Tribunal Court May 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. Videocon Industries Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise an ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: May-20-2014
M.V. Ravindaran, J. 1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal in No. Commr(A)/148/VDR-II/2007 dated 20.07.2007 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The issue involved in this case is regarding availment of cenvat credit of the service tax paid on outward freight of the goods, which were cleared for export. Lower authorities were of the view that such cenvat credit could not be availed by the appellant as these services are post clearance from the factory premises. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of ABB Limited 2009 (15) STR 23 (Tribunal LB) is on the issue and the period involved in this case is before the amendment that took place to the definition of input services. He would submit that the period involved in this case is from March 2005 to January 2006 and the input service amendment took place on 01.4.2008. He would also submit that the Larger Bench decision of the Tr...
Kiran Seban, Kerala Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Se ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Decided on: May-20-2014
B.S.V. Murthy, J. 1. Appellant is a business associate of M/s. Geojit Comtrade Limited (hereinafter referred to as Geojit) which is engaged in the business of future and commodities trading and related activities with corporate membership in National Multi Commodity Exchange of India Limited, Ahmedabad (NMCE), National Commodity and Derivatives Exchange Limited, Mumbai (NCDEX) and Multi Commodity Exchange of India, Mumbai (MCEI). By way of agreement dated 18.12.2008, the appellant was authorized to act as a business associate of Geojit. By way of agreement, the appellant was entrusted to set up and manage an office and to provide commodity futures broking and other related services jointly with M/s. Geojit. All the orders placed by the clients of the appellant were executed by the appellant using the terminal and facilities provided by Geojit, as approved by the regulatory authorities. Apart from usage of the terminal and facilities provided by Geojit, there was no other facility or se...
Ram Singh and Others Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministr ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-20-2014
Dalip Singh, Judicial Member: 1. The case in hand being O.A. No. 16/2014, was originally filed as a Public Interest Litigation/Writ Petition bearing No. 7988/2005 before the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench by the four Applicants with the prayer that the record pertaining to allotment and grant of mining leases to Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 in Khasra Nos. 155, 157 and 207/1 situated at village Hasampur, Tehsil Neem-Ka-Thana, District Sikar, Rajasthan be re-examined on the ground that the land in the aforesaid Khasra Nos. comprises pasture land and is a part of the Aravali Range and therefore the mining leases granted to them be revoked. 2. The Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 29th September, 2005 directed notices to be issued to the Respondent and after service the Respondents submitted their reply more particularly the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and the Respondent No. 6/SPCB filed separate replies. The Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 also submitted their replies to the petition...
Hicure Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd Karnataka Vs. Commissioner of Central ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Decided on: May-20-2014
B.S.V. Murthy, J. 1. Appeal has been rejected on the ground that the same has been filed with a delay of 13 days and no application for condonation of delay had been filed by the appellants. The appellant had been informed on 23.8.2013 that they should file an application for condonation of delay. Unfortunately no such application was filed. The only ground for rejecting the appeal is that no formal condonation application has been filed. The Director himself appeared for personal hearing and unfortunately could not explain the case at all in detail. After spending quite some time, what we found is that the Director did not have sufficient knowledge and this could have been the reason for non-filing of condonation application before the Commissioner (A). We feel that appellant-company should be given another opportunity to understand the legal provisions, meaning of application for condonation of delay and allowed to file an application for condonation of delay giving whatever reasons ...
M/S. Sai Sulphonates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kol ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-2014
Dr. D. M. Misra, J. 1. This is an application for waiver of predeposit of duty of Rs.6,70,289/- and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. At the outset, the ld. Consultant appearing for the Applicant, has submitted that the Appeal has not been decided on merit by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), but dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He submits that the demand has been confirmed against them alleging that they have issued 16 (sixteen) Nos. of Debit Notes in favour of the customers in addition to the prices charged against respective invoices. He submits that the said allegation of the Department was incorrect inasmuch as the said Debit Notes were issued for short realization of the amount paid by the customer against each invoices. He has placed reliance on a Chartered Accountants Certificate dated 06.04.2011 in support of his claim. However, he has fairly conceded that the sai...
M/S. United Chloro Paraffins Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, K ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-2014
1. This misc. application is filed for early hearing of the stay petition. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Consultant Shri A.C. Tikadar for the applicant submits that during the pendency of the present stay application, the Department has recovered an amount of Rs.8.75 Lakhs (approx.) from the applicant by way of adjusting the sanctioned rebate claims. He submits that the Ld. Commissioner has not decided the issue on merit but dismissed the appeal on the ground of non-compliance with the direction of pre-deposit. The Ld. Consultant brought to our notice that the present issue involves classification of the manufactured products and the dispute has been set at rest by the Circular issued by the Board bearing No. 950/1/2011-CX dated-01.08.2011. He submits that the stay application be heard early. 3. The Ld. A.R. for the Revenue has not disputed about appropriation of the said amount of Rs.8.75 Lakhs against outstanding dues adjudged in the impugned order. He also agrees that the issue has not ...
K.A.S. Prasad, Hyderabad Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs a ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Decided on: May-19-2014
B.S.V. Murthy, J. 1. When the matter was called today nobody is present on behalf of the appellant. However, a letter of memorandum by the appellant was placed before us, which has no date and it is not know who has submitted and how it has been submitted. 2. In the stay order passed by this Tribunal vide Misc. Order No.25554/2013 dated 8.4.2013, the appellant was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.24 lakhs and report compliance on 1.7.2013 before the Bench. This was not complied with and the appellant had filed a modification application which was dismissed on 27.9.2013 and appellant was directed to report compliance on 29.10.2013. Subsequently on 3.4.2014, when the matter was called, there was a request filed by the appellant that they had filed a writ petition before the Honble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and as per the direction of the Honble High Court of Andhra Pradesh they had filed a civil appeal. Accordingly, the time limit was extended up to 19.5.2014. 3. Today when the mat...
M/S. Kabita Refractories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr of Central Excise, Bolpur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-2014
DR. D.M. Misra, J. 1. This is an application filed seeking waiver of pre-deposit of excise duty of Rs.24.35 Lakhs and equal amount of penalty imposed under Rule 173Q of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11AC of CEA, 1944. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Consultant Shri S.P. Siddhanta submits that during the relevant period 1986-87 to 1991, January, 2001 to June, 2001, October 2002 to October, 2006, the applicant had used broken bricks received free from the raw materials supplier and recycled it and supplied refractory bricks to the raw materials suppliers. The value of the raw materials received free viz. broken bricks had been determined adopting comparable prices of other manufacturer without considering the actual prices, therefore, the valuation arrived at by the Department is incorrect. He further submits that the Ld. Commr.(Appeals) has not decided the issue on merit but dismissed their appeal for default in payment of pre-deposit amount of Rs.12.00 Lakhs. He subm...
Commissioner of Customs, Andhra Pradesh Vs. M/S. Knoah Solution Pvt Lt ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Decided on: May-19-2014
B.S.V. Murthy, J. 1. The miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue for early hearing is dismissed as infructuous as the appeal itself is taken up for final hearing. 2. The issue involved is refund claim of CENVAT Credit paid on input service used in output services which are exempted, as a result of which there was accumulated CENVAT Credit. The total amount of CENVAT credit is Rs.17, 14,716/- and the period involved is October 2006 to June 2007. 3. Heard both the sides. 4. The learned Special Counsel on behalf of the Revenue submitted that a view was taken by the original authority that the back office service and call centre services provided by the respondent was to be treated as IT services and on that ground the claim was rejected. After going through the agreement and on a plain reading of Agreement between the foreign principal and respondent, we find that services rendered by the respondent can be considered as a service rendered on ...
Abhoy Chandra Bakshi Vs. Commr. of Service Tax, Kolkata
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-2014
DR. D.M. Misra, J. 1. This is an application filed seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs.57.90 Lakhs and penalty of equal amount imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act and Rs.5,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The Ld. Chartered Accountant for the applicant submits that the entire service charges on which demand has been confirmed relates to Repair and Maintenance of Roads/High Ways. He submits that the period involved in the present case is from 2005-2006 to 2006-2007. He submits that in view of the retrospective amendment, vide Section 97 and 98 of the Finance Act, 2012, no Service Tax is leviable on the Repair and Maintenance service of roads. 3. Per contra, the Ld. A.R. for the Revenue submits that the applicant had not presented himself during adjudication proceedings. He has no objection in remanding the case to the Commissioner for deciding the issue afresh. 4. After hearing both sides, we find that the appeal itself could be disposed off at t...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »