Chennai Court November 1995 Judgments
Prasad Productions (P) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1995
Reported in: [1997]226ITR778(Mad)
K.A. Swami, C.J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dt. 27th February, 1995, passed by the learned single Judge in WP No. 1387 of 1995. 2. In the writ petition, the petitioner sought for quashing the order dt. 6th October, 1994, passed by the first respondent in MP No. 30 of 1994 filed in ITA No. 1224/Mad of 1989. The learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner did not explain the delay in filing the appeal, as the appeal was filed six days beyond the period of limitation. The said appeal ought to have been filed on 1st April, 1989, whereas it was filed on 7th April, 1989. Thus, there was a delay of six days in filing the appeal. There was no explanation either in the memorandum of appeal nor any statement was filed explaining the said delay of six days in filing the appeal. Thus no statement or affidavit was filed along with a memo, showing sufficient cause for the said delay of six days in filing the appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal...
Tag this Judgment!Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC566; 1996(53)ECC54; 1996(82)ELT457(Mad); (1996)IIMLJ162
ORDER1. By consent of both the parties the main writ petition is taken up for final hearing, since the matter is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Union of India v. Kamalakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. [1991 (55) E.L.T. 433] : : 1991ECR486(SC) and also of my judgment in batch of Writ Petitions Nos. 14807, 14808, 14736 and 14741 of 1995, dated 22-11-1995. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows : The petitioner had placed an order with Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., (BHEL), Ranipet for supply of Electro Static Precipitator (hereinafter called as ESP), by virtue of Notification No. 78/90, dated 20-3-1990 ESP being a pollution Control Equipment, is entitled to concessional rate of duty at 5% ad valorem provided the necessary certificate is given by the Ministry of Environment and Forests. BHEL manufactured ESP and claimed exception under the above notification. As the certificate from the Ministry of Environment was awaited BHEL had to clear the ESP on payment ...
Tag this Judgment!The Registrar, High Court Vs. Vasudevan, A.K. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ153
ORDER : Roc. No. 408/92/A1 dated 15.10.1992. The following staff (senior Bailiffs) of this Court are transferred on Administrative grounds, as per High Court's order cited in the reference, to the places shown against their names.Name of the staff Place to which the staffis transferred1. Thiru Vasudevan, A.K. Nagapattinam (CivilUnit of Senior Bailiff.Quaid-e-MilletDistrict)2. Thiru B Viswanathan, Krishnagiri (Civil Unitof Senior Bailiff.Dharmapuri District)3. Thiru V.R. Gopal, Dindigul (Civil Unit ofAnna Senior Bailiff.District).The above Senior Bailiffs are relieved on the forenoon of 15.10.1992 with instructions to join duty in new station forthwith noted against their names.Sd. C.V. Govardhan,Principal Judge.To1. Thiru A.K. Vasudevan, Sr. Bailiff.2. Thiru B. Viswanathan, Sr. Bailiff.3. Thiru V.R. Gopal, Sr. Bailiff.Copy to : xxx xxx xxx17. It cannot be disputed that transfer of a Government servant is an incidence of service, and, under normal circumstances, the same will not be int...
Tag this Judgment!The Tiruchirapalli District Welfare Committee Represented by the Distr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ620
Govardhan, J.1. Defendant is the appellant.2. The plaintiff's case is as follows: The plaintiff was lessee of the cinema theatre 'Kalaiarangam' Trichy for one year from 1.7.1977 to 30.6.1978. The theatre lacked a cycle shed. It is a sine qua non under the cinematograph licence to run a cinema theatre. The plaintiff was authorised to construct a cycle stand at his own cost for Rs. 13,589.25. The lease period is over. The plaintiff has been dispossessed by the Revenue and Police Officials on 30.6.1978. The amount spent by the plaintiff for putting up a cycle shed has not been repaid by the defendant. A sum of Rs. 71,400 is lying in security deposit with the defendant. The said amount also has not been repaid. The plaintiff issued a notice calling upon the defendant to pay the said sum. But, there was no reply. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to the said two sums with interest at 12% per annum from 1.7.1978 onwards. Hence the suit.3. The defendant in his written statement states as fo...
Tag this Judgment!Grasim Industries Limited Vs. the Collector of Central Excise and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1995
Reported in: 1996(82)ELT457(Mad); (1996)2MLJ162
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. By consent of both the parties the main writ petition is taken up for final hearing, since the matter is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Union of India v. Kamalakshi Finance Corporation Limited : 1991ECR486(SC) and also of my judgment in batch of Writ Petitions Nos. 14807, 14808, 147362 and 14741 of 1995 dated 22.11.1995.2. The short facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner had placed an order with Bharath Heavy Electricals Limited, (BHEL), Ranipet for supply of Electro Static Precipitator (hereinafter called as ESP.) By virtue of Notification No. 78/90 dated 20.3.1990, ESP being a pollution control equipment, is entitled to concessional rate of duty at 5% ad valorem provided the necessary certificate is given by the Ministry of Environment and Forests. BHEL manufactured ESP and claimed exception under the above notification. As the certificate from the Ministry of Environment was awaited BHEL had to clear the ESP on payment of...
Tag this Judgment!Prasad Productions (P) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1995
Reported in: (1998)147CTR(Mad)255
K. A. SWAMI, C.J. :This appeal is preferred against the order dt. 27th February, 1995, passed by the learned single Judge in WP No. 1387 of 1995.2. In the writ petition, the petitioner sought for quashing the order dt. 6th October, 1994, passed by the first respondent in MP No. 30 of 1994 filed in ITA No. 1224/Mad of 1989. The learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner did not explain the delay in filing the appeal, as the appeal was filed six days beyond the period of limitation. The said appeal ought to have been filed on 1st April, 1989, whereas it was filed on 7th April, 1989. Thus, there was a delay of six days in filing the appeal. There was no explanation either in the memorandum of appeal nor any statement was filed explaining the said delay of six days in filing the appeal. Thus no statement or affidavit was filed along with a memo, showing sufficient cause for the said delay of six days in filing the appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal, ...
Tag this Judgment!Uma Shankar Vs. Income Tax Officer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1995
Reported in: (1996)56TTJ(Mad)596
ORDERP. I. MOHAN SINGH, J. M. :This appeal of the assessee relates to the asst. yr. 1993-94 and arise out of the order of Dy. CIT(A), Coimbatore, dt. 28th June, 1994.2. The assessee contests the appeal on the ground that the Dy. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the assessment order passed under s. 143(1)(a) of the Act, as his order is opposed to the facts of the case. The brief facts of the case are as under.3. For the assessment year under consideration, the assessee filed return of income admitting a total income of Rs. 39,770. The assessment was completed under s. 143(1) of that Act. While processing the return of income, the AO disallowed the assessees claim for deduction of Rs. 13,920 as interest on monies borrowed and stated to have been utilised for the construction of a shopping complex at Hosur. The total income was fixed at Rs. 53,690, and the assessment was completed on 18th Aug., 1993. The assessee objected to this disallowance and by a petition dt. 2nd Sept., 1993, fi...
Tag this Judgment!Union Trading Company Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1995
Reported in: 1996(56)ECC92; 1996(82)ELT20(Mad)
ORDER1. By consent of both parties, the main writ petitions themselves have been taken up for final hearing, since the points involved in all the writ petitions are one and the same, they are disposed of by a common order. The petitioners in all the above writ petitions imported betel nuts of Srilankan origin. They filed necessary bill of entries for home consumption and sought clearance of the goods under freely importable category claiming 'the item not covered in Negative list of Import policy 1992-97'. The department refused to release the goods on the ground that betel nuts are in the nature of goods of agricultural origin and they are not dry fruits. The petitioner firm requested the Additional Commissioner of Customs for adjudication of the case after affording personal hearing. The Additional Commissioner of Customs after affording a personal hearing by his order dated 11-9-1995 hold that the betel nuts are other than dry fruits and are consumer goods requiring a valid import l...
Tag this Judgment!Collr. of Cus. Vs. Indo-swiss Synthetic Gem Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1995
Reported in: 1995(52)ECC53; 2003(162)ELT121(Mad)
Janarthanam, J.1. The Indo-Swiss Synthetic Gem . (for short 'Company') - respondent (in all Writ Appeals - petitioner) is situate at 13/239, Main Road, Mettupalayam-1. The company, it is said, is a manufacturer of synthetic gem. It imported silica crucibles under valid licence from France and filed five bills of entries, namely, (1) D.1211, dated 28-4-1982; (2) D.1212, dated 22-3-1980; (3) D. 262, dated 5-7-1982; (4) D.1105, dated 19-12-1980; and (5) D.1106, dated 19-12-1980.2. The Assistant Collector of Customs assessed the goods and levied additional or countervailing duty under Customs Tariff Heading 70.21 and under item 23-A(4) of the Central Excise Tariff (for short 'CET'). The consignment had been cleared on payment of duty, as demanded.3. Even though the items imported were silica crucibles, the Assistant Collector of Customs classified the goods for assessing duty under the Heading No. 70.21, which related to 'other articles of glass', in view of Chapter Note 3 of Chapter 17, w...
Tag this Judgment!The Government of Tamilnadu and anr. Vs. N.S. Rajabather Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC1
ORDERK.A. Swami, C.J.1. Respondent is represented through counsel. As the matter lies in a narrow compass, by consent of parties, the Writ appeal is heard and disposed of.2. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 11.8.1994 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 4254 of 1985. In the writ petition, the petitioner - respondent sought for quashing G.O.Ms. No. 1348 dated 15.12.1984. It may be pointed out here that on an earlier occasion, the petitioner was found to be unfit to hold the office of the hereditary trustee of the temple known as Agastheeswarar and Prasanna Venkatesa Perumal temple and in his place, his wife was appointed as the hereditary trustee. After sometime he made an application for re-appointment. His wife also supported the application on the ground that she was not able to discharge the functions of the here ditary trustee. The Government considered the request and rejected it. The learned single Judge also has not found that the impugned order of the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »