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.
Sangam Wires Pvt. Ltd Hyderabad Ap Vs. Patel Steel Wires Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Decided on: May-05-2014
B.S.V. Murthy, J. 1. In appeal No.ST/28212/2013, there is a miscellaneous application for recall of the interim order passed by this Tribunal. Since the appeal itself is taken up for final hearing, the miscellaneous application is dismissed as infructuous. 2. In both the appeals the issue involved is common and they are taken up together and a common order is being passed. In both the cases, the appeals have been dismissed for non-compliance with stay order passed by the learned Commissioner requiring the appellants to deposit 50% of the duty demanded. It was submitted by the learned counsel that the issue involved is valuation of goods cleared to their sister concerns. It is the submission of the appellants that the appellants had valued the goods correctly and adopted the price charged to individual buyers for clearance to their related concerns. However, the department has taken a view that duty should have been paid as per the provision of Rule 8 of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules...
M/S. Dcw Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-05-2014
1. Heard both sides and perused the records. 2. The appellant paid service tax on Goods Transport Agency Service from Cenvat account during the period July, 2005 to Mar. 06. Adjudicating authority by the impugned order confirmed the demand of service tax of Rs.8,37,108/- along with interest which is to be paid in cash through TR-6 challan instead of payment through Cenvat account. 3. The learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant submits that the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh Vs Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. reported in 2007 (7) S.T.R.26 (Tri.-Del.) held that there is no restriction for utilizing of Cenvat credit by the manufacturing units towards payment of service tax as service provider on G.T.A. service as per CBEandC Manual of Supplementary Instructions and dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue. The decision of the Tribunal was upheld by the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh Vs ...
M/S. Time Ads and Publicity, Kerala Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Decided on: May-05-2014
B.S.V. Murthy, J. 1. There is a delay of 6 days in filing the appeal and the learned CA submitted that the delay occurred because of a mistake on his part. We consider that the delay is required to be condoned and condone the same. 2. According to the learned CA, the entire demand of service tax has arisen in the case of the appellant because the department considered that service tax should be paid on the basis of income shown in the balance sheet which is prepared following accrual method. He submits that appellants paid entire amount of service tax duty with interest before issue of show-cause notice and therefore no show-cause notice should have been issued in this case at all. While he does not dispute the duty liability confirmed amounting to more than Rs.1.22 crores, it is his submission that since appellants have paid the entire amount with interest, no further action is called for. 3. It took considerable time to understand what exactly the facts are, analyze the same and appl...
Ms. Sangeeta Sethia and Another Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of I ...
Court: SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Decided on: May-05-2014
Jog Singh, Member 1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated April 4, 2013 passed by the learned Whole Time Member (WTM) of the Respondent directing the two appellants and one Mr. Swaminathan Rajendran to make public announcement to the shareholders of the Filatex Fashions Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as œtarget company?), within 90 days of the date of this order, in terms of SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as œTakeover Regulations?) and to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the offer price from the date when the appellants acquired shares of the target company. Appellant No. 1 Ms. Sangeeta Sethia who claims to be a bonafide investor of the target company and the Appellant No. 2 happens to be the Promoter and Managing Director of the target company. Both the appellants are wife and husband respectively. 2. Appellant No. 1 along with said S. Rajendran acquired 6 lac shares in...
M/S. International Cylinder(P) Ltd. and Others Vs. Competition Commiss ...
Court: Competition Appellate Tribunal
Decided on: May-05-2014
1. This is an application by the CCI seeking extension of period by another 45 days w.e.f. 1st May, 2014. 2. Number of Cylinder Manufacturer Concerns had filed appeals before us challenging the order of the CCI holding them guilty of the breach of some provision of the Competition Act. As also the resultant penalties had ordered by the CCI. The appeals were partly heard and allowed in the sense that though the appeals were dismissed on merits the Tribunal remanded the matter to the CCI with the direction to re-hear the parties on the question of penalties. Those penalties were directed to be decided in the light of the observations made by this Tribunal. 3. This Tribunal had given the time upto 1st May, 2014. It was also observed that the parties were to approach the CCI by 1st February, 2014 for the purpose of filing their documents as well as the applications etc. That did not happen. Some of the parties did approach the CCI; however, some did not approach the CCI in time. Therefore,...
M/S. Swati Enterprises, Rajkot Vs. Cce Rajkot
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: May-02-2014
02/05/2014 H.K. Thakur, J. 1. Appeal No.ST/371/2011-SM has been filed by the appellant against OIA No. 8/2011/COMMR(A)/CMC/RAJ, dt.13.01.2011 passed by the first appellate authority upholding the OIO No.S.Tax/10/2010, dt.18/19.10.2010 passed by Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Dn.II, Rajkot. Appeal No.E/370/2011 has been filed by the appellant against OIA No. 42/2011/COMMR(A)/CMC/RAJ, dt.09.03.2011 holding that penalty under Section 76 of Finance Act, 1994 against the appellant is also imposable. 2. Shri P.V. Sheth (Adv.) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that Larger Bench in Order No.M/11335/2014, dt.18.03.2014 in the case of Panchmahal Steel Ltd Vs CCE Vadodara-II in Appeal No.ST/154/2007-DB has held such credit to be admissible. It was his case that on merit the issue has been settled in favour of the assessees that duty from CENVAT Credit can be paid for discharging Service Tax liability on reverse charge basis. That once on merit issue is decided in favour of the ...
Commissioner of Central Excise and S.T., Vapi Vs. Manoj Chauhan, Chart ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: May-02-2014
H.K. Thakur, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue with respect to allowing option of payment of 25% reduced penalty against the respondent on the amount of duty after allowing cum duty benefit. 2. Shri Manoj Chauhan (Chartered Accountant) appearing on behalf of the respondent argued that no option of payment of reduced penalty of 25% under Section 11AC was allowed by the adjudicating authority and granting that option after allowing cum-duty benefit, by the first appellate authority was correct in law. He relied upon the following case laws that such option can be given by the appellate authorities:- (a). CCE Surat vs. Krishnaram Dyeing and Finishing Works [2013 (298) ELT 276 (Guj.) (b). CCE, Ahmedabad vs. Ratnamani Metals and Tubes Limited [2013 (296) ELT 327 (Guj.)] 3. Shri J. Nair (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterated the ground of appeal filed by the Revenue. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue regarding giving an option of 25% reduc...
M/S. Fast Way Transmission Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Kansan News Pvt. L ...
Court: Competition Appellate Tribunal
Decided on: May-02-2014
HON'BLE MEMBER, SHRI RAHUL SARIN: 1. An appeal has been filed under Section 53-B of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") challenging the order of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) dated 03.07.2012 passed in Case No. 26/2011. 2. At the outset, it will be useful to recount brief facts of the case. An information was filed by M/s. Kansan News Pvt. Ltd. (Informant before CCI and the respondent No. 1 herein) under Section 19(1)(a) of the Act for the alleged infringement of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. The informant is a broadcaster of news and current affairs TV channel named 'Day and Night News' operating in the states of Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Union Territory of Chandigarh. The Appellants are engaged in the business of distribution of cable network channels of broadcasters. They are M/s. Fastway Transmmissions Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant No. 1), M/s. Hathway Sukhamrit Cable and Datacom Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant No. 2) and M/s. Creative Cable Network ...
M/S. Bharat Sanchan Nigam Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. and S.T. Bhavnagar
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: May-02-2014
H.K. Thakur, J. 1. When this case was called out for hearing, it was argued by Shri Chirag Patel, Chartered Accountant appearing on behalf of the appellant that Commissioner (Appeals) in this case ordered a pre-deposit of 25% of the Cenvat Credit denied by the adjudicating authority. However, for non-payment of the pre-deposit ordered the appeal was dismissed by the first appellate authority for non-compliance. It was his case that for subsequent period on the same issue Additional Commissioner under OIO No.AHM-STX-003-ADC-024-13, dt. 28.05.2013 has allowed Cenvat Credit on the basis of ISD Certificates issue against which department has not filed appeal. He also produces copies of ISD invoices issued during the relevant period involved in this appeal but fairly admitted that these documents were not produced before the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. From the facts available on record, it seems that the issue for the subsequent period has been decided in favour of the appellant on the I...
M/S. Dupen Laboratories Pvt Ltd and Another Vs. Cceandst., Daman
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: May-02-2014
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. These appeals are directed against OIA No. CS/162-1163/DMN/ VAPI-I/2011-12 dtd 23.12.2011. 2. Appeal No, SP/176.2012 is filed by the assessee while the appeal No. ST/177/2012 is file by the employee. Since both these appeals are arising out of same impugned order, they are being disposed by a common order. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. The issue involved the main appellants case is that the main appellant has availed Cenvat Credit of Service Tax paid by the Security Service. During the course of audit and subsequent investigation, it was noticed that the Security Service provider had not paid Service Tax amount, though collected from the main appellant. On being pointed out, the appellant voluntarily paid such Service Tax credit availed on 8.2.2008. Show Cause Notice dated 1.4.2009 was issued for the demand of the amount of the recovery of wrongly availed Cenvat Credit, alongwith interest and for imposition of penalties on the main appellant as well...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »