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. Salasar Steel and Power Limited Vs. Chhattisgarh State Load Despa ...
Court: Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on: Apr-22-2014
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson. 1. The Order Impugned dated 23.12.2013 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Commission rejecting the Preliminary Objections raised by the Appellant on Maintainability of the Petition filed by the State Load Despatch Centre (SLDC) is the subject matter of this Appeal. 2. The short facts are as under: (a) M/s. Salasar Steel Power Limited is the Appellant. It is engaged in the production of sponge iron, billets, ingots and Ferro alloys besides generation of power. (b) The Chhattisgarh State Load Despatch Centre (SLDC) is the First Respondent. Chhattisgarh State Commission is the second Respondent. (c) The SLDC, the First Respondent filed a Petition No.70 of 2013 before the State Commission on 15.7.2013 as against 20 different private generating companies including the Appellant complaining about the non-compliance of 55 different Backing Down Instructions (BDIs) issued between the period April, 2012 and June, 2012 and praying for imposition of penalty for ea...
Pramod Sharma and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan Through District Colle ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-2014
1. This O.A., originally filed as DB Civil Writ Petition (PIL) numbered as W.P. No. 2662/2006 filed by one, Shri Pramod Sharma and 7 others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others in the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur with the prayer to direct closure of brick kiln activities in Bundi District and in areas adjacent to Bundi city in the State of Rajasthan. In pursuance to the order dated 23rd September, 2013 of Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan issued in consonance with the order dated 9th August, 2012 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog O.A. No. 114 of 2013 Page 2 of 18 Sangathan and Others Vs. Union of India and Others (2012) 8 SCC 326, the above said writ petition was transferred to the Central Zone Bench, Bhopal of National Green Tribunal. Upon its transfer, the writ petition was registered as OA No. 114/2013 and notices were issued to all the parties vide order dated 5th December, 2013. Later on, the case was heard on 27th January, 2014,...
Cce, Madurai Vs. M/S. Sundaram Fasteners Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2014
1. Both the appeals are arising out of a common order and therefore both the appeals are taken up for disposal. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of bolts, nuts and screws falling under Chapter 7318.10 of CETA, 1985. They are availing CENVAT credit on inputs and capital goods. They cleared the goods on payment of duty and a portion of the goods was cleared without payment of duty under Chapter X Procedure. The issue raised in the present proceeding is that the respondent is liable to pay 8% of the value of the goods cleared under Chapter X under Rule 57CC / Rule 57AD of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The period of demand is from April 2000 to November 2000 and from January 2000 to March 2000 in respect of both the appeals. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order and allowed the appeals filed by the respondent on the ground that there is no machinery provision in the Act or Rules for its recovery. The lear...
Sps Steel and Power Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Service Tax, A ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Decided on: Apr-21-2014
B.S.V. Murthy, J. 1. The appeal was received in the Tribunals Registry on 15.02.2012 and vide Defect Memo No. DM/98 dated 28.05.2012, the appellant was informed that 1). Appeal has not been filed within 3 months. Hence same is time barred. Application for condonation of delay showing period of delay and no. of days for COD should be filed. 2). Every application for grant of stay or for rectification of mistake for any other purpose or for restriction of an appeal or application, fee is Rs. 500/-. 3). You are directed to submit proof of receipt of OIA/OIO. 2. The appellant was informed that the matter is listed before the Assistant Registrar on 16.07.2012 and this was issued on 11.06.2012. 3. No reply was received and another letter was issued on 09.10.2012 listing the matter before the Assistant Registrar on 19.11.2012. This letter was issued on 16.10.2012. No reply has been received till date. The matter was listed before the Bench on 21.04.2014 and notice was dispatched on 20.03.2014...
M/S. Sb. Engineers Vs. Cceandst. Vadodara Ii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-21-2014
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. When this stay petition was called out, we find that the appeal itself could be disposed of at this juncture as the issue lies in a narrow compass. Accordingly, we dispose the stay petition filed and take up the appeal for disposal. 2. Heard both sides and perused records. 3. The First Appellate Authority has rejected /dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant only on the ground of non-compliance of pre-deposit ordered by him. The First Appellate Authority had directed the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs 2.75 lacs against the confirmed demand of Rs 3,04,085/-. It is the case of assessee appellant is not required to pay any amount he has deposited entire amount alongwith interest, as regards the credit on common input service availed by the company and the First Appellate Authority has not passed any order on the merit of the case. 4. Heard both sides for some time and we find that the issue is debatable one, needs deeper consideration, which can be done onl...
V. Senthil Nathan Vs. Competition Commission of India
Court: Competition Appellate Tribunal
Decided on: Apr-21-2014
1. This appeal is against the order dated 1st July, 2013 passed by the CCI refusing to entertain the information filed before it by one Shri V.Senthilnathan, the appellant. The said information was against opponent no. 1 M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and opponent No. 2 M/s. E-Meditak (TPA) Services Ltd. 2. As per the informant, it seems that the opponent no. 2 refused to entertain the claim made by the appellant/informant as a result of which, the informant came up with the information against the opponents. The informant was covered by the group health insurance offered by opponent no. 1 for which the third party administrator was the opponent no. 2. In the sense, that opponent no. 2 was to process the claim made by the claimant under the insurance policy. 3. As per the information, the informant holds a CanCard, a credit card offered by the Canara Bank. For the Cancard holders, there was a policy of group medi-insurance. The informant claims that all the CanCard holders have t...
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Bangalore Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax B ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Decided on: Apr-21-2014
B.S.V. Murthy, J. 1. In respect of Appeal No. ST/25325/2013 the appellant is seeking condonation of delay of 137 days in filing the appeal. The learned counsel submits that this is a supplementary appeal and the main appeal No. 2518/2012 had been filed in time and without delay. Finding this to be factually correct, the delay in filing this appeal is condoned. 2. Since both the appeals are against the common impugned order, both the appeals are taken together and a common order is being passed. The impugned order has been passed adjudicating the issues involved in Show-Cause Notice No. C. No. IV/1/612/2010 ST dated 21.04.2011 for the period from October 2005 to March 2010 and Show-Cause Notice No. C. No. IV/16/406/2011 ST dated 21.09.2011 covering the period from April 2010 to March 2011. Totally there are 3 demands against the appellant confirmed with interest. An amount of Rs. 56,41,17,360/- is demanded under Management, Maintenance or Repair Service on the ground that the activity o...
Vibhuti Jauhari Deputy Director (Architecture), New Delhi and Another ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-17-2014
Sudhir Kumar, Member (A). 1. The applicant is before us challenging the order dated 19.03.2013, whereby the respondents have rejected her request for voluntary retirement on the ground that she has not completed the age of 50 years as stipulated in FR 56 (k) and that she has not completed 20 years of qualifying service, which is the requirement as per Rule-48 A of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972. Her grouse is that the stand now taken by the respondents is contrary to the earlier letter dated 23.05.2011 (Annexure A-3) by which the similar request of the applicant had earlier been rejected, stating that she had not completed 10 years of minimum qualifying service for grant of voluntary retirement. The applicant has assailed the stand of the respondents to be contrary to the Honble Delhi High Courts judgment in Delhi Development Authority vs. Shri Kundan and Ors. in WP (C) No.4311/2003, judgment dated 05.04.2010, a copy of which she has annexed as Annexure A-6. She has submitted that in this ju...
Ntpc Limited Vs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission and Others
Court: Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on: Apr-17-2014
Surendra Kumar, Judicial Member. 1. This is an appeal filed under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against the order dated 01.08.2013, passed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter called the Central Commission) in Petition No. 25/GT/2013 in NTPC Ltd, New Delhi Vs. Madhya Pradesh Power Management Company Ltd. and Others, whereby the learned Central Commission, in terms of the proviso to Regulation 6 (1) of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the 2009 Tariff Regulations) has revised the fixed charges, for Kawas Gas Power Station, for the period from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2014 of the appellant on the petition for Revision of Tariff of Kawas Gas Power Station and truing up of tariff, determined vide order dated 31.12.2011 in Petition No. 285 of 2009. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order in as much as the learned Central Commission has not allowed the additio...
Satish Chand Constable in Delhi, Ghaziabad, Up. Vs. Govt. of Nct of De ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-2014
V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J). 1. The applicant, a Constable in Delhi Police, filed the present OA questioning the legality and validity of the impugned Charge Memorandum dated 23.08.2013 (Annexure A1) and the Summary of Allegations dated 23.08.2013 (Annexure A2). 2. The charge leveled against the applicant reads as under: It is alleged against Ct. Satish Chand, No.6234/DAP(PIS No.28892790) that on 19.06.2013, he along with Ct. Parmanand, No.1659/DAP was deployed on patrolling duty outside PHQ on the pavement from main gate to exit gate (X-17) and they were provided with WT sets. On that day, Inspector Ramesh Chander as routine, checked the staff detailed on duty at the various points of PHQ Guard and when at about 4 PM the Inspector noticed a motor-cycle was unauthorizedly parked at the pavement, he made search for the deployed staff who were found from their duty point. He called both the Constables through HC Kanwar Singh on W.T. sets and they were found coming from Exit Gate of PHQ. Wh...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »