Chennai Court October 2000 Judgments
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Cambodia Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-2000
Reported in: 2001(128)ELT373(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The respondent-assessee is a manufacturer of yarn in counts of 46, 64 and 70. Tests of samples were drawn from the yarn manufactured by it on 17-7-1986 and 20-8-1986. The test results of the samples drawn on 17-7-1986 showed that the counts manufactured were as claimed. However, the test results of the samples drawn on 28-8-1986 showed variation. A further test was, therefore, done and also duplicate samples were again tested. As a result of those tests, it was found that the counts manufactured exceeded the specified counts. The counts found to have been manufactured were 48.4, 64.4 and 75.2. The demand for additional duty was not raised by the Revenue in respect of the count of 64.4 as the difference was only marginal. However, duty was demanded in respect of yarn counts which was found to be 48.4 as against the prescribed 46 and 75.2 as against the prescribed 70. The test results were not questioned by the assessee.2. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E. Vs. Southern Petro Chemical Indus. Corpn. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-2000
Reported in: 2001(129)ELT38(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question which has been referned to us viz., as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct in allowing the refund of duty paid by the respondent when they have not proved that the duty burden was not passed on to the customers, is required to be answered in favour of the Revenue, and against the respondent-manufacturer, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Solar Pesticide Pvt. Ltd. - : 2000(116)ELT401(SC) .2. The three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in that decision held at paragraph 17 thus :'The use of the words 'incidence of such duty ....' is significant. The words 'incidence of such duty' mean the burden of duty Section 27(1) of the Act talks of the incidence of duty being passed on and not the duty as such being passed on to another person. To put it differently the expression 'incidence of such duty' in relation to its being passed on to another person would take it withi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Home Ashok Leyland Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-2000
Reported in: 2001(134)ELT647(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The full Bench of CEGAT having held that Rule 57E of the Central Excise Rules, as it stood on 01-04-1987 is merely clarificatory and procedural and would not affect the substantive rights of the manufacturer of a specified final product to claim Modvat credit for the duty paid on the inputs subsequent to the date of the receipt of those inputs under the cover of a specified document at the instance of the Revenue, the correctness of that decision has been referred to us for our opinion.2. The respondent is a manufacturer of motor vehicles which is a specified final product. It had received inputs under the cover of specified documents between 21-4-1986 and 2-4-1987. After receipt of those inputs and the entries required to be made in Register having been made, the price for those inputs was revised by the manufacturer of the inputs and consequently additional duty that had become payable on the enhanced price which was paid during the period from 19-12-1986...
Tag this Judgment!S. Padmapriya Vs. Income Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-2000
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Mad)132
K. V. Balasubramaian, J.The writ petition is filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from in anyway proceeding by way of sale of the properties referred to in the notice dated 5-1-1996, under Ref. No. S. 1-23/Cuddalore issued by the first respondent.2. The case of the petitioner is that the father of the petitioner was an income-tax assessee. He had income from a lodge known as 'Hotel Brindavan' and a cinema theatre known as 'New Cinema Theatre' both at Cuddalore. He was assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 1976-77 and thereafter. It is stated that on receipt of the notice impugned, the petitioner made enquiry with the officials, and she came to know that her father was liable to pay income-tax arrears of a sum of Rs. 67,575 with interest for the assessment years 1976-77 to 1983-84. The petitioner is challenging the notice on the ground that her father was assessed to income-tax ex parte for the assessment year 1976-77 and the same was continued u...
Tag this Judgment!M. Kandiah Pillai (Died) and Six Others Vs. S. Mehalingam and Seven Ot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC490
ORDER1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.269 of 1983 on the file of District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli filed the second appeal. Pending second appeal, he died and his legal representatives have come on record as appellants 2 to 7 and respondents 7 and 8. The suit was filed for declaration of the plaintiff's title to the plaint second schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, who are respondents 1 to 6 herein from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the second schedule property. His case was as follows:The schedule properties along with other properties originally belonged to his mother one Arunachalathammal. Arunachalathammal executed a Will on 18.11.1966 in respect of the plaint schedule properties and other properties. As per the terms of the Will the plaintiff was entitled to the first schedule property excluding the second schedule. Some time later, Arunachalathammal felt that no provision had been made for a house to the plaintiff and also no p...
Tag this Judgment!Divisional Engineer (Highways) Transport and Machinery Division and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-2000
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ950Mad
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. Being aggrieved by an award passed, the petitioners herein challenged the same in this petition. The first petitioner is the Divisional Engineer (Highways), Transport and Machinery Division while the second petitioner is the Secretary to Government, Highways and Rural Works Department, Fort St. George, Madras. The first respondent-Union raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court, Madras. The following facts will highlight the grievance.2. The members of the union on behalf of which the dispute was raised are the daily wage employees and can be described as N.M.R. employees. They are regularly working. They claimed before the Labour Court that their working hours previously were 8.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. with half an hour lunch break and thus they were working for eight hours a day. They also used to work on Saturdays and thus they were working for six days a week and earning for those six days on the daily wages basis. They pointed out ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Sankar Vs. C.V. Pasupathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2144
B. Akbar Basha Khadiri, J.1. This appeal has arisen in this way :--The appellant herein preferred a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani, against the respond-ent-Pasupathi, alleging that he had committed an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the petitioner, he had followed the procedure laid down under the relevant provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act to prefer the complaint. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani, took the complaint on file in C.C. No. 281 of 1999 on 9-9-1999. But the complaint was dismissed on 28-4-2000. The learned Judicial Magistrate has passed the following order :--The case was called on for hearing today to which it had been posted. The complainant not being present either in person or by pleader, or having been reported dead the accused is acquitted Section 256, Criminal Procedure Code.Against this order, the complainant has preferre...
Tag this Judgment!P.R. Shankar Rao Vs. Joseph and Joseph Regis Kalingarayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)ALD(Cri)137; 2001CriLJ2392
ORDERB. Akbar Basha Khadiri, J.1. The instant Cri. O.P. is to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 413 of 1997 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Tuticorin.2. This Cri. O.P. has arisen in this way:-A complaint has been preferred by the respondent herein against five accused. Accused No. 3, M/s. Karthick Fisheries, and Accused No. 5, M/s. Karthick Multi Packs Pvt. Ltd., are companies. Accused No. 1, N.K. Kumar, is the Managing Director of Accused No. 3 and one of the Directors of Accused No. 5. Accused No. 2 is the Director of Accused No. 3 and Accused No. 5. Accused No. 4 is also a Director of Accused No. 5. Accused No.3, M/s. Karthick Fisheries incurred debt to the tune of Rs.42,31,737.00 with the complainant/respondent herein in purchasing prawns. The accused made certain payments. As on April, 1996, the outstanding due from Accused No. 3 was Rs. 22,12,000/-. As the Chairman-cum-Man-aging Director of Accused No. 5, i.e. M/s. Karthick Multi Packs Pvt. Ltd., Accused No. 1 issue...
Tag this Judgment!A. Murugesan Vs. Tmt. Kuppammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ71
K. Sampath, J.1. The details as regards the suits, appeals and the second appeals therefrom are given in a tabular form below:xxxxxxx2. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 3551 of 1983 on the file of the 13th Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras is the defendant in O.S. No. 6351 of 1984 is the defendant in O.S. No. 3551 of 1983. The 1st plaintiff in O.S. No. 6351 of 1984 Muthukrishnan who was not a party in O.S. No. 3551 of 1982 and who was the first plaintiff in all the other suits died pending the suits and his legal representatives were brought on record as plaintiffs 3 to 8 in the said suits. Except in S.A. No. 950 of 1993, where Murugesan alone is the appellant, in the other second appeals Murugesan and the legal representatives of Muthukrishnan are the appellants.3. In the course of this discussion, depending on the context the parties will be referred to either by their names, Kuppammal, Muthukrishnan, Murugesan or by their ranks in the suits. There are two schedules A and B in the suits fi...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Kamakshi Agency, Represented by Its Proprietor K. Natarajan Vs. Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC617; 2001(76)ECC459; 2001(129)ELT29(Mad)
ORDERJudgment pronounced by F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. 1. The questions that have posed for our consideration are, In C/Ref/13/97:- (a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal upholding cancellation of CHA licence made by the Department is legal and proper? (b) Whether the Tribunal is justified in confirming the order of forfeituring deposit of Rs.25,000 made by the appellant? (c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in ordering that the appellant should conduct the business by himself and not through any power of attorney holder and whether the same is contrary to the Licensing Regulations (9) of CHLR, 1984? In C/Ref/28/97: Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal to the effect that on further deposit of Rs.25,000 the licence of the respondent shall stand renewed with effect from 1.1.1997 is legal and proper2. The Applicant was a holder of Regular Customs House Agent Lic...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »