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. Ginni Global Limited Vs. Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory ...
Court: Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on: May-23-2014
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson. 1. This is an Application filed by the Applicant/Appellant to condone the delay of 1477 days in filing the Appeal against the Impugned Order dated 22.5.2010 passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Commission. 2. The Applicant/Appellant M/s. Ginni Global Ltd is a Generating Company. The Applicant/Appellant has submitted following explanation for the delay of 1477 days in filing the Appeal: œThe Impugned Order was passed on 22.5.2010. Aggrieved by the Impugned Order, the Applicant filed a Review Petition in Petition No.135 of 2010 before the State Commission on 2.7.2010. The State Commission dismissed the Review Petition by the Order dated 3.12.2010. In the meantime, the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board filed the Writ Petition in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh challenging the Regualtions of the State Commission. Since the Writ Petition filed on 6.12.2010 by the Second Respondent was pending, the Order passed in the Review petition dated 3...
M/S. Tarachandra Engineering Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Cce Vadodara-i
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: May-23-2014
H.K. Thakur, J. 1. The appellant is engaged in providing taxable service falling under the category of Erection, Commissioning or Installation services. In addition, the appellant is also engaged in rendering taxable services under the category of Management, Maintenance and Repair services as defined under Section 65 (108)(zzg) of Finance Act, 1994. The appellant failed to get the later category of service registered with the Department and also belatedly filed ST-3 returns for the period October 2007 to March 2008 on 17.07.2008. Appellant on their own paid the Service Tax of Rs.2,75,365/- along with interest of Rs.60,477/-. On receipt of ST-3 returns, Revenue issued a show cause notice for penal action and penalties under Section 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994 were imposed upon the appellant. In the appeal filed before the first appellate authority, penalties imposed under Section 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994 were upheld. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal dt.19.12.2011/20.02.2011, p...
indraprastha Power Generation Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. Delhi Electricit ...
Court: Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on: May-23-2014
Rakesh Nath, Technical Member. 1. The above IAs have been filed by the State owned Generating Companies in Appeal no. 27 of 2014 and batch filed by them against the order dated 5.11.2013 passed by Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (œState Commission?) directing to set up empowered committee which will function with the intention of optimally utilizing the funds recovered by the Respondent Discoms viz. BYPL and BRPL. 2. The Applicants/Appellants have stated that they were not being paid by the Respondent Discoms for the power supplied by them against the Power Purchase Agreement from October 2010 onwards except for some ad-hoc payments made from time to time as per the convenience of the Discoms placing the Applicants in a very precarious financial condition. Despite the interim order dated 5.11.2013 by the State Commission to pay the current bills, the payment were not released and after passing of the impugned order dated 5.11.2013, they have stopped making on payment agai...
Dpsc Limited Vs. West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission
Court: Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on: May-23-2014
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson. 1. DPSC Limited is the Appellant. West Bengal State Commission is the Respondent. 2. The Appellant has filed this Appeal challenging the impugned Multi Year Tariff Order dated 14.2.2013 whereby the Operation and Maintenance expenses for the generating stations of the Appellant were reduced by the State Commission. 3. The Appellant has also challenged the Review order dated 8.5.2013 passed by the State Commission by which the main order dated 14.2.2013 was confirmed. 4. The short facts are as follows:- (A) The Appellant has been operating two embedded generating stations within its licence area at Dishargarh and Chinakuri power plants. The Appellant is also maintaining a highly efficient distribution system for supply of energy in an area of 610 square kilometres to its consumers. (B) The Appellant on 17.1.2013 filed its ARR petition for the FY 2011-12. The State Commission on 14.2.2013 passed the impugned order determining the ARR for the MYT period a...
Roop Vihar Nagrik Vikas Samiti (Regd.) Vs. State of Rajasthan Through ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2014
Dalip Singh, Judicial Member: 1. This Original Application was originally filed as a Writ Petition No.13851/2009 before the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur and subsequently came to be transferred to this Tribunal under the orders dated 23rd September, 2013 of the Hon'ble High Court. 2. On receipt of the case in NGT, Bhopal Bench, notices were issued by this Tribunal vide its order dated 5th December, 2013 and the matter was taken up after service on 27th January, 2014. The Applicant did not appear though the Respondents put in appearance before the Tribunal. To enable the Applicant to appear before the Tribunal the case was adjourned to 18th February, 2014. On 18th February, 2014, the Applicant again failed to appear before this Tribunal and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the following order was recorded : - "This petition is originally filed as a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan. The Applicant had raised the dispute with regard to ...
M/S Jaydeep Tubes Pvt. Ltd. Ashok J. Shah, Shri Ranjit Singh Chauhan V ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: May-22-2014
H.K. Thakur, J. 1. Appeal No.E/185/2013-DB to E/187/2013-DB have been filed by the appellants against common Order-in-Original No.27/MP/VAPI/ 2011, dt.28.12.2011 passed by Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Vapi. Miscellaneous application No.E/EH/10708/2014 for early hearing has been filed by the Revenue on the grounds of high revenue involved. As the facts in all these appeals/application are same, these are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the office as well as the factory premises of the main appellant M/s Jaydeep Tubes Pvt.Ltd. (Appeal No.E/185.2012-DB); manufacturer of drawn/re-drawn copper pipes, brass pipes and cupro-nickel pipes; were simultaneously searched by the Central Excise officers on 29/30.03.2007. During search operations, certain incriminating documents, including four diaries, showing purchase of raw materials and sale of finished goods, were recovered from the factory premises. Two diaries numbered a...
Col. Punam Bali Vs. Uoi and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2014
1. This is an application seeking clarification of judgment dated 17.04.2014 passed by this Tribunal. It is stated that in para 24 of the judgment while considering the issue regarding holding of successive court of inquiry the court has observed as under: œTherefore, we hold that ordering of successive courts of inquiry is illegal, arbitrary and smacks of foul play and malafide on the part of the respondents?. 2. However, while allowing the petition, the court of inquiry ordered against the petitioner has not been set aside. 3. On the other hand, the stand of the respondents is that the allowing of the application will tantamount to review of the judgment which can not be permitted in the present case unless there is a proper application. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. While scanning through the para 24 of the judgment, we have clearly found that ordering of successive courts of inquiry in the present case is illegal, arbitrary and smacks of foul play a...
M/S. Rohit Ferro Tech Ltd Vs. Commr. of Central Excise , Bolpur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-2014
DR. D.M. Misra, Advocate. 1. This is an application filed seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.42.42,925/- and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 11AC of CEA, 1944. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Consultant Shri Bhattacharyaya for the applicant submits that during the period January, 2008 to March, 2008, Ferro Manganese Slag generated during the course of manufacture of Ferro Manganese. He further submits that the same were duly accounted for in their Daily Stock Account (DSA) and used in the factory in the manufacture of Silico Manganese falling under Chapter 7202.00 of CETA, 1985 and since there was no columns in the ER-1 during the respective period, requiring an assesse to show the opening balance (OB) and closing balance (CB), therefore, they did not mention its OB/CB in the respective Return. He has categorically submitted that this Ferro Manganese Slag have been duly accounted for in their DSA and subsequently used in the manufacture of Silico Manganese, also fallin...
M/S. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise a ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: May-21-2014
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. This stay petition is filed for the waiver of pre-deposit of amount of service tax liability confirmed by the adjudicating authority, interest thereof and penalties imposed. Service tax liability is fixed for the year 2006-07 to 2010-11 on the ground that the appellant has not discharged service tax liability under Telecommunication Services. 2. After hearing both sides for a substantial time on the stay petition, we find that the appeal itself could be disposed of at this juncture as the issue lies in a very narrow compass. Accordingly, we allow the application for the waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts involved and take up the appeal for disposal. 3. On perusal of the records, we find that the show cause notice is issued demanding the amount on the calculation based upon the balance sheet figure while, it is the claim of the assessee that during the relevant period service tax liability can be fastened only on the receipts basis. We find that the appellant was...
M/S Shree Jagdamba Agrico Export Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Cc Kandla
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: May-21-2014
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. All these appeals are disposed by a common order as the issue raised is same. 2. We notice that the appeal filed by M/s Green Village Agros Pvt.Ltd. is an appeal filed against Order-in-Appeal while other appeals are filed against Order-in-Original. The relevant facts that arise for consideration in all these appeals is, that all the appellants had filed shipping bills for export of basmati rice/pusa basmati rice. The said consignments were examined by the officers of dock examination and representative samples were drawn and forwarded to Chief Chemist, Regional Agmark Laboratory, Mumbai for analysis to ascertain whether the samples meet specifications of the basmati rice; as the appellant had sought the benefit of DGFT Notification No.55(RE-2008)/2004-2009, dt.05.11.2008 as amended by the Notification No.57/2009/14, dt.17.08.2010. The requirement for analysis arose as the said notification laid down the conditions as to the grain of rice sou...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »