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. Laxmi Suiting, Jodhpur Vs. State of Rajasthan Through the Secreta ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2014
Swatanter Kumar (Chairperson). 1. By this judgment, we shall dispose of the above 62 appeals/applications, as they raise common questions of law, based upon somewhat similar facts before the Tribunal. 2. Thus, in view of above, it is not necessary for us to notice facts, in any greater detail, of all the appeals/applications. Suffice would it be to refer to the facts of the Original Application No. 358(THC)/2013 (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8074/2010) and limited reference of facts in other connected appeals/applications. FACTS: 3. The State of Rajasthan had handed over a piece of land to the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited (for short the œRIICO?) for the purpose of setting up an industrial area. RIICO planned the land into plots for leasing out to industrialists for erection/setting up/establishing industrial units. These industrial premises allotted by RIICO were to be used for manufacture of industrial products by the respective units...
Computer Age Management Services Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cent ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-01-2014
Pradip Kumar Das, J. 1. After hearing this matter at length, I find that the appeal may be decided at the stage of stay petition hearing. Accordingly, after disposing the stay application, the appeal is taken up for hearing. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The appellant is engaged in providing services such as "Share Transfer Agent", "Registrar to an issue" and "Renting of Immovable Property". The appellants made excess payment of tax by cash in the month of April 2009 against tax liabilities which they have adjusted in the months of May 2009, June 2009 and July 2009. A show cause notice dt. 15.11.2010 was issued on the ground that adjustments of tax liability in the subsequent months were not in conformity with Rule 6 (4A) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. Hence it was proposed to demand an amount of Rs.14,54,726/- towards tax short paid due to excess adjustment under Rule 6(4A) of the Service Tax Rules. It was also proposed demand of interest and imposition of penalty. The ...
Japfa Comfeed India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr of Central Excise, Haldia Comm ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-01-2014
DR. D.M. Misra, J. 1. This application is filed seeking waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs.59,73,849/- and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 78 and penalty under Section 76(not quantified) of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Consultant for the applicant submits that during the relevant period i.e. 2005-2006 to 2007-2008, the applicant had received services of goods transport agency(GTA) at their unit at Kharagpur. The Ld. Consultant submits that the said service tax liability on GTA services had been discharged at their Pune unit as at the relevant point of time, the Kharagpur unit had not obtained service tax Registration, which they took only w.e.f. 1st July, 2007. He submits that in support of the fact that they paid service tax on account of availing GTA services at Kharagpur Unit from their Pune unit, submitted a Chartered Accountants Certificate before the adjudicating authority. The Ld. Consultant submitted that the adjudicating authority ...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›