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.
Basmati Securities Private Limited Vs. Securities and Exchange Board o ...
Court: SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Decided on: May-09-2014
J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer (Oral) Misc. Application No. 56 of 2014 1. By Miscellaneous Application No. 56 of 2014 applicant seeks condonation of 725 days delay in filing Appeal No. 80 of 2014 wherein orders passed by Whole Time Member of Securities and Exchange Board of India on September 21, 2011 and April 25, 2012 are challenged. For the reasons stated in the application, delay is condoned. 2. Miscellaneous Application is disposed of accordingly. Appeal No. 80 of 2014 1. This appeal is filed to challenge ex-parte ad-interim order passed by the Whole Time Member of Securities and Exchange Board of India (œSEBI? for short) on September 21, 2011 and confirmatory order passed on April 25, 2012 whereby the appellant is inter alia restrained from dealing in securities in any manner whatsoever until further orders. 2. Counsel for the parties state that instead of going into the merits of the case the appeal may be disposed of by directing appellant to file reply to the show ca...
Santosh Ku. Agarwal, New Delhi and Another Vs. Ministry of Railways Th ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2014
P.K. Basu, Member (A). 1. Since both OA No.4366/2013 and OA No.270/2014 raise the same issue, they are being disposed off by this common order. 2. The applicants belong to Indian Railways Service of Engineers (IRSE) of 1982 batch. The railway prepares a shortlist of officers of different categories i.e. IRSE, IRTS, IRSME etc. every year through which shortlisted officers are posted as Divisional Railway Managers (DRM) in the railways. For the year 2012-13, the applicants were included in one such shortlist under the IRSE category and were placed at serial number 3, 5 and 6. Similarly, there were other shortlisted candidates from other streams. This shortlist was finalized on 26.03.2013. The applicants have filed this OA seeking the relief that the respondents be directed to provide the details of guidelines adopted for formation of DRM panel and also to keep the DRM shortlist of 2012-13 in continuation for a minimum duration of one year from the date of formation of the said panel with...
Jaggaram Choudhary Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-09-2014
Pradip Kumar Das, J. Both the appeals are arising out of a common order. None appears on behalf of the appellants. Ld. A.R on behalf of Revenue submits that the matter was adjourned on several occasions at the request of the appellants. On perusal of records, I find that the matter is adjourned on 1.11.2013, 20.12.2013, 7.2.2014. Today also, no body turned up on behalf of the appellants. It seems that the appellants are not interested to proceed in the matter. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed for non-prosecution....
M/S. Nirantar Security Pvt Ltd Vs. Cst. Ahmedabad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: May-09-2014
H.K. Thakur, J. 1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 234/ 2012 (STC)/ AK/ Commr. (A)/ Ahd. dated 28/09/2012, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-IV), Central Excise, Ahmedabad. 2. Shri Motibhai A. Patel, Ld. Consultant for the appellant, argued as under: (a). That the appellant had paid service tax amounting to Rs. 9,11,294/- against their service tax liability of Rs. 8,13,122/- for the period April 2006 to September 2006 thereby leading to excess payment of service tax to the tune of Rs. 1,08,172/- (Rs. 9,11,294/- minus Rs. 8,13,122/-). The reason for excess payment of service tax is attributed to calculation mistake on the part of an employee of the appellant attending to the work of service tax. (b). That there was no dispute on the excess payment of service tax of Rs. 1,08,172/- during the period April 2006 to September 2006. (c). That the appellant has correctly adjusted the excess paid service tax against its service tax liability for the month of October, 2006 ...
Pankaj Grover, New Delhi Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, New Del ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2014
Dr. B.K. Sinha, Member (A): 1. The instant OA has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The applicant here is not aggrieved by any particular order of the respondents. Rather, he is aggrieved by the respondents not giving him pay scale of Rs.14300-18300/- (Rs.37000-67000+GP of Rs.8700/-) despite the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission and its acceptance by the Government. 2. The case of the applicant briefly put is that he joined as Assistant Engineer (Civil) in SSB in the year 1989 and promoted to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) on 23.12.1998 in the pay scale of Rs.10000-325-15200 (Revised pay scale in PB-3 Rs.15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs.6600 as per 6th CPC) and thereafter in the year 2007, he was granted 2nd MACP in the pay scale of Rs.15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs.7600 w.e.f. 01.09.2008. He was finally promoted to the rank of Superintending Engineer vide the order dated 01.04.2009 in the pay scale of Rs. 12000-16500 (revised pay ...
Visalam Rangarajan, New Delhi Vs. the Secretary, Ministry of Water Res ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2014
Dr. B.K. Sinha, Member (A): 1. In the instant Original Application, the dispute is that whether the applicant, as a consequence of 2nd financial upgradation under ACP Scheme, should be granted scale of Rs.5000-8000/- as has already been granted to her or Rs.5500-9000/- as is being claimed by her. 2. The applicant, vide this OA, has sought the following reliefs:- (i). To declare the action of the respondents in not granting to the applicant the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 as 2nd financial upgradation as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional. (ii). To declare the action of the respondents in taking decision for encadering the post of Time Keeper to CSCS after retirement of applicant is illegal and arbitrary. (iii).To direct the respondents to grant pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 as a 2nd financial upgradation under ACP Scheme with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay. (iv). To allow the OA with cost. (v).Pass any further orders as this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in ...
M/S. Rasna Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.S.T. Service Tax Ahmedabad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: May-09-2014
H.K. Thakur, J. 1. Appeals No. ST/17-18/2011-SM, filed by M/s. Rasna Private Limited, Ahmedabad, are directed against Orders-in-Appeal No.365-366/2010(STC)/MM/Commr.(A)/AHD., dt.05.10.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-IV), Central Excise, Ahmedabad. 2. As both the appeals are based on same facts, these are being disposed of by this common order. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, manufacturer of excisable goods, was liable to pay service tax under reverse charge mechanism on Transportation of Goods by Road Service (GTA service for the sake of brevity) received by them during the period 01.01.2005 to 30.09.2005 and 01.10.2007 to 29.02.2008. Appellant discharged their service tax liability for these periods through CENVAT credit instead of cash. The revenue objected to the payment of service tax on GTA service through CENVAT Credit on the ground that as per Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, CENVAT credit of input / capital goods / input service could only be...
Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Others Vs. Raj West Power Limit ...
Court: Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on: May-09-2014
Rakesh Nath, Technical Member. 1. This Review Petition has been filed by Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited. and others for Review of judgment dated 29.10.2013 passed by this Tribunal in Appeal no. 236 of 2012. 2. The main contention of the Review Petitioners/ Respondents is that letter dated 23.6.2008 from Raj West Power Ltd. to Energy Secretary, Government of Rajasthan was not considered by the Tribunal while giving the findings and had this letter been considered, the conclusion in the case would have been different. 3. We have heard Shri P.N. Bhandari, Learned Counsel for the Review Petitioners/Respondents and Shri M.G. Ramachandran, Learned Counsel for the Respondent/ Appellant. 4. Shri P.N. Bhandari, Learned Counsel for the Review Petitioners has submitted that M/s. Raj West had admitted in letter dated 23.6.2008 that Rs. 2.43/- was the actual tariff which had perhaps escaped the attention of the Tribunal and this was an apparent error on the face of the record. He has also made...
M/S. Spectramix Plastics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and S.T., ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: May-09-2014
H.K. Thakur, J. 1. The Appeal Nos. E/ 612/ 2012-SM and E/ 613/ 2012-SM, filed by M/s Spectramix Plastics, are directed against Orders-in-Appeal No. CS/ 13-14/ DMN/ NDMN/ 2012-13 dated 08.05.2012, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Daman. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed two refund claims of Rs. 4,74,415/- and Rs. 14,89,063/- on 22.03.2011 under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 due to accumulation of CENVAT Credit to this extent on account of export of goods under Letter of Undertaking (LUT) during the quarters from April to June, 2009 and July to September, 2009, which were rejected by the original adjudicating authority vide two separate Orders-in-Original on the ground that the appellant had not supplied certain documents and details to verify appellants eligibility to the refund claims, and also on the ground of time bar under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. Shri Willingdon C., Ld. Advocate...
Ntpc Limited Vs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission and Others
Court: Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on: May-08-2014
Surendra Kumar, Judicial Member. 1. The present appeal has been filed, under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003, by the petitioner/appellant NTPC Limited against the order dated 28.05.2013, passed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter called the Central Commission) in Petition No. 269 of 2009, relating to the determination of generation tariff for Talcher Super Thermal Power Station (STPS), Stage-II (2000 MW) for the period from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2014. 2. In the impugned order, the Central Commission has disallowed the following items under additional capital expenditure, namely:- (a) Claim of Rs. 10.35 crore for purchase of Generator Transformer, (b) Claim of Rs. 23.21 crore for balance civil works, (c) Claim of Rs. 48 lakh for Energy Monitoring System (EMS) and (d) Claim of Rs. 4528 lakh for purchase of wagons and locos. 3. The Central Commission has erred in disallowing the above claims on the grounds such as; the new Generator Transformer will only b...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »