has refused to grant consent to operate the unit of the respondent no. 1 for the year 2013 and 2014 under bot...
M/S G.N. Construction Vs. Cce Surat-ii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
H.K. Thakur, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against OIA No. CS/23/SURAT-II/2012, dt.28.02.2012 passed by the first appellate authority. The issue involved is whether penalty under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 is attracted when appellant paid the entire Service Tax and interest before the issue of show cause notice. 2. Shri Vinay Kansara (Adv.) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that no penalty in this case upon the service provider is attracted as the entire amount of Service Tax, along with interest, has been paid by the appellant. It was his case that there was a misunderstanding between the appellant and the service recipient whereby 100% Service Tax was not remitted to the appellant but on 33% Service Tax was agreed. As soon as the entire Service Tax was paid by the service recipient to the appellant, the entire amount was paid belatedly with interest. That no Service Tax paid by the service recipient was retained by the appellant. He relied upon foll...
M/S. C-metric Solution Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Cce Ahmedabad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
H.K. Thakur, J. 1. These three appeals have been filed by the appellant against OIA No.48 to 54/2012(Ahd-III)K.ANPAZHAKAN/Commr(A)/Ahd, dt.29.02.2012. The issue involved is refund of CENVAT Credit of input services used in the export of output services under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for the period January 2011 to July 2011. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals of the appellant for all other services but rejected refund of rent-a-cab services with effect from 01.04.2011 on the ground that as a result of amendment clauses B and C of Rule 2 (l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, such credit is not admissible. The reasoning given by the first appellate authority was that appellant is not able to produce evidences that these services are used in connection with the business of the appellant and could have been used by the individual employees. 2. Shri Vipul Khandhar (C.A.) submitted that appellants are providing BPO/Call Centre Services and use rent-a-cab services on 24x7 basis ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »