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. Prince Swr Systems Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Cce Vapi
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. When this Stay Petition was called out, after hearing both sides for some time on Stay Petition, we find that the appeal itself could be disposed of as it lies in narrow compass. Accordingly, we dispose of the Stay Petition and take up the appeal for disposal. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. On perusal of the records, we find that by the impugned order, the first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant for non-compliance of pre-deposit ordered by him. Ld.Counsel submits that they have subsequently deposited the amount by reversal in CENVAT Credit and produces a copy of the RG23A Part II. On scrutiny of the same, we find that the appellant has complied with the pre-deposit ordered by first appellate authority, though belatedly, after the final order was passed. We find that the appellant is serious in prosecuting the appeal before the lower authorities. Accordingly, we are of the view that the amount deposited by the appe...
Nabha Power Limited and Another Vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd ...
Court: Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
Rakesh Nath, Technical Member. 1. This Appeal has been filed by Nabha Power Ltd. and LandT Power Development Ltd. challenging the order dated 1.10.2012 of Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission rejecting the claims of the Appellants for tariff adjustment and extension of time in respect of the 2x700 MW Rajpura Thermal Power Project developed under Section 63 of the Electricity Act, 2003 pursuant to a competitive bidding process. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under: a) The Appellant no.1, Nabha Power Ltd. is a company which is a special purpose vehicle that had been set up initially by the erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board (œElectricity Board?), for developing Rajpura Thermal Power project under the tariff based competitive bidding. The entire shareholding of Nabha Power Ltd. was subsequently transferred to M/s. LandT Power Development Ltd., the Appellant no.2 herein after having been selected as the successful bidder for the development of the project throu...
Ms. Pooja Menghani Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India Sebi Bha ...
Court: SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
Jog Singh, Member The present appeal is preferred by the appellant against the impugned order dated April 30, 2012 by which she has been found to be guilty of indulging into fraudulent and unfair trades in respect of few companies. The appellant is alleged to have resorted to œfront-running? to earn ill-gotten profits by the trades in question. She is stated to have earned approximately ` 49 lac in an unlawful manner. The learned Adjudicating Officer, hereinafter referred to as œAO?, has found the appellant guilty of violating the provisions of Regulations 3(a), (b), (c), (d) and 4(1) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trades Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (for short FUTP Regulations). Consequently, a penalty of ` 1 crore has been imposed on the appellant under Section 15HA of the SEBI Act, 1992, which prescribes a penalty of ` 25 crore or three times the illegal profits earned by a person by violating the law, whichever is higher....
Lakshmi Sai Medha, Guntur Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
B.S.V. Murthy, J. 1. Nobody is present on behalf of the appellant. However, written submissions have been received. The learned counsel has submitted that while the Commissioner(Appeals) had mentioned all the submissions made by the appellants in the order, did not record any findings on the said submissions. Therefore, he seeks that the matter may be remanded for fresh consideration.2. Learned AR would submit that this is not correct and the Commissioner has considered all submissions. 3. On going through the impugned order, we find that in paragraph 3 of the order, the learned Commissioner(Appeals) has summarized the submissions of the appellant and out of these submissions at least in respect of (i) to (iii), we find that there are no findings at all. It was submitted by the learned AR that paragraph 10 of the impugned order covers all these issues. For better appreciation, we reproduce this paragraph. 10. Having regards with the facts and circumstances of the case, I concur wi...
Cg-vak Software and Exports Limited Vs. Securities and Exchange Board ...
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 Adjudicating Officer (œAO? for short) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (œSEBI? for short), by impugned order dated December 17, 2013 was justified in imposing penalty of ` 3 lac on appellant under Section 15A(b) of Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (œSEBI Act? for short) is the question raised in this appeal. 2. Penalty is imposed on the appellant for allegedly violating regulation 13(6) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 (œPIT Regulations? for short). 3. Under regulation 13(6) of PIT Regulations, every listed company is required to disclose to all Stock Exchanges on which the company is listed, within two working days of receiving information specified under sub-regulations (1),(2),(2A),(3),(4) and (4A) of regulation 13 of PIT Regulations. 4. In the preset case, it is not in dispute that there is 14 days and 31 days delay in making disclosures on receiving inform...
M/S. Jaybharat Textiles and Real Estate Ltd. Vs. Cce Daman
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
H.K. Thakur, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant for staying the operation of OIA No.DMN-EXCUS-000-APP-167-13-14, dt.12.09.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Daman upholding the OIO No.API-1/DEMAND/ 06/2013-14 dt.31.05.2013 passed by Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Dn.I Vapi. The issue involved is regarding encashment of Bank Guarantee and enforcement of B-17 bond executed by the appellant. It was ordered by the adjudicating authority that Bank Guarantee executed by the appellant and B-17 bond are enforced for recoveries which has been upheld by the first appellate authority. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant took over the management and control of M/s Ashai Fibres Ltd (100% EOU). The appellant was granted permission to set up a 100% EOU by the Development Commissioner, vide Letter of Permission (LOP) No.KASEZ/100% EOU/11/139/93-94, dt.28.02.2005. Development Commissioner vide LOP dt.28.02.2005, permitted all the liabilities an...
M/S. Krishna Screen Art Vs. C.C.E. Ahmedabad-i.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. All these three appeals are arising out of common order in original and raise the same issue on facts and law, hence are being disposed of by a common order. 2. Filtering out unnecessary details, the relevant facts that arise for consideration that the appellant Shri Krishna Screen Print Art (main appellant) is a manufacturer of processed fabrics, processed on machines with the aid of power. On a visit by the officers to the premises of one M/s. Sunira Traders, the officers noticed that the said M/s. Sunira Traders were in the business of folding and packing of processed goods. The ownership of M/s. Sunira Traders was vested with HUF of which Shri Rajan Ishwar Jariwala was Karta; his statement was recorded on that day by the authorities. In the said statement, Shri Rajan Ishwar Jariwala accepted that the packing register and the records maintained at M/s. Sunira Traders, were in respect of the processed fabrics which were received from Shri Krishna Screen Print Ar...
M/S. Laxmi Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cst Ahmedabad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. This Stay Petition filed for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax liability, interest thereof and penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority. After hearing both sides for some time on the Stay Petition, we find that the appeal itself could be disposed of at this juncture. Accordingly, we allow the stay application noting that the appellant has already deposited an amount of Rs.15.60 lakhs and interest amount of approximately Rs.7.91 lakhs and take up the appeal for disposal. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. On perusal of the records, we find that the issue involved in this case is regarding Service Tax liability on the appellant under the category of erection, installation, and maintenance services on the contracts which were executed by them with different parties. It is the claim of the assessee before the adjudicating authority as well as before us that they had billed separately for the materials and for the services. It is also the claim tha...
M/S. Manish Organics India Ltd. Vs. Cce Surat Ii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
H.K. Thakur, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against OIO No.38/BRC/MP/96, dt.29.03.1996 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Vadodara. The issue involved in the present proceedings is chargeability of Central Excise duty on captively consumed Glyoxal used in the manufacture of Drug intermediates (2-Methyl Imidazol and 2-Methyl 5 Nitro Imidazol) exempted under Notification No.147/1984-CE, dt.19.06.1984. It is the case of the Revenue that appellant is using Glyoxal 40% manufactured by the appellant and used in captive consumption which is a stable product capable of being marketed. This is based on the grounds that appellant has given an intimation to the Drug Controller that Glyoxal 40% is used in the manufacture of drug intermediates which are fully exempted. On the other hand, appellant is of the argument that Glyoxal 20% is used in the manufacture of exempted drug intermediate and that Glyoxal 20% is not a stable product capable of being sold, which...
Grishma Securities Private Limited and Others Vesus Securities and Exc ...
Court: SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
Jog Singh, Member The present review is directed against the order dated October 28, 2013 passed by this Tribunal in Appeal No. 151 of 2013, upholding the impugned order dated July 31, 2013 issued by the learned Whole Time Member (WTM) of the respondent-SEBI under Sections 11(4), 11B of the SEBI Act, 1992 read with Regulation 11(1) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003. By the said order dated July 31, 2013, the appellants - were restrained from buying, selling or otherwise dealing in securities in their proprietary accounts for a period of five years. Earlier ad-interim ex-parte restraint order dated December 28, 2011 regarding appellants stockbroking business was directed to be continued till the completion of the enquiry proceedings. Shri Khambatta, learned senior counsel who appears on behalf of the review applicant, argued that when the restraint order against other brokers and appellants own client like ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »