Chennai Court November 1990 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.
Prathiba Engineering Industries Vs. Assistant Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1990
Reported in: 1991(52)ELT381(Mad)
1. The petitioner paid Central Excise Duty for 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1979-80. On the advice of their auditors they filed an application before the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras-18 for refund of a sum of Rs. 11,181-24 p. stating that the above sum reflects the excise duty which had been erroneously paid by them on post-manufacturing expenses. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice as to why their claim should not be rejected as time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner set an explanation and the same was rejected. Thereafter, the respondent, by the impugned order dated 16-11-1982, rejected the claim on the ground that the refund claim had been preferred beyond the time prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The prayer in the writ petition is for the issue of a certiorarified mandamus to quash the said order dated 16-11-1982 and to direct the respondent to pass orders granting refund of th...
indrol Lubricants and Specialities Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1990
Reported in: 1991LC417(Madras); 1994LC496(Madras); 1992(57)ELT227(Mad)
1. This is a suit filed against the defendants to recover a sum of Rs. 2,71,754.40 with further interest at 12% p.a. from 17-5-1977 till the date of realisation. 2. The plaint filed proceeds on the allegations that the plaintiff carries on business in the manufacture of lubricating oils and other types of lubricants and that one among the same is a speciality oil manufactured out of duty paid base mineral oil and that this speciality oil was subject to levy of excise duty on the Tariff Item 11-B of the Central Excise Tariff and that during 1-4-1973 to 31-3-1977 the plaintiff removed the speciality oils after payment of requisite excise duty, and that in or about the second week of May 1977 the plaintiff came to know that the speciality oils were exempted from the Central Excise duty on condition that such speciality oils are if manufactured out of duty paid base mineral oil as per the Trade Notice No. 175 of 75 dated 3-10-1975 issued by the defendants and that the said notice provides ...
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Bhaskaran Blue Metal Works
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1990
Reported in: [1991]82STC116(Mad)
Mishra, J. 1. A short question and a short answer thereto would have sufficed but for a judgment of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Parry and Company [1976] 38 STC 122 which it appears is in conflict with a later judgment of this Court in Ramco Cement Distribution Co. (P.) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu [1982] 51 STC 171. Thus, we have to exercise our wit and state what the law on the subject is. 2. The question herein is, whether transport charges can be included in the 'taxable turnover' of the assessee under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Since no other question is involved in this case, it is not necessary to state the facts beyond stating that the assessee sought exemption of the transport charges and the Appellate Tribunal acting upon the express rule in this behalf, that is to say, rule 6(c) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), allowed the exemption. The State of Tamil Nadu...
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. P.T. Marimuthu Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1990
Reported in: [1992]85STC253(Mad)
Mishra, J. 1. The Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Madurai, exercised its discretion in an appeal filed on behalf of the assessee under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and held that with respect to certain discrepancies the alleged estimation as regards suppression of excess stock on February 2, 1977, was not sustainable, but with respect to the turnover taxable under section 7A of the Act, there was some justification, but in respect, of quite a few of the allegations even in that regard. It held following the decision in Kathiresan Yarn Stores v. State of Tamil Nadu [1978] 42 STC 121 (Mad.) that the penalty is not sustainable. The State has challenged the order with respect to penalty only before us. 2. In Kathiresan Yarn Stores v. State of Tamil Nadu [1978] 42 STC 121 (Mad.) (the decision relied upon by the Tribunal), the provision of section 12(3) of the Act has been considered and it is stated, 'An estimate of turnover can be made under various circumstances. More...
Sukra Shoe Fabric Represented by Its Partner, Srinivasa Rajan Vs. Uco ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1990
Reported in: (1991)27MLJ1
ORDERKanakaraj, J.1. The petitioner is a firm of exporter of leather garments and footwear. The petitioner applied to the respondent bank for the grant of a term loan facility, Packing Credit facility and Foreign Bills Discount facility and the respondent bank accepted the request on 21.6.1988. The petitioner set up the factory in a backward area with a view to get certain concessions and obtained a lease of land measuring 1.5 acres at Dindigul. The respondent bank sanctioned a term loan of Rs. 54 lakhs, the petitioner had hypothecated the machineries to and in favour of the respondent bank. An additional term loan of Rs. 4 lakhs was also sanctioned by the respondent bank. The entire amount of Rs. 58 lakhs had to be paid by the petitioner in 10 half-yearly instalments in accordance with the hypothecation agreement.2. According to the petitioner, after the installation of the machineries, the petitioner commenced its business and exported leather goods of foreign countries and negotiate...
The Commissioner of the Regional Provident Fund, Tamil Nadu and Pondic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1990
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ53
Srinivasan, J.1. The Commissioner of Regional Provident Fund, Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry, who is the first defendant in the suit is the appellant. A show cause notice was issued under Ex. B-3 to the plaintiff as to why a sum of Rs. 918.70 should not be levied as penal damages for delayed payments of contributions to the Employees' Provident Fund. The Plaintiff challenged the validity of the notice and filed the suit for a declaration that the notice is illegal and for a consequential injunction restraining the defendants from taking any coercive steps to collect the penal damages. Both the courts below have concurrently upheld the claim of the plaintiff and granted a decree as prayed for. The Lower appellate court has found that the notice Ex.B-3 is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 14-B of the Employee's Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and that a reasonable opportunity should be given to the Plaintiff before the levy of damages is determined by t...
Computer Graphics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1990
Reported in: 1991LC255(Madras); 1991(52)ELT491(Mad)
ORDER1. Petitioner imports from abroad Jumbo rolls of Graphic art films after payment of customs duty and auxiliary duty. Thereafter, the jumbo rolls are slit into various widths such as 20', 30' and 40' and cut into various lengths of 10 feets 200 feet etc., and packed in separate cartons and marketed in India. 2. In Section 11 under the Heading 37 of the Central Excise Tariff, photographic and Cinematographic rules are specified. 3. On 28-7-1987, the third respondent called upon the petitioner to take out a Central Excise Licence stating that the process of slitting and cutting of Jumbo roll films into smaller sizes would amount of to 'manufacture'. While the petitioner was agitating the validity of this direction by the third respondent, the Central Board of Excise and Customs (second respondent) issued a clarification in their letter F. No. 11/1/88 CX. 3, dated 5-9-1988. The second respondent clarified that the process of cutting into smaller sizes and repacking of jumbo rolls of s...
Gautam Menon Vs. Sucharitha Gautam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1990
Reported in: I(1992)DMC79; (1991)IMLJ212
Lakshmanan, J.1. This petition is filed by the husband against his wife, the respondent herein, under Sections 3 and 25 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and Order 21, Rules 1 and 2 of Original Side Rules, read with Cl. 17 of Letters Patent, 1865 to direct the respondent to deliver the minor children to the custody of the petitioner and for other reliefs. This petition was filed in this Court on 19.7.1990.2. The respondent has filed a counter stating that this Court may not have jurisdiction to entertain this petition inasmuch as the children whose custody is sought by the petitioner, are permanently residing at Coimbatore outside the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this Court.3. When the matter was taken up for hearing on the earlier occasion the Counsel for the respondent raised the very same objection and submitted that this petition filed in this Court is not maintainable. According to the learned Counsel, the wife is permanently stationed at Coimbatore and she was working i...
S. Ramakrishnan and ors. Vs. Thangamuthu Nattar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1990
Reported in: (1991)16MLJ1
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The defendants 2 to 4 in O.S. No. 184 of 1987 on the file of the Sub Court, Tanjore are the petitioners in C.R.P. No. 2565 of 1989. The first defendant in the said suit is the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 277 of 1990. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 184 of 1987 referred above is the first respondent in both the civil revision petitions. The first defendant in the said suit is the second respondent in C.R.P. No. 2565 of 1984. The defendants 2 to 5 in the suit are the respondents 2 to 5, in C.R.P. No. 277 of 1990. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by the nomenclature given to them in the suit.2. The plaintiff filed the above mentioned suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, hereinafter called the Act, for directing the defendants 1 to 4 to deliver possession of the suit property to the plaintiff with future profits. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:The first defendant had taken on lease a large extent of vacant land bearing T.S. 1469 fo...
Goutam Menon Vs. Sucharitha Gautam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1990
Reported in: (1991)212MLJ1
Lakshmanan, J.1. This petition is filed by the husband against his wife, the respondent herein, under Sections 3 and 23 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and Order 21, Rules 1 and 2 of Original Side Rules, read with Article 17 of Letters Patent, 1865 to direct the respondent to deliver the minor children to, the custody of the petitioner and for other reliefs. This petition was filed in this Court on 19.7.1990.2. The respondent has filed a counter stating that this Court may not have jurisdiction to entertain this petition inasmuch as the children whose custody is sought by the petitioner, are permanently residing at Coimbatore outside the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court.3. When the matter was taken up for hearing on the earlier occasion the counsel for the respondent raised the very same objection and submitted that this petition filed in this Court is not maintainable. According to the learned Counsel, the wife is permanently stationed at Coimbatore and that she is ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »