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.
Union of India the Secretary, New Delhi and Others Vs. Raj Pal. New De ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-27-2014
(Oral). G. George Paracken, Member (J): 1. This Contempt Petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance of the Order of this Tribunal dated 5.2.2009 in OA 800/2008. The relevant part of the said Order reads as under:- 23. Resultantly, OA is allowed. Impugned charge sheet is set aside. However, we make it clear that the documents served upon the applicant regarding transfer proforma are not in their complete shape, as the list of officers, who have also been considered, has not been served upon the applicant. In such an event, the liberty is accorded to the respondents, if so advised, to take appropriate action against the applicant but before doing so, the complete document at Sl.No.8 of the list of documents in the charge sheet shall be served upon him. Consequences in law shall ensue upon the applicant. No costs. 2. The Union of India challenged the aforesaid Order before the Honble High Court of Delhi vide Writ Petition (Civil) No.10452 of 2009 but the same was di...
M/S. Chhagan Meghji Kansara Vs. Cce Bhavnagar
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: May-27-2014
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. This application is filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. On perusal of the records, we find that the appellant tried to justify the condonation on the ground that they were not aware of the provisions of Service Tax; were not aware as to where to approach for filing the appeal; they were informed by various persons that they have to pay the entire amount then only the appeal can be filed. It is also the reason given in the application that they had to believe the consultants or professionals to whom they approached; that they have no resources or income other than the service receivers given the job; that they had no intention not to pay the Service Tax and have paid approximately Rs.5.97 lakhs. Ld.Counsel also would try to justify that they have a good case on merit. 4. On perusal of the records, we find that the appellants were represented before the first appellate authority by ...
Rabindra Samal New Delhi Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, New Del ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-27-2014
G. George Paracken, Member (J). 1. The Applicant has filed this Original Application seeking the following relief:- It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the Tribunal may graciously be pleased to issue directions to the Respondents to grant to the Applicant promotion from the same date, i.e., 10.09.2010 when 5 of his seniors were promoted on ad hoc basis as Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Grade-I as per the recommendations of the Departmental Screening Committee dated 17.08.2010 with all other consequential benefits and may also issue such other order/direction as may be deemed fit and appropriate in the facts of the case. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant was initially appointed as Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner with effect from 12.10.1994. He was promoted to the post of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (RPFC for short) Grade-II on ad hoc basis on 29.11.2002 and thereafter regularized in the said post on 25.07.2003. A Departmental Screenin...
Sushil Vashistha Vs. Union of India Through Its Defence Secretary Sout ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-26-2014
Ashok Kumar, Member (A): 1. The OA has been filed against the denial of grant of replacement scale of pay to the applicant at the time of recruitment/appointment in the entry grade of Telecom Mechanic (Highly Skilled Grade-I, HS-I vide orders dated 29.12.1989/19.03.1990 read with orders dated 24.09.1987, 13.11.1987 and appointment letter dated 2.12.1987 annexed as Annexure A-I (colly), and the decision on the second representation dated 24.4.2012 (Annexure A-I) colly. 2. The following reliefs have been sought in the OA:- 8.1. To interpret and clarify Ann. A-3, A-4 and A-4 (a) with a suitable direction to the respondents to grant revised pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300/- as per 4th CPC as was granted to other similarly situated junior in rank 3 officers; 8.2. To further direct to grant the arrears of pay from the date of entry i.e. 03.12.1987 as granted to other 3 officers including the juniors in whose respect the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300/- has already been granted w.e.f. 1.1.1986; 8.3. T...
Sunil Kumar, Baghpat (Up). Vs. Union of India Through the General Mana ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-26-2014
(Oral). G. George Paracken, Member (J). 1. The applicant has filed this Original Application against the rejection of his candidature by respondent No.2 for appointment to Group D post in Railways in terms of the Employment Notification No.220-E/Open Market/2012 dated 30.12.2012, without passing any order or without assigning any reason. 2. The respondents have filed their reply opposing this Original Application. 3. Today, when the case was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has produced the original OMR sheet of the Applicant in which he has left the Centre Code and the Control Number unmarked. He has submitted that without the aforesaid information, the computer could not accept the applicants data and, therefore, his case could not be processed further. He has also shown the original OMR sheet to the learned counsel for the Applicant. 4. In view of the above position, we do not find any merit in this case and it s dismissed. There shall be no order ...
M/S. New Central Jute Mills Co.Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-26-2014
Dr. D.M. Misra, J. 1. This is an Appeal filed against Order-in-Appeal No.09/Kol-VII/2011 dated 27.01.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeal-I), Kolkata. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the goods were damaged/lost due to a fire broke out in the Appellants godown No.LS-3 on 18.12.2006 for which the Appellant had requested for remission of duty involved on such goods under the relevant Rules. The said remission application was rejected by the department on 16.03.2009. Consequently the demand notice has been issued proposing recovery of duty on the lost/destroyed goods in fire. 3. On the commencement of the proceeding the Ld.A.R. for the Revenue Shri S.Chakraborty raised a preliminary objection submitting that since this is a case of loss of goods, during storage in the factory, therefore, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the Appeal against the order of the Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) by virtue of Section 35B of Central Excise Act, 1944. In sup...
Chetan Shah and Another Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India Seb ...
Court: SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Decided on: May-23-2014
Jog Singh, Member (Oral) 1. These two appeals have been filed in the context of order dated 24th February, 2012 passed by Respondent SEBI in response to the consent applications moved by the Appellants on 3rd and 4th March, 2011 respectively. Since both the appeals involve an identical question of law and even facts, the learned senior counsel for the parties submit that these can be disposed of by a common order. 2. Heard both the learned senior counsel. It is noted that by order dated 24th February, 2012 each of the Appellants was called upon to deposit Rs.25 lacs towards settlement charges on being recommended by the High Powered Committee (HPC) consisting of an Honble retired Judge of High Court alongwith others. It is not disputed that the Appellants duly complied with the order dated 24th February, 2012 immediately by depositing two bank drafts of Rs.25 lac each. The case of the Appellants is that somehow final communication regarding closing the cases in terms of consent circula...
M/S. Sonu Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and S.T. Sura ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: May-23-2014
H.K. Thakur, J. 1. This stay application and appeal has been filed by the appellant against OIA No. SUR-EXCUS-002-APP-247-13-14 dated 27.11.2013. 2. Shri Avinash Poddar (Chartered Accountant) appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the first appellate authority has rejected their appeal on the ground that there was delay of 4 months and 20 days in filing appeal, which is beyond the condonable period of three months under Section 85 (3A) of the Finance Act, 1994. It was his case that due to inevitable circumstances the appellant could not file appeal before the first appellate authority as the appellants son was having poor health and hospitalized during the relevant period and due to mental disturbance appellant could not hand over the order-in-original to his consultant in time. 3. Shri J. Nair (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that there is no provision in the Service Tax provisions to condone the delay beyond the statutory limit provided under Section 85(3A)...
G.M.R. Energy Limited and Others Vs. Karnataka Electricity Regulatory ...
Court: Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on: May-23-2014
Rakesh Nath, Technical Member. 1. These Appeals have been filed against the order dated 30.11.2012 of the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission determining the rate at which the generating company must be paid by the distribution companies to offset the adverse financial impact suffered by it as a result of State Governments order under Section 11(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 for supply of power to the distribution companies. 2. While Appeal no. 37 of 2013 has been filed by GMR Energy Ltd., the generating company, Appeal no. 303 of 2013 has been filed by the distribution licensees and Power Company of Karnataka Ltd, the State owned trading company, responsible for procuring power for supply to the distribution licensees. 3. The facts of the case are as under: i) GMR Energy Ltd., hereinafter referred to as GMR; has established a barge-mounted Naphtha based generating station having a capacity of 220 MW at Mangalore in the State of Karnataka. It entered into an Agreement for sho...
M/S. Associated Manufacturers India Vs. Commr of Central Excise and Se ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-2014
DR. D.M. MISRA, J. 1. This is an application filed seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.22,873/- and equal amount of penalty imposed under Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 2. The Ld. Advocate at the outset, submits that the Ld. Commr. (Appeals) has not decided issue on merit but dismissed for non-compliance with the direction of pre-deposit. He submits that they manufactured MS Bolts and screws and purchased Nuts from the market and the same were supplied alongwith M.S. Bolt and Screws to make it a complete set. He submits that CENVAT Credit on Nuts were denied on the ground that no manufacturing activity was involved in relation to MS Nuts. He submits that the issue is covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Mumbai-III reported in 2008 (230) E.L.T. 488 (Tri.-Mumbai). He submitted that they have a strong prima facie case on merit. 3. The Ld. A.R. for the Revenue accepted that the issue has not been dec...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »