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.
Kumar Organics Products Ltd, Bangalore Vs. Cce, Bangalore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Decided on: Apr-16-2014
B.S.V. Murthy, J. 1. The appellant was issued a show-cause notice dt. 05/12/2005 for demand and appropriation of the amounts mentioned herein for (i) wrong availment and utilization of CENVAT credit of Rs.9,84,709/- availed on inputs consigned to other unit; (ii) availment of full credit of duty on the inputs received from 100% EOU instead of eligible credit as per the prescribed formula, thereby availing excess credit of Rs.73,744/-; and (iii) also availment of sales tax amount paid by M/s. BPCL instead of taking credit of Central Excise duty resulting in availment of differential ineligible credit of Rs.1,07,781/-. Penal provisions under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (CEA) and under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (CER) read with Rule 13(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 (CCR, 2002) and Rule 15(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004(CCR, 2004) were also invoked in the said show-cause notice. The respondent had paid the aforesaid wrong availed credits along with ...
Suresh Kumar Verma, New Delhi Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Others Thr ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-2014
V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J). 1. The applicant, an UDC and working in Tihar Jail, was placed under deemed suspension w.e.f. 10.01.2009, vide Order dated 21.01.2009, as he was detained in custody on 10.01.2009 at 6 P.M. and released on bail on 15.01.2009 at 7.00 PM i.e., for a period of exceeding 48 hours, in connection with FIR No.486/2007 dated 13.09.2007 registered under sections 420/467/468/471/120-B/204 IPC with P.S., Kashmiri Gate, Delhi. His suspension was reviewed on 02.04.2009 and extended for a further period of 90 days w.e.f. 02.04.2009, vide Order dated 09.04.2009. Again the suspension of the applicant was reviewed on 24.06.2009 and extended for another period of 90 days w.e.f. 24.06.2009, vide order dated 30.06.2009. Further, the suspension of the applicant was once again reviewed on 11.09.2009 and was extended for a further period of 90 days w.e.f. 21.09.2009. 2. The respondents after the Suspension Review Committee reviewed the suspension of the applicant, extended the suspe...
Shivendra Singh Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of P ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-2014
Dalip Singh, J. 1. The aforesaid Original Application came to be registered before this Tribunal, after the Writ Petition No.7286/2008 filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur by way of PIL, came to be transferred by the Hon'ble High Court after hearing Learned Counsel for the parties, vide order dtd. 8th January, 2014. Vide order dtd. 07th March, 2014 notices were ordered to be issued to the parties. However, on the next date i.e. on 28.03.2014, despite service, none has appeared for the Applicant as well as for the Respondent No. 8 against whom the Writ was sought for restraining the Respondent No.8 from establishing and operating the petrol pump at the site in question which was alleged to be in the green belt. On 28th March, 2014 the case was adjourned to 16th April, 2014 in the interest of justice to enable the parties to appear and make their submissions. 2. Neither the Applicant nor the Respondent No. 8 to whom the letter of intent was given by the India...
Sorabh Mathur Working as Director (Works), Delhi Vs. Lt. Gen. J.S. Sik ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-2014
Sudhir Kumar, Member (A). 1. The petitioner of this Contempt Petition has alleged act of gross disobedience and deliberate flouting of the interim order passed in his OA on 10.03.2014, and has prayed for initiation of proceedings for civil contempt against the respondents/alleged contemnors. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, orders were reserved at the admission stage itself. 2. The petitioner is a responsible civil servant in the grade of Superintending Engineer with Military Engineering Service, and had been issued orders of his transfer to Kapurthala on 03.01.2014, which is Annexure A-1 in his OA. He represented against such transfer and his representation was rejected on 26.02.2014, after which he filed the said OA on 04.03.2014. The Bench which heard the OA had passed the following interim orders on 10.03.2014 at the admission stage itself:- It is brought to our notice that the respondents have rejected the representation of the applicant in this regard by way o...
Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Andhra Prades ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Decided on: Apr-16-2014
B.S.V. Murthy, J. Respondent is a 100% EOU and on the ground that they had not utilised the goods imported/sourced indigenously for the purpose of production of export goods and therefore the duty liability on the said items have to be discharged, proceedings were initiated. Proceedings were initiated after the Development Commissioner had penalized the respondent for not fulfilling the export obligation and imposed the penalty on them. The original adjudicating authority held that a. the unit did not commence commercial production, b. there is no evidence to show that the goods obtained duty free were put to use, c. depreciation will be admissible only when the goods are put to use. The learned Commissioner(Appeals) held that the observation that there was no production at all is not correct in view of the fact that the appellant had fulfilled export obligation to the extent of 5.31%. I find myself in agreement with this observation in view of the fact that there is no evidence to sho...
Ronjon Lahiri, New Delhi Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary (Tou ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-2014
V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J). 1. The applicant, an Assistant Director General, Ministry of Tourism, was placed under suspension vide Order dated 21.11.2012, with immediate effect, on the ground that a disciplinary proceedings is contemplated/pending against him. The Suspension Review Committee of the respondents reviewed the suspension of the applicant on 08.02.2013 and extended the period of suspension of the applicant for a further period of three months with effect from 21.02.2013, vide Order dated 20.02.2013. Again the respondents vide Order dated 06.06.2013 extended the period of suspension of the applicant for a further period of three months w.e.f. 21.05.2013. Thereafter, the respondents extended the period of suspension of the applicant from time to time and accordingly, he is being continued under suspension as on today. 2. The applicant filed the present OA questioning his suspension and extension of suspension orders on the ground that the same are violative of Rule 10(6) and (...
Commissioner of Customs and Service Tax - Bangalore-cus, Karnataka Vs. ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Decided on: Apr-16-2014
B.S.V. Murthy, J. Revenue is aggrieved by the orders of the lower authorities wherein the refund claim filed by the respondent in respect of the following services has been allowed: 1. AMC charges 2. Calibration 3. CHA inward 4. Freight inward 5. Security charges 6. Testing charges 7. CHA outward 8. Telephone charges 9. Freight outward 10. House keeping 11. Statutory audit fees 12. Consulting charges 13. Travelling expenses 14. Training charges 15. Chartered Engineering charges 16. Courier charges local 17. Professional charges 18. Building Service charges 19. Office maintenance 20. Maintenance of land scape 2. The refund claim was filed for refund of accumulated credit under Notification No.05/2006-CE(NT) dt. 14/03/2006 and there is no dispute that appellants have fulfilled the conditions required to be fulfilled for claiming the refund. The appeal has been filed on the ground that input services have no nexus with the manufacture and the only ground that the services were used direct...
Dilip S. Pendse Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India Sebi Bhavan
Court: SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Decided on: Apr-16-2014
J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer (Oral) 1. This appeal is filed to challenge order passed by whole time member of SEBI on December 24, 2012. 2. Counsel for appellant submitted that since the impugned order has been passed belatedly on December 24, 2012 inspite concluding hearing on July 17, 2011, it is just and proper that the impugned order be set aside and matter be restored to the file of the respondent for passing fresh order on merits. 3. We find merit in the above contention because delay in passing the impugned order after concluding the hearing is inordinate. 4. Moreover, in the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent on April 4, 2013 it is stated that on May 17, 2012 the whole time member of SEBI who heard the matter had demitted office and that on August 9, 2012 he was reappointed. Once a whole time member ceases to hold office, then he cannot deal with matters which were heard by him before demitting the office. In such a case neither his reappointment relates back to the dat...
Bse Limited Phiroze Jeejeebhoy Towers and Another Vs. Keynote Capitals ...
Court: SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Decided on: Apr-16-2014
A.S. Lamba, Presiding Officer 1. Review Application No. 6 of 2014, in Appeal No. 47 of 2014 has been preferred by BSE Limited and Anr. (original Respondents 1 and 2) and vs. Keynote Capitals Ltd. (original Appellant) and seeks review / recall of order dated 25th March, 2014 passed by SAT in Appeal No. 47 of 2014, and review sought by present RA is restricted to that part or portion of said order which contains dissenting order passed by Ld. Member of SAT, namely Mr. A.S. Lamba. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of present Review Application can be seen at para 3 (i.e. 3.1 to 3.12) at pages 2 to 5 of review application. In para 3.2 it is stated that Applicants Advocates œhad anticipated that SAT may suggest or advise that it would be appropriate for Applicants to agree to withdraw the said impugned order (order of original Respondent No. 1 dated 30th December, 2012); furnish to Respondents (original Appellant) copies of all documents which the Applicants were relying upon in the ma...
Kausiya Dheemer Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal Secr ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-2014
Dalip Singh, Judicial Member 1. The aforesaid Original Application came to be registered before this Tribunal after the Original Writ Petition No. 8708/2009 filed by the Applicant, Smt Kausiya Dheemer by way of PIL, came to be transferred by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, vide order dtd. 16th January, 2014 to this Tribunal. After receipt of the Writ Petition and registration as an Original Application, the matter was listed on 10th March, 2014 on which date the Applicant appeared through the Counsel. Shri Sachin K. Verma, Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1, 4 and 5 and Shri Shivendu Joshi, Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 and 3 appeared before the Tribunal. Having gone through the petition and the record of the proceedings of the Hon'ble High Court this Tribunal considered it appropriate to direct the Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 and 3, MP State Pollution Control Board (in short MPPCB) to file an affidavit of their responsible officer on the followi...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »