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.
C.B. Mishra M/S. Creative Portico Pvt. Limited Vs. Commissioner of Cen ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-22-2014
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. This stay petition is filed for the waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts confirmed as duty liability, interest thereof and penalties on both the appellants. Since both the stay petitions are filed against the very same order-in-original, we dispose of them by a common order. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. On hearing both sides and perusal of the records, we find that the matter needs reconsideration by the adjudicating authority to evaluate the factual matrix. Accordingly, we allow the applications for the wavier of pre-deposit of the amounts involved and take up the appeals themselves for disposal. 4. On perusal of the records, it transpires that appellant has availed benefit of Notification No. 30/2004-CE in respect of the goods manufactured and cleared by them for home consumption while availed the benefit of Notification No. 29/2004-CE for the goods which were exported by them. It is the case of the learned counsel that they have voluminous re...
M/S. Essar Oil Ltd. Vs. P.R.V. Ramanan (Spl. Counsel)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-22-2014
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. This appeal is directed against OIO No. 32/COMMR./2009, dt. 29.10.2009. 2. Filtering out unnecessary details, the relevant fact that arises for consideration is the appellant being refinery unit, had undertaken activity of constructing the refinery from October 1996. For construction of such a refinery, they received various capital goods, consumables, inputs, etc. which were accounted by them in the books of accounts. The said refinery was commissioned and appellant got Central Excise registration and started manufacturing activities from November 2006. Appellant availed Cenvat Credit of the duty paid on the various items used and consumed by them for setting up such a refinery in the month of November 2006. On the scrutiny of the monthly returns filed by the appellant in December 2006, the lower authorities were of the view that the appellant is not eligible for availing Cenvat Credit and directed them to show cause why such credit be not denied. The appellant b...
M/S. British Super Alloys Pvt Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Electricity Regulatory ...
Court: Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on: Apr-22-2014
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson. 1. British Super Alloys Private Limited is the Appellant herein. 2. The Appellant filed a Petition before the Gujarat State Commission claiming a tariff of Rs.3.37 per unit as determined by the State Commission in the Order dated 11.8.2006 without deducting 15% from Rs.3.37 per unit. However, the said Petition was dismissed by the State Commission by the Order dated 8.8.2013 holding that the Distribution Licensee (R-2) is entitled to deduct 15% of Rs.3.37 per unit. 3. Aggrieved by this Order, the Appellant has filed this Appeal. 4. The short facts are as follows: (a) The Appellant is a Wind Turbine Generator. (b) The Gujarat State Commission is the First Respondent. Uttar Gujarat Vijli Company Limited, the Distribution Licensee, is the Second Respondent. (c) The Wind Generating Company originally belonged to M/s. Decolight Ceramics Ltd. (d) The said Company commissioned a 2.1 MW Wind Turbine Generators (WTGs) on 15.1.2007. Earlier, the State Commissio...
M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited and Another Vs. Joint Electricity Regula ...
Court: Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on: Apr-22-2014
Rakesh Nath, Tehnical Member. 1. The above Appeals have been filed by M/s Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. and M/s. Chemfab Alkalis Ltd., the industrial consumers, challenging the impugned order dated 25.9.2012 passed by the Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission determining the Incremental Fuel Surcharge for the period from April 2010 to October 2010 for Electricity Department of Government of Puducherry. 2. The Appellants are industrial consumers. The Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission, hereinafter referred to as œJoint Commission?, is the Respondent no.1. The Electricity Department of Government of Puducherry which is a deemed licensee under Section 14 of the Electricity Act for transmission and distribution of electricity is the Respondent no.2. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under: a) The Joint Commission passed an order dated 5.2.2010 determining the retail supply tariff for Electricity Department. In the tariff order, the State Commission stipulated a Power Purchase Cost...
Proflex Systems Vs. Cc Ahmedabad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-22-2014
H.K. Thakur, J. 1. All these appeals have been filed by the appellant against OIA No.298-301/2011/Cus/Commr(A)/AHD, dt.16.09.2011 under which four Orders-in-Original passed by the adjudicating authority have been upheld. Adjudicating authority has rejected four refund claims filed by the appellants under Notification No.102/2007-Cus, dt.14.09.2007. The reasoning given by the first appellate authority mainly is that the imported goods are not sold as such and thus appellant is not eligible to refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus, dt.14.09.2007. 2. Shri Uday Joshi (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that it has been held by the first appellate authority in Para 8.1 of the OIA dt.16.09.2011 that imported coils are removed as such. He further made the Bench go through the contracts and retail invoices issued by the appellant to drive home the point that VAT/CST was also paid on the clearance of the raw materials. He relied upon the following case laws in support of...
M/S. A.R. Polymers Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Competition Commission of ...
Court: Competition Appellate Tribunal
Decided on: Apr-22-2014
1. This order will cover I.A. Nos. 58, 59, 60, 63, 64, 67, 69, 72, 73 and I.A. No. 10/2014 in Appeals Nos. 34 to 41 of 2013 and Appeal No. 08/2014 respectively, except I.A. No. 80/2013 in Appeal No.43/2013 in which separate order shall be passed. All these appellants are the manufacturers of rubber products, especially the shoes which are used by the military and para-military forces. The relevant products in this case are Jungle Boots (Hunters) which have to be used while operating in the jungle. The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has found all these manufacturers/appellants guilty of contravention of the provisions of Section 3(3)(a) to (d) of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The main ground on which the CCI has found these manufacturers guilty is that they have quoted identical or near identical rates in the Rate Contract tender floated at the instance of the Director General of Supply and Disposal, Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce...
Nandan Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. and S.T. Daman
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-22-2014
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. This appeal is directed against OIA No. KS/350/DAMAN/2006, dt. 06.10.2006. 2. The brief facts that arise for consideration are the appellant herein is engaged in manufacturing of polyester texturized yarn and polyester grey knitted fabrics is a 100% EOU. During the period in question (August 2003 to September 2003), appellant cleared the products manufactured by him out of indigenous raw material discharging 50% of the amount of duty payable. The lower authorities were of the view that appellant could not have done so, as per provisions of paragraph 6.8 of the EXIM Policy, issued a show cause notice which was adjudicated and recovery of differential duty was confirmed alongwith interest and penalties. Appellants appeal before the first appellate authority was also rejected. 3. Ld. Counsel at the outset draws our attention to the provisions of paragraph 6.8 of the EXIM Policy 2002 2007. It is his submission that during the relevant period, appellant had exported th...
Shilpi Crafts Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-22-2014
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. When this stay petition was called out, after hearing both sides for a considerable time on the stay petition, we find that appeal itself could be disposed of as it lies in a narrow compass. Accordingly, we dispose of the stay petition and take up the appeal itself for disposal. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that appellant had received order-in-original in December 2012 and accordingly filed the appeal on 12.02.2013. It is his submission that the appellant was granted personal hearing and he argued the matter on merits. He would than draw our attention to the impugned order and submits that the first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation i.e. appeal has been filed after 5 = month from the date of issue of order. He would submit that, though the office of the Additional Commissioner, Customs indicated the date of issue of order as 31.08.2012, but on query under RTI, it was informed to them that the order...
Wiretel Digital Networks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Espn Software India Pvt. Ltd. a ...
Court: Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT
Decided on: Apr-22-2014
Kuldip Singh: 1. The main issues that arise for consideration in these petitions are whether the petitioner can voluntarily provide services through DAS (Digital Addressable System) mode in areas which are not yet notified for providing DAS service; if so, whether the Digital Addressable System installed by the petitioner has any shortcomings and whether it is entitled to receive the signals from the respondents? 2. The petitioner is a Multi System Operator (MSO) who has been granted permission under Rule 11E of The Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994 by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India on 29.6.2012 for operating in areas notified under Section 4A of The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. The respondents are broadcasters/agents acting on behalf of the broadcasters. The petitioner has been trying to enter into interconnect agreement and obtain signals of the respondents since November 2012 and not being successful in its efforts, the pre...
Gridco Limited Vs. M/S. Oricon Equipments (P) Ltd. and Others
Court: Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on: Apr-22-2014
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson. 1. British Super Alloys Private Limited is the Appellant herein. 2. The Appellant filed a Petition before the Gujarat State Commission claiming a tariff of Rs.3.37 per unit as determined by the State Commission in the Order dated 11.8.2006 without deducting 15% from Rs.3.37 per unit. However, the said Petition was dismissed by the State Commission by the Order dated 8.8.2013 holding that the Distribution Licensee (R-2) is entitled to deduct 15% of Rs.3.37 per unit. 3. Aggrieved by this Order, the Appellant has filed this Appeal. 4. The short facts are as follows: (a) The Appellant is a Wind Turbine Generator. (b) The Gujarat State Commission is the First Respondent. Uttar Gujarat Vijli Company Limited, the Distribution Licensee, is the Second Respondent. (c) The Wind Generating Company originally belonged to M/s. Decolight Ceramics Ltd. (d) The said Company commissioned a 2.1 MW Wind Turbine Generators (WTGs) on 15.1.2007. Earlier, the State Commissio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »