Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
HONBLE M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The unsuccessful opposite parties before the District Forum are the appellants. 2. The Respondent herein as complainant, has filed a complaint for the recovery a sum of Rs.42,800/- with interest thereon as well as for direction to pay a compensation of Rs.1 lakh on the grounds with among other grounds, that the opposite parties have failed to return the NSCs worth about Rs.42,200/-, though the entire debt borrowed by him and the Company had been discharged, that despite number of personal enquires as well as complaints, the opposite parties have failed to return the NSCs or the value thereon and in addition, they have also failed to give detailed information about the availability of the NSCs as well as what had happened to the NSCs deposited by him with the Bank and this would amount to clearly deficiency in service, for which, they should be directed to pay the above said amounts. 3. The opposite parties the appellants, opposed the complaint...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. Shri T. Ramesh, learned advocate appearing for the appellants states that there are two issues involved in these two appeals. The first one relates to the period for which warehoused goods can be allowed to be kept in the warehouse and the second issue relates to the limitation period for claiming refund of extra interest paid for warehoused goods. He further states that both the issues have been decided in favour of the appellants in their own case vide Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs, Trichy [2008 (230) E.L.T.183 (Tri.-Chennai)]. 2. Heard learned SDR. He is not able to show any contra decision by any higher judicial forum. As such, following the decision of the above cited case, we set aside the impugned orders and allow both the appeals with consequential benefit if any to the appellants....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
HONBLE M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT. 1. The opposite party unable to succeed in opposing the claim of the respondent as complainant before the District Forum, has come to this commission as appellant. 2. The respondent/ complainants case briefly as follows: The complainant, attracted by the advertisement made by the opposite party, approached them to purchase an area of five grounds, with 15 coconut trees, 10 fruit trees and 5 teak trees, for a consideration payable for one unit at Rs.1 lakh, thereby paid an advance of Rs.10000/- also, agreeing to pay the balance at Rs.2500/- per month, within 36 months, for which an agreement was also entered into between the parties on 21.1.94. In all, as per the agreement, the complainant paid the entire consideration, within the time stipulated, whereas the opposite party, failed and neglected to carryout the services as promised by them. Further, the opposite party also, failed and neglected to plant the trees, and to provide amenities, as deta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per P.K. Das The relevant facts of the case in brief, are that the appellants filed bill of entry No.808/2004-2005 dated 30.06.2004 for clearance of 504 nos. of old and used Main Frame assemblies of photocopier declaring the total value of Rs.21,16,152/-. The Commissioner rejected the declared value and determined the value of Rs.43,02,438/- under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules. He also confiscated the goods under Section 111 (d) of Customs Act, 1962 for violation of the EXIM Policy and imposed redemption fine of Rs.6,40,000/- and penalty of Rs.85,000/- under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act for contravention of Customs Act/EXIM Policy. 2. The learned advocate Shri N. Viswanathan submits that they have imported old and used Main Frame assemblies of photocopiers, which is not a restricted item and confiscation, imposition of fine and penalty are not sustainable. He further submits that the Chartered Engineer certificate cannot be rejected on the basis of another certificate obt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per P.K. Das The relevant facts of the case as per record in brief, are that the appellants were availing 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) facilities. They filed MODVAT declaration vide letter dated 27th September, 1999 claiming MODVAT credit on capital goods under Rule 57T of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. The original authority held that the appellants are not eligible to MODVAT credit on capital goods under the said Rules, as Rule 57Q would not apply to the excisable goods produced or manufactured by a 100% EOU. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order. 2. The learned advocate Shri Ravichandran on behalf of the appellants submits that they have filed declarations under Rule 57T of erstwhile Rules, which was not included in Rule 100-H(2) of the erstwhile Rules for non-applicability to a 100% EOU. He drew the attention of the Bench to the relevant provisions of the Rules. He relied upon the various decisions of the Tribunal, mainly in the case of GTN Exports ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)8MLJ1020
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. By consent of all parties, both these appeals are taken up for final disposal, even at the admission stage.2. For the sake of convenience the parties in this judgment will be referred to according to their ranks in W.A. No. 1488 of 2009.3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of these appeals are that Bharathiyar University invited applications for appointment to the post of Assistant Technical Officer (Library) by notification dated 8.9.2008, published in Dinamalar daily dated 10.9.2008 stating that the candidates possessing bachelor degree in any subject with certificate in Library Science and Typewriting lower grade in English and Tamil and who are less than 33 years of age can apply for the said post on or before 6.10.2008. It is also stated in the notification that previous experience in any recognised library is desirable and relaxation is also applicable as per the Government norms to the respective community. Totally six persons including the first...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard the learned DR. No one appears for the appellants despite notice and despite adjournments granted earlier. There is also no adjournment request. As such, it appears that the appellants are not interested in pursuing this appeal. Hence the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
HONBLE M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT. 1. The appeal is targeted against the order of the District Forum, Srivilliputhur, in O.P.No.9/2004 dt.30.01.2006, since the complainant failed in his attempt, to get favourable order. 2. The complainant/ appellant, is the owner of the vehicle, bearing Regn. No.TN 07 K 3020, and the same was insured with the opposite party under package policy No.65/2004, from 15.4.2003 to 14.4.2004. The vehicle when proceeding on the Aruppukkottai Main Road on 22.10.2003, it had lost its control, due to unavoidable circumstances, dashed against the tree, thereby causing severe damage to the vehicle, which was informed to the opposite party, who appointed the surveyor, for assessing the damage and to submit a report. Thereafter, the vehicle was sent to authorised service station, and the estimate of repair was prepared, quantifying at Rs.3,12,736/-. After repair, the complainant/ policy holder, lodged a claim, which was repudiated, on false grounds or untenable gr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
HONBLE M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The first opposite party in COP.70/2004 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tuticorin, unable to resist the case of the complainant successfully, has come to this Commission as appellant. 2. The respondent herein as complainant preferred a complaint against the opposite parties, alleging deficiency in service, thereby, seeking a direction, directing the first opposite party not to claim the additional interest of Rs.991/-, as well as claiming a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation. 3. The complaint was opposed by the opposite parties, denying all the allegations and pleading mistake that the demanded additional interest was not wanton, that on coming to know the mistake committed by them, they informed the complainant, waiving the penal interest of Rs.991/-, and that the complainant, knowing the same unnecessarily dragged them to the Consumer Forum, thereby, praying for the dismissal of the complaint. 4. The trial Forum c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
HONBLE M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The unsuccessful opposite party in COP.139/2003 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, is the appellant. 2. The respondent herein as complainant approached the District Forum for the recovery of a sum of Rs.10,000/- by way of compensation, alleging deficiency in service on the grounds with among other grounds, that he had sent the Kirloskar Oil Engine, purchased from the opposite party, for service on 04.03.2003, that the opposite party having charged a sum of Rs.4,452.48 towards the replacement of some of the spare parts, did not repaired the engine defect totally, that on the day itself the engine was struck off due to some unknown defect, that a complaint was made on 05.03.2003, for which, also amount was charged for repair, but defects were not rectified properly and thereby the service guaranteed by them is not discharged, whereas, they have caused negligence, for which, they should be directed...
Tag this Judgment!