Chennai Court November 1991 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.
Sabari Starch Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1991
Reported in: 1993(41)ECC90; 1995LC216(Madras); 1992(58)ELT531(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner is the proprietor of a factory engaged in the manufacture of starch falling under Item 15C of the Central Excise Tariff. In the year 1979 he had received an export order from Sri Lanka for the export of 50 metric tonnes of treated maize starch. For the purpose of fulfilling export order the petitioner had to purchase starch from M/s. Lakshmi Starch Limited, Hyderabad and had to reprocess the same with some chemicals in his factory before the goods became fit for export. The starch purchased from the Hyderabad factory had been subjected to excise duty before they were purchased by the petitioner. After processing the goods in his factory of Pondicherry the petitioner exported 50 Metric Tonnes of processed maize starch to Sri Lanka on 21-6-1979 and 22-6-1979. On 18-10-1979 the petitioner filed a Rebate claim in Form-C under Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) claiming a sum of Rs. 13,125/- on the ground that the goods had been...
Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Collector of C. Ex
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1991
Reported in: 1995(80)ELT47(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner Co-operative Sugar Mills are assessees on the file of the Superintendent of Central Excise, Rasipuram. The Government of India, in order to encourage sugar production during the lean period, viz., between May and September, 1982, issued a Notification under rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in No. 132/82-Central Excises dated 21-4-1982, providing exemption for the excess sugar production during the period between 1st May and 30th September, 1982 over and above the average production during the lean period, viz., 1st of May to 30th September, of the preceding three years. The notification is as follows :- 'GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE) New Delhi, the 21st April, 1982-------------------------------1 Vaisakha, 1904 (Saka)Notification No. 132/82-Central Excises G. S. R. (E) In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, read with sub-clause (4) of clause 50 of the Finance Bi...
Graphite India Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Represented by G ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1991
Reported in: 1993ACJ988
E.J. Bellie, J.1. Against the dismissal of the suit the plaintiffs have filed this appeal. The suit is against the Railways for recovery of compensation of Rs. 44,000/- for the damage caused to the goods delivered to the Railways for transport.2. According to plaintiffs, (i) Graphite India Limited and (ii) New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Seimon's India Limited, Bombay, entrusted five consignments of transformers and earth cables to the Railways to be transported from Wadibunder, Bombay, to Krishnarajapuram as per railway receipts dated 29.12.1971, 21.1.1972, 25.1.1972, 29.1.1972 and 8.2.1972. The consignments were intended for the first plaintiff. The said consignments reached Krishnarajapuram in or about March, 1972, but since there was no crane facility for unloading the consignments, the consignments were re-booked from there (Krishnarajapuram) to Bangalore Cantonment in continuation of the previous bookings as per railway receipts dated 1.3.1972,1.3.1972,1.3.1972,2.3.1972 and 24.3.19...
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Tube Investments of India Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1991
Reported in: [1992]85STC245(Mad)
Kanakaraj, J. 1. These four revision petition by the Revenue are against the common order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 3rd August, 1982, in four appeals preferred by the respondent-assessees in respect of four assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77. The facts are as follow : The assessees are manufacturers and dealers in cycle and cycle parts. They purchased dynamo lamps from one T. I. Millers Ltd., Madras by issuing form XVII declaration under section 3(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). Consequently their sellers charged concessional rate of tax at 3 per cent on their sales and paid tax at that rate. The turnover for the four years were as follows : 1973-74 .... Rs. 2,17,874.561974-75 .... Rs. 1,89,193.081975-76 .... Rs. 95,705.171976-77 .... Rs. 1,30,665.00The assessees sold the dynamo lamps with the cycles. The Assistant Commissioner found that the assessees had not used the dynamo lamps as compon...
Nachayee Ammal and Others Vs. V. Pichaimuthu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Mad279; (1992)IIMLJ498
ORDER1. The petitioners obtained a decree for delivery of possession in O.S. No. 419 of 1988. The decree was passed ex parte on 6-7-1990. The respondent applied forsetting aside the ex parte decree on 31-7-1990. When that application was pending, the respondent had not obtained any order of stay. The decree-holders/plaintiffs applied for delivery of possession in the Executing Court and an order was passed on 3-12-1990 that delivery should be effected on or before 3-1-1991. The matter was posted on 7-1-1991 for final orders. On that date, the delivery effected by the Amin was recorded by the court and the execution petition was closed.2. The application filed by the respondent for setting aside the ex parte decree was dismissed on 7-2-1991. It is stated that an appeal has been filed against that order and it is pending as C.M. A. No. 9 of 1991 on the file of the Sub Court, Karur. It is stated to be posted on 26-11-1991.3. After the delivery was recorded, the respondent filed an applica...
The State Vs. Isakki Muthu, (Accused)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2884
1. This appeal has been filed by the State, challenging the acquittal of the respondent by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirunelveli in C.C. 99/85 for offences under Ss. 7(1), 16(1)(a)(i) read with S. 2(ia)(a)(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rule 28 of the Rules framed thereunder, tried on the allegation that the sample of sweets taken from his shop, was found to contain Rhodamine-B which is not in the list of permitted coal-tar food colours to be used in food. 2. PW 1, the Food Inspector visited the sweet-stall of the respondent styled 'Shanmughavilas Sweets' and found sweets in closed polythene bags kept for sale. He purchased 3 such polythene packets of sweets as samples, packed them and sent them for analysis. Ex. P. 5 report of the Public Analyst showed that the sample contained 0.25 mg. Rhodamine-B per 100 gram of the sample, that Rule 28 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) prohibits the addition to foo...
Carbonink Products Vs. Government of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1991
Reported in: 1992(61)ELT19(Mad)
Kanakaraj, J.1. The appellant is a small scale industry, manufacturing carbon sheets. They purchase 'Copying Tissue paper', paying Central Excise duty at 30% under Item 17(2) of the Central Excise Tariff. They manufacture carbon sheets by coating the tissue paper with a thermosetting ink paste, non-drying oils, pigments and dyes, by means of a suitable coating roller and equalising rod and passing through chilled rolls. According to the appellant, the carbon paper thus manufactured by them cannot be brought within the definition of 'paper' and will not fall under Tariff Item 17(2). But the Superintendent of Central Excise, Salem-7, issued a notice on 13-11-1979 calling upon the appellant to take out a licence in Form XIV for the clearance of carbon paper. W.P. 5812 of 1979 filed by the appellant, at that stage, was dismissed as premature on 18-9-1980. The 2nd respondent passed orders on 6-6-1981, holding that the carbon paper will fall under Tariff Item 17(2), and not under stationery ...
Union of India Vs. Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1991
Reported in: 1994LC677(Madras); 1992(58)ELT371(Mad)
ORDERA.S. Anand, C.J. 1. The writ petitioner is the respondent herein. Union of India and the Collector of Central Excise, Madras as also the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Erode Division, who were respondents in the writ petition, are the appellants herein. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the parties in the same manner in which they were described in Writ Petition No. 894 of 1981, which was decided by the learned single Judge by his order dated 14th August, 1987. 2. The petitioner manufactures certain varieties of paper known as 'core paper' and 'wrapping paper' or 'wrapper'. Both are excisable commodities under the Central Excise Tariff. The controversy that was raised in the writ petition by the petitioner was, whether the value of the wrapper paper was required to be included for determining the value of the core paper for the purposes of levy of excise duty. The precise controversy arose in view of the incorporation of Section 4(4)(d)(i) of the Central Excis...
N. Subramaniam and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1991
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ239
ORDERK.S. Bakthavatsalam, J.1. The petitioners challenge G.O.Ms. No. 977, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 17.8.1990, published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 12.9.1990 and quash the publication issued under Section 37(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, in so far as the petitioners are concerned in respect of their lands comprised in Survey Nos. 107 and 136 in No. 156, in Mamallapuram Village, Chingleput Taluk, Chengai-Anna District. 2. The short facts which lead to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:The subject matter of the lands are situate in Mamallapuram village and Mamallapuram is a celebrated port-town, drawing a large number of tourists and pilgrims. The growth of population and the influx of tourists were considered by the New Town Development Authority, Mamallapuram, the second respondent herein and since the existing bus-stand is a small one the second respondent suggested that the lands in S. Nos. 107 and 136 are suitable f...
Nachayee Ammal and ors. Vs. Pichaimuthu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1991
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ498
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The petitioners obtained in decree for delivery of possession in O.S. No. 419of 1988. The decree was passed ex pane on 6.7.1990. The respondent applied for setting aside the ex parte decree on 31.7.1990. When that application was pending, the respondent had not obtained any order of stay. The decree-holders/plaintiffs applied for delivery of possession in executing court and an order was passed on 3.12.1990 that delivery should be effected on or before 3.1.1991. The matter was posted on 7.1.1991 for final orders. On that date, the delivery effected by the Amin was recorded by the court and the execution petition was closed,2. The application filed by the respondent for setting aside the ex parte decree was dismissed on 7.2.1991. It is stated that an appeal has been filed against that order and it is pending as C.M.A. No. 9 of 1991 on the file of the Sub Court, Karur. It is stated to be posted on 26.11.1991.3. After the delivery was recorded, the respondent filed a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »