Chennai Court November 2007 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.
The Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Itc Limited, Packaging and Prin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-2007
Reported in: 2008(128)ECC134; 2008(154)LC134(Madras); 2008(224)ELT226(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. This Appeal is filed against the Final Order No. 131 of 2005 dated 24.1.2005 made by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai. 2. The question of law formulated for entertainment of the appeal are as follows:1. Whether the credit of duty on capital goods can be allowed when the respondents have not filed statutory declarations which is a mandatory provisions under Rule 57T(1) of CER 1944?2. Whether credit of duty on capital goods can be allowed when the respondents have not intimated about the date of receipt of capital goods into the factory which is a mandatory provisions under Rule 57T(2) of CER 1944?3. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal is right in holding that the Revenue has no case that any of the substantive conditions for capital goods credit was not fulfilled by the respondents when the respondents have violated to sub-rules namely Rule 57T(1) and 57T(2)?'3. Though the questions of law are framed as above, the fact...
The Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Maris Spinners Limited and Cust ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-2007
Reported in: 2008(223)ELT163(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. This Appeal is filed against the Final Order No. 464 of 2004 dated 30.04.2004 made by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai.2. The question of law formulated for entertainment of the appeal are as follows:1. Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that the light fittings which were not covered under the definition of capital goods given under Rule 57Q of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944, and not sued for producing or process of ultimate manufacture of any Final products, are eligible capital goods for availing Modvat credit under Rule 57Q of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944?2. Whether the Tribunal is correct in not construing the fiscal language in Rule 57Q of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 strictly?3. The first respondent herein is engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn falling under heading No.52.05 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. They availed Modvat credit on the goods 'lighting fitting...
Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and anr. Vs. K. Shanmugasundara ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-2007
Reported in: (2009)25VST411(Mad)
P.K. Misra, J.1. Heard Mr. Haja Naziruddin, Special Government Pleader for the appellants and Mr. S. Ramanathan for the respondent.2. The present appeals have been directed against the common order passed by the learned single judge in W. P. Nos. 3864, 3865 and 3586 of 1992. Such writ petitions had been filed by the present respondent for quashing the assessment order in respect of three theatres as confirmed up to the stage of revision and also the penalty.3. Initially the original authority levied penalty at 150 per cent, but such penalty was reduced to 50 per cent by the second revisional authority, namely, the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. Learned single judge, while upholding the orders relating to assessment of payability of entertainment tax, has quashed penalty only on the ground that previous history of the writ petitioner was very clear and the writ petitioner was not an habitual offender of such nature.4. As per Section 7B(3) of the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Ac...
Alexander Vs. M. Balu,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)CTC225; (2008)2MLJ139
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The 2nd defendant in the suit is the revision petitioner.2. The above civil revision petition is directed against the order of the learned District Munsif, Alandur passed in I.A.No.980 of 2007 in O.S.No.237 of 2007, filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for an order of ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants, including the petitioner herein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule mentioned property.3. The suit filed by the plaintiffs is one for permanent injunction in respect of the house and ground in premises No.5, Thiruvalluvar Street, Meenambakkam Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chingalpat District, admeasuring 4375 sq.ft. and thereabouts comprised in Natham Old Survey No.29/2. The above suit is filed by respondents 1 and 2 on the basis that they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties for the past 42 years as owners and therefore they should be deemed t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›