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.
East Coast Railway Rail Sadan, Chandrasekharpur Vs. Odisha Electricity ...
Court: Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on: May-02-2014
Surendra Kumar, Judicial Member. 1. The Appellant/Review Petitioner, East Coast Railway has filed this Petition under Section 120 of the Electricity Act, 2003 seeking review of the judgment dated 29.1.2014 passed by this Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 153 of 2012 on the following grounds: (a) that no finding, on the metering issue, has been given in the impugned judgment, inspite of recording of the submissions of both the parties. (b) that the views of the learned Orissa Commission, expressed in the impugned order, against which the aforesaid Appeal No. 153 of 2012 was filed before this Appellate Tribunal are against CEA Regulations, OERC Regulations and Forum of Regulator of Model Supply Code and the earlier verdict of this Appellate Tribunal. The submissions raised during the hearing of the Appeal before this Appellate Tribunal have again been reiterated in the body of the instant Review Petition. Thus, the instant Review Petition is confined to the metering issue alleging that no...
Reliance Telecom Limited Vs. S. Tel Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT
Decided on: May-02-2014
Aftab Alam, Chairperson. This petition is for recovery of Rs.1,11,70,648=00 from the respondent as dues of Inter-connect Usage Charges for the period January 2010 to January 2012. The basic facts of the case are simple and incontrovertible. The petitioner is the holder of licence granted by the Central Government under section 4(ii) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. At the relevant time the respondent too held a licence under section 4(ii) of the Act. It may, however, be stated at the outset that the respondents licence was one of the 122 licences cancelled by the Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 2 February 2012 in Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India 1 (2012) 3 SCC 1. In regard to the period to which the petition relates, the parties entered into an Inter-connection Agreement for the telecom service areas Bihar, Orissa and Himachal Pradesh on 29 October 2009 and another Inter-connection Agreement for the telecom service areas Assam and North East on 12 Decembe...
M/S. TuticorIn Port Trust, TuticorIn Vs. Cce, Tirunelveli
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-02-2014
1. The applicant filed this application for condonation of delay of 57 days involved in the filing of the appeal. The learned AR on behalf of Revenue submits that the delay of filing appeal would be 65 days. None appears on behalf of the applicant despite issue of notice. The learned AR submits that the matter was adjourned on several occasions but nobody appeared on behalf of the applicant. 2. After considering the submissions of the learned AR and on perusal of the records, I find that the matter was adjourned on 2.8.2013, 10.1.2014 and 7.3.2014. It seems that the applicant is not interested to proceed in the matter. Accordingly, the COD application along with stay and appeal are dismissed for non-prosecution....
Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd and Others Vs. Rajasthan Electricity Re ...
Court: Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on: May-02-2014
Rakesh Nath, Tehnical Member. 1. Whether the State Electricity Regulatory Commission can fix the cost of meter to be charged by the Distribution Licensee from a consumer for replacement of a meter which has been damaged due to cause attributable to the consumer is the issue raised in this Appeal. 2. The Distribution Licensees are the Appellants. Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (œState Commission?) is the Respondent no.1. The Respondent no.2 is a consumer. The impugned order is dated 17.8.2012 passed by the State Commission. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under: a) On 27.12.2011 the Respondent no.2 filed a petition before the State Commission challenging the fixing of meter cost by the Distribution Licensees, the Appellants herein, for replacement of meter damaged due to cause attributable to the consumer. b) The State Commission vide its order dated 17.8.2012 decided that though it had no power to fix the cost of meters in view of Section 46 read with section 2...
M/S. Naihati Jute Mills Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excis ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-2014
Dr. D. M. Misra, J. 1. This is an application for waiver of cenvat credit of Rs.5,00,855/- and equal amount of penalty imposed under Rule 57U (6) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. At the outset, the ld. Advocate appearing for the Applicant, has submitted that the issue relates to availment of modvat credit during the period from August, 1995 to February, 1997 on various capital goods. He submits that they have availed modvat credit on the said capital goods in accordance with the law and under Rule 57Q of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. He submits that the Department has proposed to deny the modvat credit on such capital goods on the ground that in view of the sub-rule (5) of Rule 57R, the value being shown as revenue expenditure in their books of accounts, therefore, they would not be eligible for modvat credit on such capital goods. He submits that this Rule has been amended twice, initially, sub-rule (5) has been amended on 23.07.1996 incorporating there...
Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited and Others Vs. Tata Power ...
Court: Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on: May-02-2014
Surendra Kumar, Judicial Member. 1. This is an Appeal filed under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against the Order dated 10.10.2013 passed by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter called the State Commission) in Petition No. 49 of 2012 in the matter of The Tata Power Company Limited vs Power Corporation of Karnataka Limited and Ors whereby, the learned State Commission has held that the Respondent No.1, Tata Power Company Limited (hereinafter called Tata Power), who was the petitioner before the learned State Commission, is entitled for reimbursement of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) paid by it during the subsistence of the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) dated 10.2.1999 and, further, directed that the Respondent No.1/Petitioner shall furnish a Bank Guarantee, in a form acceptable to the Appellants and keep it valid for next 10 years, undertaking to repay the amount paid to it towards MAT, which gets set-off in future years against the regular income tax li...
M/S. Patel Air Freight Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and S.T., Va ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: May-02-2014
H.K. Thakur, J. 1. This stay application and appeal are directed against the OIA No. VAD-EXCUS-001-APP-494-13-14 dated 15.11.2013 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Vadodara. The issue involved in these proceedings is that appellant has taken cenvat credit on the Service Tax paid by the service provider but Revenue has taken the objection that payment of such bills was made at discounted value. 2. Shri S.R. Dixit (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant relied upon the CBEC Circular No. 877/15/2008-CX dated 17.11.2008 and Circular No. 122/3/2010-ST dated 30.4.2011 and argued that Service Tax has not been paid to the service provider proportionate to the reduced amount. It was his case that the entire service tax paid on the invoices is admissible as cenvat credit. 3. Shri Alok Srivastava, (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue defended the orders passed by the lower authorities. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appella...
Blue Park Foods Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Expo ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-01-2014
Pradip Kumar Das, J. 1. Common issue is involved in these appeals and therefore all are taken up together for disposal. 2. Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that he has no instruction from the clients in respect of these appeals. On a query from the Bench, Ld. advocate submits that he has filed Vakalatnama which is kept on record. In this context, Ld. AR submits that appeals are old one and no initiative is taken by the appellant. 3. After hearing the submission of both sides and on perusal of the records, it seems that the appellants are not interested to proceed in these appeals. Therefore, all the appeals are dismissed for non-prosecution....
M/S. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Se ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-01-2014
Dr. D.M. Misra, J. 1. This is an Application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs.4.78 Crores and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 78 and penalty under Section 76 of Finance Act, 1994. 2. At the outset Shri J.P.Khaitan, Ld.Sr.Advocate for the Applicant submits that during the period from October, 2004 to March, 2008, the Appellant had rendered services to M/s.NTPC against three contracts. Broadly, the said contracts relate to supply of imported/indigenous material and supply of services. It is his submission that the supply of services, could also be bifurcated, namely, installation and commissioning services and civil construction services. He submits that on the basis of a letter dated 23.11.2011 by M/s.NTPC during the course of adjudication proceeding, copy of which was not handed over to them, the Ld.Commissioner had concluded that the entire amount of Rs.52,15,40,000/- related to installation services only and there were no civil construction services re...
Madhusudan C Thakkar Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India Sebi B ...
Court: SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Decided on: May-01-2014
J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer (Oral) Counsel for appellant undertakes to remove all objections within a period of four weeks from today and also seeks liberty to substitute a composite appeal by inserting all the relevant documents. Undertaking give by the counsel is accepted and liberty is granted to the appellant to substitute the appeal compilation by a composite compilation within a period of four weeks from today. Accordingly, Appeal no.1 of 2014 filed under Rule 8(5) of Securities Appellate Tribunal Procedure Rules, 2000 is allowed, impugned order passed by Registrar (Offg.) on 11/3/2014 is set aside and Appeal (L) No.24 of 2014 is restored to file subject to fulfillment of aforesaid conditions with no order as to costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »