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. Shyam Sel and Power Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, B ...
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 seeking waiver of predeposit of duty of Rs.2.22 crore and equal amount of penalty imposed under Rule 15(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 2. Ld. Advocate for the Applicant submits that during the relevant period i.e.August, 2010 to December, 2010, the Applicant had availed the CENVAT Credit on various itmes viz.,angles, channels, beams etc. as inputs, being used in the fabrication/manufacture of various machineries, which are capital goods, and in turn, installed and used in the factory for processing/manufacturing the finished goods namely, Sponge Iron. He submits that they had furnished a Chartered Engineers Certificate dated 10.04.2011, whereby they had furnished a detailed working of receipt, use of the said angles, channels, beams etc. in the manufacture of capital goods in their factory and also its use in the structurals. He submits that they had themselves calculated the quantity of such steel items that were used in the structura...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. M/S. Excellence Data Research Hyderabad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Decided on: May-19-2014
B.S.V. Murthy, J. 1. Respondent is registered for providing taxable service under the category of Business Support Service, online information and database access or retrieval service, maintenance and repair service, development and supply of content service. The respondent filed three different refund claims amounting to Rs.39,25,141/- claiming refund of service tax paid on input services which had accumulated because the same could not be used and the CENVAT credit was pertaining to the period from July 2007 to March 2008. The refund claims were rejected by the original authority on the ground that the respondents output service was information technology service which was excluded from the definition of Business Auxiliary Service and therefore the same was exempt from payment of service tax. Since the output service was exempt from service tax, the benefit of service tax paid on input services was not available as CENVAT credit at all. On this ground, the refund claims were rejected...
M/S. Adyant Education Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, and S. T ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-2014
DR. D.M. Misra, J 1. Heard both sides. 2. We find that the appellant had filed the present appeal against the interim order of the Ld. Commr. (Appeals) who has directed them to pay the entire amount of service tax confirmed dispensing with pre-deposit of interest and penalty. Against the said interim order, the appellant has filed an appeal before this Tribunal. 3. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the appeal is still pending before the Ld. Commr. (Appeals) and the appellant have come against the interim order passed under Section 35F of CEA, 1944 which should not to be entertained by this Tribunal, as it is not an order unser Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. 4. We find from the impugned order that the Ld. Commissioner has issued a direction to the appellant for pre-deposit of the service tax amount. The Appeal filed before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 is yet to be decided. In the result, we do not find merit in the appeal filed by the appellan...
M/S. Dlf Limited and Another Vs. Competition Commission of India and O ...
Court: Competition Appellate Tribunal
Decided on: May-19-2014
V.S. Sirpurkar, Chairman 1. In this judgment, we shall be dealing with Appeal Nos. 20 of 2011, 22 of 2011, 23 of 2011, 12 of 2012, 19 of 2012, 20 of 2012, 8 of 2013, 9 of 2013, 11 of 2013 and 29 of 2013. These Appeals can be grouped as under:- Group 1: Appeal No. 20 of 2011, Appeal No. 22 of 2011 and Appeal No. 19 of 2012. Group 2: Appeal No. 23 of 2011, Appeal No. 12 of 2012, Appeal No. 20 of 2012 and Appeal No. 29 of 2013. Group 3: Appeal No. 8 of 2013, Appeal No. 9 of 2013, and Appeal No. 11 of 2013. 2. The 1st group consists of Appeal No. 20 of 2011 which relates to Competition Commission of India (in short the 'CCI') Case No. 19 of 2010 in which Belaire Owners Association CBOA0 was the Informant. Appeal 22 of 2011 relates to CCI Case No. 18 of 2010 in which Park Place Resident Welfare Association ('PP-RWA' was the Informant. Appeal No. 19 of 2012 relates to CCI Case No. 67 of 2010 in which the Magnolia Flat Owners Association ('MFOA') and one Shri Rahul Kapoor were the Informant. ...
M/S. Surat Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. Cce Surat I
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: May-19-2014
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. This Stay Petition is filed for waiver of pre-deposit of an amount confirmed as in-eligible CENVAT Credit, interest thereof and penalties imposed. 2. Ld.Counsel submits that the appellant has already paid amount of CENVAT Credit which is sought to be reversed as in-eligible CENVAT Credit and is ready to pay the interest and prays that the matter may be disposed of finally by setting aside the penalty. 3. After hearing both sides for some time on the Stay Petition, I find that the appeal itself could be disposed of at this juncture. Accordingly, considering the amount that has been deposited by the appellant as enough deposit to hear and dispose the appeal, I dispose the Stay Petition and take up the appeal for disposal. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. On perusal of the records, I find that the appellant has availed CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid on Goods Transport Agency services for the period December 2010 to July 2011 and show cause notice wa...
Ba Continuum India Pvt Ltd and Another Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Ce ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Decided on: May-19-2014
B.S.V. Murthy, J. Synopsis of facts and important arguments as submitted before us are as under: œTABLE? Facts The Appellant is established as 100% EOU and registered with the Director, STPI, Hyderabad, for export of software. They provide back office services and customer care services to M/s. Bank of America, NA and Bank of America Securities, LLC, both are situated in the United States of America. The appellant is registered within the jurisdiction of the respondent as a provider of output service, which was initially business auxiliary services and subsequently in respect of other taxable services such as support service for business and commerce, information technology, software services, management consultancy, commercial training and coaching, GTA service, Manpower Recruitment and various input services on which it is liable to pay the service tax on reverse charge basis. Such services include BAS, ITSS, Technical Inspection/Certification service, Commercial Training and C...
C.C. and C.E. Vs. B.N. Gururaj
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Decided on: May-19-2014
B.S.V. Murthy, J. 1. In all these appeals filed by the Revenue, the issue involved is common and therefore all the appeals are taken up together and a common order is being passed. The matter was heard for quite some time on 8.5.2014 and it was agreed that both the Revenue as well as the respondents will submit service-wise details and their classification. Accordingly the matter was heard once again today. 2. The issue involved in all these cases is accumulated CENVAT credit in respect of input services utilized for output services which are exported. The credit has been denied on the ground that original authority thought that the output services were not at all taxable and therefore input service credits could not have been taken at all. According to Revenue output service was classifiable under Information Technology Service (ITS) whereas it is claimed by the respondents that such services are classifiable under Business Support Service (BSS) or Business Auxiliary Service (BAS). Th...
M/S. Tiratna Enterprise Vs. Commr of Central Excise, Dibrugarh
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.6,32,048/- and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Advocate Shri Devaraj Sahu for the applicant submits that they have already deposited an amount of Rs.4,04,295/- before issuance of show cause notice. He submits that the Ld. Commr. (Appeals) has rejected their appeal on the ground of delay in filing the appeal before him. Explaining the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. Commr. (Appeals), he submits that the applicant had handed over all the papers to him in December, 2009. He submits that as there was shifting of his residence and in the process of such shifting, the Appeal papers were bundled with some other files and therefore, could not be traced and the appeal was filed late resulting into delay of two months and twenty days. He submits that in support he has filed an affidavit before the Ld. Commr. (Appeals)...
Wg Cdr S. Yadav Vs. Uoi and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2014
R.C. Mishra, Member, (J): 1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, was filed before the High Court of Delhi as far back as on 17th July, 1992 for issuance of an appropriate writ/direction/order (i) declaring that the punishment of œSevere Displeasure? of AOC-in-C, Western Air Command for a period of 18 months w. e. f. 25th November 1991, awarded to the petitioner vide order No. WAC/C-2801/5/P1 dated 03-12-1991 was illegal and liable to be set aside and; (ii) mandating the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the rank of Gp Capt afresh, after expunging the œsevere displeasure? remark from his service record and in case he was found suitable for promotion, to promote him retrospectively to the rank of Gp Capt with all consequential benefits including original seniority as against his batchmates. 2. Background facts , which are practically undisputed, may be summarized as under:- A. At the relevant point of time the petit...
Janardan Kundalikrao Pharande and Others Vs. Ministry of Environment a ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2014
1. Originally, Writ Petition (PIL) No.240 of 2009 was filed by Applicants in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. By order dated October 25th 2013, Hon'ble High Court (Coram : Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and M.S. Sonak, JJ.) directed transfer of the Writ Petition to this Tribunal in view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan Vrs. Union of India". The Writ Petition was thereafter registered as an Application under Section 14, 15, 16 read with Section 18 of the National Green Tribunal Act 2010. The Applicants' Counsel sought certain amendments in the pleadings on basis of analysis of samples conducted later on through an independent agency. By Order dated January 13 th 2014, the request for amendment was allowed. 2. The Applicants, in continuation of their pleadings in the petition, filed amended pleadings in this Tribunal. However, it may be noted that they have not filed a composite copy of the original pleadings alongwith amendment of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »