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.
Wansla Bainsla Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi Through Its Secretary (Edu ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2014
P.K. Basu, Member (A): The applicant is working as a teacher in Central School (Kendriya Vidyalaya) since December 2002. She applied for the post of PGT (English) in pursuance of advertisement issued by the respondents and received the offer of appointment dated 18.10.2004. As per the requirement of offer of appointment, she underwent medical examination on 27-28.01.2005. The doctor detected some defect in her eye. The applicant clarified that she had undergone treatment for retinal detachment of right eye in 1992 and pseudophokia of left eye in 1989 i.e. after the surgeries. The applicant has completed her education B.Ed., M.Ed. etc. Thereafter, she joined Kendriya Vidyalaya and has been working as a teacher since then. For the present PGT post, after series of medical tests (also ordered by the Honble High Court), the respondents issued letter dated 11.05.2009 declaring her `unfit. 2. This application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash medical report dated 8.04....
Priyanka Fashions, Nellore. Ap. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Central E ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Decided on: May-07-2014
B.S.V. Murthy, J. 1. Nobody is present on behalf of the appellant. However, the learned counsel for the appellants has requested to decide the issue on the basis of written submissions wherein he has submitted that appellant is a lady entrepreneur who started her business as self-employment and deserves a sympathetic treatment. 2. Even though we are inclined and would have given a very sympathetic treatment to the appellant as requested by the learned counsel, we are unable to do so and we are compelled to decide the appeal itself at this stage in view of the observations that will be made in the next paragraph. 3. In this case, the appeal has been dismissed on the ground that the same has been filed beyond the condonable period before the learned Commissioner (A). The appeal was received in the office of the Commissioner (A) on 10.1.2013 and according to the ST-4 form, impugned Order-in-Original had been served on 26.9.2011 and hence there was a delay of 382 days which could not have ...
Mercury Fittings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-06-2014
Pradip Kumar Das, J. 1. The learned Authorised Representative on behalf of Revenue raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the appeal. He submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with stay order in terms of section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He submits that no appeal is maintainable before Tribunal against the dismissal of appeal for non-compliance of stay order. He relies upon the following decisions of the Tribunal:- (a).Aakash Cable TV Network Vs CC and Excise, Jaipur-II 2013-TIOL-1807-CESTAT-DEL (b).Venus Rubbers Vs CCE, Coimbatore Final Order No.40596/2013 dt. 22.11.2013 He also relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs CCE (A) Chennai - 2006 (202) ELT 591 (Mad.). He further submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Prakash D. Mehta Vs Collector of Customs - 1989 (39) ELT 178 (SC) held that Section 129E of the Customs Act provides a conditio...
Rajesh Kumar Tiwari Air Customs Officer, Igi Airport, New Delhi Vs. th ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2014
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A): This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:- œA. Pass and order directing the respondents to remove the name of the applicant from the doubtful integrity list. B. Pass and order declaring the suspension order C.No.VIII (IandV) 26/13/CUS/09/3448 Dated 6/2/2009 void ab initio and retrospectively quashing the same.? 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant who is a Group B Non Gazetted Officer of Central Excise and Customs is presently working as Air Customs Officer at IGI Airport, New Delhi. On 6.9.2009, he was served with a suspension order under sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The said order stated that he was being suspended in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter on their own accord the respondents revoked the said suspension order on 17.9.2009. No reasons were, however, communicated to the applicant. Nor was any chargesheet was served on him. The applicant remained posted in his...
M/S. Pagoda Shipping Corpn and Others Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Air ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-2014
Dr. D. M. Misra, J. 1. These six Appeals are filed against the Order-in-Original No. Kol/Cus/Airport/Admn./23/2005 dated 28.12.2005, by the above mentioned Appellants. Another Customs Appeal No.172/06 is filed by Shri Sandip Goel, Director of M/s Karan Exports (India) Pvt. Ltd. against the same Order-in-Original, but not listed today. Since it arises out of the same order, involving the same issue, with the consent of both sides, the said Appeal is taken up for disposal along with the listed Appeals. 2. The ld. Advocate, appearing for the Appellants, has submitted that subsequent to the passing of the adjudication order, the Appellants had procured certain evidences, namely, Export General Manifest as filed by the Shipping lines from the Customs Department under Right To Information Act, 2005. It is his submission that the said evidences have a direct bearing on the issue and accordingly, they have filed Miscellaneous Applications for introduction of such evidences before this Tribunal...
Jyothy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-06-2014
Pradip Kumar Das, J. 1. As the issue lies in a narrow compass, after disposing the stay application, the appeal is taken up for hearing. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. The learned counsel submits that the adjudicating authority dropped the show cause notice. Revenue filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that, by the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order and allowed the department's appeal without determination of duty along with interest and penalty. He submits that there is no determination of duty and therefore the impugned order is not sustainable. 3. On the other hand, Ld. A.R on behalf of Revenue submits that appellant had not clearly stated as to whether they have challenged the penalty as proposed in the SCN. 4. After hearing both sides and on perusal of records, I find that by show cause notice dt. 17.2.2011, it was proposed to recover wrongly availed credit of Rs.40,26,495/- under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Cr...
Neel Choudhary, Madhya Pradesh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Through Pr ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2014
(NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CENTRAL ZONAL BENCH BHOPAL) Dalip Singh, J. Original Application No. 18 of 2013 1. This Original Application has been filed under Section 18 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 highlighting the problems arising out of running of marriage gardens, function halls and similar activities of holding parties etc. in such premises in and around the city of Bhopal resulting in pollution of the environment with particular reference to non-observance of the Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 (in short referred to as MSW Rules) as well as violation of the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (in short referred to as EP Act) and the Rules made thereunder as also the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (in short referred to as Water Act) and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981(in short referred to as Air Act). The prayer made is for seeking a direction against the Respondents for strict impl...
P. Sasi Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2014
V.N. Gaur, Member (A): The applicant, an Ex-Assistant of Ministry of Defence had originally filed this OA against the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority (DA) on 10.10.2007, with the following prayer: (i) Quash and set aside the orders No.A/27639/CAO/DD/01 dated 10.10.2007 of the Disciplinary Authority. (ii) Quash and set aside the order No.A/27639/CAO/DD/01 dated 7.4.2008 of the Appellate Authority. (iii) Direct the respondents to grant all consequential relief and other relief to which the applicant is entitled to.? 2. The case was heard and this Tribunal came to the following conclusion in its order dated 21.10.2010: œxxx xxx xxx The question is whether the power to hold further inquiry is available when some important witnesses were not available at the time of inquiry or were not examined for some other reason, the DA may ask the IO to record further evidence. This was not a situation. The witness after all the procedure adopted had not turned up, it cann...
Sub Maj Dan Singh Vs. Uoi and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2014
Short grievance of the petitioner is that he was convicted by the GCM and punishment of dismissal was awarded with one years R.I. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before this Tribunal, being T.A. No. 726 of 2009, which was allowed, vide order dated 23.09.2009 and conviction of the petitioner was set aside. A direction was issued that the petitioner shall be deemed to have been discharged from service from the date of dismissal. The order stands complied with by the respondents. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the only impediment in the way of the petitioner for grant of Honorary Commission was the conviction recorded by the GCM. The order of conviction having been set aside, therefore, he has a right to be considered for grant of honorary commission after his retirement. On the other hand, the stand of the respondents is that the petitioner has not completed the tenure of his service as he was deemed to have been discharged w.e.f. 28.05.1999 whereas t...
Commissiooner of Customs(Port), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Payodhi Foods Pvt. Lt ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-2014
Dr. I.P. Lal, J. 1. Heard both sides. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a show cause notice was issued to the Appellant proposing classification of dairy machine Icecream Candy making machine under CTH 84186990 attracting duty @ 7.5% BCD + 16% CVD + 2% Education Cess and 1% HS Education Cess + 4% ACD against their declared classification under CTH 8434200 and claiming the benefit of Exemption Notification No.6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006. Consequently differential duty of Rs.24,66,811/- was demanded from the Appellant. Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Appraising Group, 5A, Customs Hosue, Kolkata vide order dated 30.07.2008 dropped the proceedings. Being aggrieved Revenue filed review application before the Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) who rejected the said application on the count of time bar. Being aggrieved with this order, Appeal is filed before this forum. 3. Ld.A.R. for Revenue has submitted that Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) has rejected the Revenues Appeal merely on the ground that there w...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »