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.
Poornam Beverages (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbat ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
Pradip Kumar Das. J. 1. The appellants filed this appeal against rejection of refund claim of Rs.19 lakhs under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 read with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of "Flavoured Drink Concentrate" classifiable under sub heading 2108.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 22.12.2003, they filed the refund claim of Rs.19 lakhs in respect of unutilized cenvat credit accumulated in their cenvat account on inputs utilised in the export of the goods. A show cause notice dt. 24.5.2004 was issued proposing to reject the refund claim on the ground that they have not fulfilled the conditions of Notification No.11/02-CE (NT) dt. 1.3.2002 in so far as the appellant was in a position to utilize the credit in respect of the inputs against the goods exported during the period 23.12.2002 to 31.12.2003. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim, which wa...
Cce Vapi Vs. M/S. Aarti Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
H.K. Thakur, J. 1. Appeal No.E/288/2011-SM has been filed by the Revenue on the ground that Commissioner (Appeals) vide OIA No.SKSS/235/DMN/ VAPI-I/2010-11, Dt.09.11.2010 had wrongly remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority when he had no powers to remand any appeal in view of CBEC F.No.275/34/2006-CX 8A, dt.18.02.2010. Appeal No.E/10681/2013 has been filed by the Revenue against the OIO dt.29.08.2011 passed by the adjudicating authority in remand proceedings as a result of OIA No. SKSS/235/DMN/ VAPI-I/2010-11, Dt.09.11.2010. In this appeal, Revenue has contested that adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority has no jurisdiction when appeal filed by the Revenue against OIA No. SKSS/235/DMN/ VAPI-I/2010-11, Dt.09.11.2010 was pending before CESTAT. It is thus the case of the Revenue that order of sanctioning refund of Rs.32,42,385/- with modification vide OIA No. OIA No.SRP/177/DMN/2012-13, dt.31.12.2012 is not proper and needs to be set aside. Appeal No.E/10765/2...
M/S. Royal Cushion Vinay Products Ltd. Vs. Cceandst., Vadodara Ii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
H.K. Thakur, J. 1. Appeal No. E/ 11/ 2006 is directed against Order-in-Original No. 08/ VDR-II/ MP/ 2005 dated 29.09.2005, passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Vadodara-II. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture of floor and wall coverings falling under Chapters 39 and 48 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (CETA) depending upon the ratio of plastics and base material (paper) used. The demand of duty in this case has been raised only on the ground that the input/ raw material (Arjobond paper) was being used by the appellant only in the manufacture of goods falling under Chapter 39, and the other input/ raw material (Arjocast paper) was being used by the appellant only in the manufacture of goods falling under Chapter 48. The present appeal relates to goods falling under Chapter 48 only. Revenue found that the consumption of input/ raw material (Arjocast paper) was much more than the production of g...
M/S. Jaiprakash Power Ventures Limited Vs. Himachal Pradesh Electricit ...
Court: Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson. 1. This is an Application to condone the delay 1052 days in filing the Appeal as against the Main Order dated 24.1.2011. 2. Jaiprakash Power Ventures Limited is the Applicant/Appellant herein. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board is the First Respondent. Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission is the Second Respondent. 3. The short facts are as under: (a) The Appellant is a Generating Company. It filed a Petition u/s 62 and 86 of the Electricity Act, 2003 before the State Commission for determination of tariff for sale of power to the State Electricity Board claiming additional cost of interconnection facilities as well as the additional compensation paid to land owners for the land. (b) The State Commission, after considering the facts pleaded in the Petition filed by the Applicant/Appellant and the objections raised by the Electricity Board (R-1), passed the Impugned Order dated 24.1.2011 allowing some claims and disallowing other cla...
M/S. William Infrastructures, Bangalore Vs. Commissioner of Service Ta ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Decided on: Apr-24-2014
B.SV. Murthy, J. 1. The appellant is engaged in providing Interior Decorator Service and proceedings were initiated and culminated in the impugned orders confirming demand of service tax of Rs. 96,32,341/- in respect of two show-cause notices covering the period from 2006-07 to 2010-11. Besides interest, penalty has also been imposed. The appellant had been paying service tax after availing abatement of 33% under Notification No. 1/2006-S.T. 2. In the impugned order, it has been concluded that service provided by the appellant comes under Interior Decorator Service and claim of the appellant is that they are entitled to abatement of 67% is not correct. Alternative submission made by the appellant is that the appellant is eligible for benefit of Notification No. 12/2003 which provides for exemption from payment of service tax to the extent of value of the goods sold also has been rejected on the ground that invoices raised by the appellant did not show the value of goods sold separa...
M/S. Hindalco Industries Ltd Vs. Cce Vadodara-ii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-24-2014
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. When this Stay Petition was called, ld.Counsel submits that the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice hence instead of going into the merits of the case, the matter may be remanded back to the adjudicating authority. To support such a proposition, he draws our attention to the fact that first personal hearing was listed on 23.09.2012 and on a request for adjournment, the matter was again listed on 30.12.2012, for which also the appellant sought 15 days time and the adjudicating authority, without granting any extension passed an adjudication order on 30.12.2012. It is his submission that on merit, they have a good case as the demand of duty liability and imposing penalty on similar issue has been set aside by another adjudication order in the very same case which according to him is a case wherein the appellant has imported goods under DEPB licence, which were found to be obtained fraudulently. He fairly submits that the appe...
M/S. Indian Oil Sky Tanking Ltd. Bangalore Vs. Commissioner of Service ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Decided on: Apr-24-2014
B.S.V. Murthy, J. 1. Appellant is a joint venture company of IOCL, Sky Tanking GmbH Germany and IOT Infrastructure and Energy Services Ltd. and are engaged in providing taxable services under the category of Business Auxiliary Service and Storage and Warehousing Service. During the course of audit of their records for the period from October 2009 to September 2011, it was noticed that on a reconciliation of balance sheet and ST3 returns, according to the Revenue, the appellant had short-paid service tax. The audit also took a view that the appellants had not paid service tax on Management Consultancy Service. 2. Proceedings were initiated resulting in confirmation of demand for service tax of Rs.12, 65, 52,066/- with interest. 3. An amount Rs.12, 44, 71,002/- is the demand for service tax arising because of difference between balance sheet and the ST3 returns. The learned consultant on behalf of the appellants submitted that in this case, the balance sheet was prepared following the ac...
M/S Central Warehousing Corporation Vs. Cst Ahmedabad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-24-2014
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. When this Stay Petition was called, after hearing both sides, we find that the issue involved lies in narrow compass. Hence, after disposing the Stay Petition, we take up the appeal itself for disposal. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The first appellate authority has rejected the appeal filed by the appellant on the ground that the appellant has failed to comply with the Stay Order passed by the Commissioner directing the appellant to deposit 25% of the service tax liability and 25% of the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority. Ld. Chartered Accountant would draw our attention to the fact that the Revenue as well as the appellant were in appeal before the first appellate authority and the first appellate authority has allowed the Revenues appeal which seeks imposition of penalties under Section 76 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994. It is his submission that the issue of limitation was never considered by the first appellate authority while direc...
Association of Approved Vs. Kerala State Electricity Regulatory and An ...
Court: Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on: Apr-24-2014
Rakesh Nath, Technical Member. 1. The Applicant/Appellant has filed IA No. 157 of 2014 in Appeal no. 10 of 2013 for clarification in the judgment of this Tribunal dated 25.10.2013 in the above Appeal. Besides the application for clarification, the Applicant has also filed an application for condonation of delay. The reason for the delay has been indicated due to pendency of the Appeal filed by the Respondent no.2 against the judgment of the Tribunal before the Honble Supreme Court. 2. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Applicant and Learned Counsel for the Respondent no.2. Learned Counsel for the Respondent no.2 has not raised any objection regarding condonation of delay but IA no. 157 of 2014 in have serious objection to passing of any orders on the clarificatory Application seeking clarification. 3. According to the Learned Counsel for the Applicant, the Tribunal in the judgment dated 25.10.2013 allowed the Appeal and directed that the tariff for HT IV consumers should be conf...
Ford Brother Capital Service Ltd. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of ...
Court: SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer 1. Whether the Adjudication Officer (œAO? for short) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (œSEBI? for short), by impugned order dated May 14, 2013 is justified in imposing penalty of Rs.15 lac upon appellant under Section 15A(a), penalty of Rs.10 lac under Section 15HA and penalty of Rs.5 lac under Section 15A(b) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (œSEBI Act? for short) is the question raised in this appeal. 2. Dispute in the present case relates to trading in the scrip of Nandan Exim Limited on the Bombay Stock Exchange (œBSE? for short) during the period from June 13, 2005 to September 30, 2005 and September 20, 2006 to November 23, 2006 (œInvestigation Period? for short) 3. Penalty of Rs.10 lac under Section 15HA of SEBI Act has been imposed on ground that the appellant has violated Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securitie...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »