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.
Punamchand and Another Vs. the Union of India and Others
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-2014
1. Originally, the Applicants filed Writ Petition No.4044 of 2001, in the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad, alleging that certain forest lands were being illegally diverted for non-forest purposes, which would cause felling of trees to the extent of 2.5 to 3 lakhs and that would be a great loss to the environment. 2. By order dated October 1st, 2003, Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court, transferred the Writ Petition to this Tribunal in view of Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of "Bhopal Gas PeedithMahilaUdyogSangathanandAnrVs Union of India" (2012) 8, SCC 326." Thereafter, it was registered as an Application No.10 (THC)/2013. We may note that none has appeared for the Applicants before this Tribunal, after transfer of the Writ Petition, inspite of issuance of Notices. However, on January 31st, 2014, Mr. S.D. Bade, Advocate appeared for the Applicants and informed that he was instructed to appear and was likelyVakalatnama for the Applicants. Ther...
Dr. Surender Kumar, Delhi Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Throu ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-2014
Sudhir Kumar, Member (A). 1. This Review Application has been filed seeking for a review of the order pronounced on 30.01.2014 in TA No. 1086/2009. The operative portion of the order in TA was as follows:- "22. It is, therefore, clear and apparent that the applicant does not have any substantive grievance which requires a judicial intervention or determination from this Tribunal, and actually his grievances could have been settled if the issue concerning his seniority, in respect of which he had given numerous representations, had been settled, after which he would have perhaps automatically become eligible for being counted among the 30% segment of NFSG on the basis of his seniority. Therefore, this TA is disposed of, with liberty being granted to the applicant to consolidate his grievance as raised by him with the respondents through his representations dated 07.02.2005, 31.03.2005, 15.04.2005, 30.06.2005, 06.08.2005 and 09.12.2005 into a single representation, and the Respondent No...
Hindustan Rubber Factory, Karnataka Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Decided on: Apr-16-2014
B.S.V. Murthy, J. 1. The Appellant is a partnership firm engaged in manufacture of tread rubber falling under Chapter heading No.4006.10 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1995 and is duly registered as manufacturer holding central excise registration No.45/94 and has been clearing its manufactured final product on payment of appropriate duty of excise and also filing periodical returns viz., RT12 returns. 2. On 10.11.1995 the Departmental officers visited the factory premises of the Appellant and conducted physical verification of final product and found that RG1 register showed balance stock of 7,762.78 kgs and whereas the physical stock available and showed by Mrs. Mary Alvares, the representative available in the factory on the said date was only 1,080 kgs. Hence, the Department noticed shortage of physical stock of final product of 6,682.78 kgs. Further the Departmental officers took into custody various documents including a diary (red color). This is based o...
M/S. Kal Cables Pvt. Ltd., Chennai Vs. M/S. Prasanna Cable Network, Ta ...
Court: Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT
Decided on: Apr-15-2014
M/s Kal Cable Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner, is a multi-system operator, operating in Coimbatore district of Tamil Nadu. It has filed this batch of 28 petitions, each against a cable operator from whom the petitioner seeks recovery of different sums of money as dues of monthly subscription fees. None of the 28 cable operators, respondents in this batch of petitions, appeared despite service of notice. Hence, all the petitions in the batch were proceeded with ex parte. As all the 28 cases are based on similar facts, with the exception of the amounts of money claimed and, in a few cases the date of disconnection of signals, all the 28 petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the relevant facts pertaining to the 28 petitions are arranged in a tabular form which is reproduced below: (TABLE) Column no.2 of the table gives the number of petition and column no.3, the name of the respondent, the local cable operator; column no.5 sta...
Agencies International (impex Division), Bangalore Vs. Bangalore-servi ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Decided on: Apr-15-2014
B.S.V. Murthy, J. 1. The appellant is a proprietary concern engaged in importing liquor for domestic consumption and sale through Karanataka State Beverages Corporation which regulates sale of liquor in the State of Karnataka. The appellant filed bill of entry No.10726 dt. 27/11/2004 warehousing the goods at M/s. Container Corporation of India Ltd. by executing a double duty bond No.4638/04 dt. 27/11/2004 valid upto 26/11/2005. Due to business exigencies they could not clear the goods within the permissible time and sought for relinquishment of 912 cases of beer vide their letter dt. 03/08/2005 before the goods were cleared for home consumption. They had a balance stock of 912 cases of beer to be relinquished under proviso to Section 68 of the Customs Act, 1962. The original authority dropped the demand of customs duty of Rs.4,54,570/- on the balance quantity of 912 cases of beer and detained the same under Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 for disposal by way of destruction as the g...
Securities and Exchange Board of India, Sebi Bhavan Vs. Arun Goenka
Court: SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Decided on: Apr-15-2014
J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer (Oral) 1. Not on Board, mentioned by counsel for applicant/original respondent and taken up by consent of both the parties. By this Miscellaneous Application counsel for the applicant/original respondent seeks six weeks time to pass final order on merit in compliance with the order dated March 4, 2014. Counsel for the respondent/original appellant has no objection. 2. In this view of the matter, the Miscellaneous Application is disposed of for extending the period of six weeks time for passing the final order....
M/S. Schott Glass India Pvt. Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excis ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-15-2014
M.V. Ravindaran, J. 1. When this stay petition was called out, I find that the issue lies in a narrow compass hence, the appeal can be disposed of finally. Accordingly, I allow the application for the waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts involved and take up the appeal itself for disposal. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The issue involved in this case is regarding availment of CENVAT credit of service tax paid on the services received by the appellant from Rent-a-Cab services, for transportation of their employees from their residence to the place of work and vice-versa. I find that the bench in the appellants own case, in final order dated 22.10.2012 has taken a view which is in favour of the assessee. In an another order dated 26.10.2012, the bench has remanded the matter back to the lower authorities for appreciating evidences, if any, produced by the appellant for ascertaining non-recovery of amounts towards transportation from the employees. In the case in hand, l...
Ramgad Minerals and Mining Limited Vs. Karnataka Electricity Regulator ...
Court: Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on: Apr-15-2014
Rakesh Nath, Tehnical Member. 1. These Appeals have been filed by Ramgad Minerals and Mining Limited against the two separate orders in O.P. no. 26 of 2012 and 27 of 2012 both dated 7.3.2013 passed by Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (œState Commission?) disallowing the prayer of the Appellant for grant of higher tariff for their two wind energy projects. 2. The Appellant has set up two wind energy projects from which they have been supplying electricity to the Distribution Licensee. The State Commission is the first Respondent. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company (BESCOM), the Distribution Licensee, is the second Respondent. 3. The brief facts in Appeal no. 218 of 2013 are as under: a) The Appellant has established a wind energy power project with a capacity of 1.25 MW in the State of Karnataka. The project achieved commercial operation on 27.8.2009. b) On 4.2.2011, a Power Purchase Agreement (œPPA") was executed between the Appellant and BESCOM, the Respondent...
Sun Security Services Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Decided on: Apr-15-2014
B.S.V. Murthy, J. 1. The appellant had provided manpower supply service to Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the appellant did not pay service tax on the service so provided. Proceedings were initiated for demand of service tax, interest and imposition of penalty. As a result of proceedings, demand has been confirmed with interest and penalty has been imposed. 2. The learned counsel submits that appellant was advised by RBI when they raised the bill for supply of manpower with service tax that the service provided to RBI was exempted from payment of service tax and therefore the appellant entertained a reasonable belief that he was not liable to pay service tax. He submits that though he cannot challenge the service tax but seeks waiver of penalty by invoking Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994. 3. As submitted by the learned counsel, I find that the Assistant General Manager of RBI had written a letter to the appellant stating that there was no need for payment of service tax in respect of ...
Ntpc Limited Vs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission and Others
Court: Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
Surendra Kumar, Judicial Member. 1. This is an Appeal preferred under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against the Order dated 25.5.2012 passed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter called the Central Commission) in Petition No. 279/2009 titled as NTPC Ltd., New Delhi vs Uttar Pradesh Power corporation Ltd, Lucknow and Ors., Whereby the learned Central Commission has determined the tariff applicable for generation and supply of the electricity for the Appellants Feroze Gandhi Unchahar Thermal Power Station, Stage-III (210 MW) for the period from 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2014. 2. The relevant facts giving rise to this Appeal are as follows: (a) that the Appellant is the power generator. Respondent No.1 is the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission and Respondent Nos. 2 to 14 are the Distribution Companies/Licensees. (b) that the Appellant-Petitioner, NTPC has filed this Appeal for approval of tariff of Feroze Gandhi Unchahar Thermal Power Station, Stage-III (2...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »