Chennai Court October 2009 Judgments

M/S. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chenna ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram The above appeal is dismissed for want of clearance from the committee on disputes to pursue the same, with liberty to the assessees to apply for restoration in the event of grant of clearance....

Cce, Pondicherry Vs. M/S. Brite Automotive and Plastics Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram The classification of twist control panel top and base manufactured by the assessees herein is in dispute in the present appeal according to the Revenue the items are parts solely or principally for use in apparatus of Heading 85.37, while according to the assessees, whose claim has been accepted by the lower appellate authority, is that the items are classifiable under CET sub-heading 8450.90 which covers parts of household or laundry type washing machines. 2. We have heard both sides. Chapter 85.37 covers boards, panels, consoles, desks, cabinets etc. equipped with two or more apparatus of Heading 85.35 or 85.36 for electric control or the distribution of electricity “... other than switching apparatus of Heading 85.17. The assessees have explained that the panels on the top of the washing machines are not panels covered by Heading 85.37 for the reason that they are not equipped with two or more apparatus of Heading 85.35 or 85.36 and rely upon the decis...

Cce, Pondicherry Vs. M/S. Accel Computers Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram The revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) remitting the case for fresh decision, on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) had no power to remit a case after the amendment to Section 35A(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by Section 128 of the Finance Act with effect from 11.5.2000. 2. None appears for the respondent in spite of notice. Hence we have heard the learned DR and perused the records. We find that the issue as to whether the Commissioner (Appeals) continues to have power to remand a case even after the amendment of law stands decided in favour of the assessees by the apex Court’s decision in Union of India Vs. Umesh Dhaimode - 1998 (98) ELT 584 (SC) which has been followed by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CCE, Ahmedabad Vs. Medico Labs - 2004 (173) ELT 117 (Guj.). 3. Following the ratio of the above decisions we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal....

A. Rajaram Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Secretary to Government ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ1041

ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The petitioner was working as an Assistant Inspector of Labour. At the time of filing of the Original Application, he was posted to work at Tuticorin. He filed O.A. No. 7939 of 1998, challenging the order of the State Government in G.O.2(D) No. 15 Labour and Employment (E.2 Department) dated 22.04.1998, confirming the order of the second respondent - Commissioner of Labour, dated 20.03.1997.2. By the said order, the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect. The charge against the petitioner was that at the time of annual inspection at the Office of the Assistant Inspector of Labour, VI Circle, where the petitioner was working as Assistant Inspector of Labour, it was found that the petitioner had taken a sum of Rs. 20/- from the Permanent Advance Fund of the Office of the Assistant Inspector of Labour, VI Circle, Madurai and sent a telegram to the Pattukottai Assistant Inspector of Labo...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A. Vijayakant

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2010]320ITR496(Mad)

F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The Revenue has come forward with the above appeal raising the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) restricting the disallowance of rasigar manram expenses to 20 per cent. of the claim even though the expenses had not been established to be genuine with supporting vouchers or other forms of evidence ?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) restricting the disallowance of rasigar manram expenses to 20 per cent. of the claim even though the assessee had not established that such expenditure, if any, had been incurred wholly, necessarily and exclusively for the purpose of his profession ?2. The assessee is a popular cine actor. The assessment relates to the ...

A. Rajaram Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Secretary to Government ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ1095

ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. These two writ petitions were filed by the same person. The petitioner herein was working as Assistant Inspector of Labour at Tuticorin Circle III. He filed O.A. No. 7767 of 1998, seeking to challenge the order of the State Government in G.O.2(D) No. 39 Labour and Employment (E.2 Department) dated 11.08.1997. By the said order, the State Government confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Labour, the second respondent herein dated 13.05.1996 and imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for six months without cumulative effect. 2. The petitioner filed an appeal to the first respondent dated 15.06.1996. The State Government consulted the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and after obtaining a report dated 19.02.1997 passed the impugned order. The TNPSC by its communication dated 19.02.1997 stated that the charges were proved against the petitioner and the punishment was not on the higher side. The State Government in the impugned appellate order also sta...

Prof.i.Elangovan Vs. Govt.of Tamil Nadu

Court: Chennai

ORDERPRABHA SRIDEVAN,J1. Heard Mr.V.Ajoy Khose, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleader for the 1st respondent and Ms.N.Kavitha, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.2. It looks like the petitioner is a crusader for the disabled. In this particular Writ Petition, the establishment which he focuses on is the 2nd respondent University. According to him, though there are totally 187 posts, the 2nd respondent University is not following the mandate of Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and while issuing an advertisement on 15.10.2008 calling for applications for appointment of 1 Professor, 9 Readers and 19 Lecturers, reservations has been made on communal basis, but no provision has been made for persons with disabilities. It is in these circumstances, the present Writ Petition has been filed.3. To his application made under the Right to Informat...

Sri Kanakadhara Textiles (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram The issue for determination in the present appeal namely as to whether few clearances of goods at the beginning of financial year on payment of normal duty is to be construed as de facto opting out of exemption under SSI notification stands settled in favour of the assessees by the decisions of the Larger Bench in the case of Commissioner Vs Marutham Textiles (P) Ltd. [2003 (153) ELT 219] and Ankit Packaging Ltd. Vs CCE Hyderabad [2004 (165) ELT 228]. The Tribunal has held that when there was no specific exercise of opting out of SSI benefit notification, few clearances on payment of duty at the beginning of the financial year could not be construed as de facto opting out of the exemption which was required to be in specific terms in view of proviso to Notification No.1/93-CE dt. 28.2.1993. 2. Following the ratio of the above decisions, we set aside the impugned order denying the benefit of SSI notification, and allow the appeal....

Dharagaraman Mohandoss Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram The application for early hearing of the above appeal is allowed as the applicant is an individual from whom foreign currency etc. have been confiscated with an option of redemption and penalty has been imposed. 2. We take up the appeal for hearing today itself as the only argument put forth before us is the reduction in the quantum of fine levied in lieu of confiscation. 3. We find that the foreign currency which has been sold, fetched Rs.14,15,150/-. This amount has been directed to be reimbursed after deduction of the fine of Rs.6 lakhs and penalty of Rs.1,40,000/-. Reduction in the quantum of fine is called for in the light of earlier decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Halithu Ibrahim Vs CC (Airport) Chennai [2005 (183) ELT 307], Savier Poonolly Vs CC Chennai [2005 (192) ELT 263], Krishna Kumari Vs CC Chennai [2008 (229) ELT 222] and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mohd. Ayaz Vs UOI [2003 (151) ELT 39 (Del.)]. Having r...

Limenaph Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram The appellants are manufacturers of CEM adhesives. During the period 17.9.98 to 7.12.98, they paid duty @ 25% advalorem on their clearances whereas the effective rate during this period was 18% adv. Therefore, there was an excess payment of Rs.1,24,472/- for which claim for refund was filed and rejected by the Asst. Commissioner on the ground that the appellants could not establish that they had not passed on the burden of the duty to the consumers. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order; hence this appeal. 2. We have heard both sides. The appellants have not been able to show that they discharged burden cast upon them in law to show that they have not passed on incidence of duty to their consumers. The fact that there was no change in prices collected from the consumers irrespective of duty structure, is not sufficient to hold that they have not passed on incidence of duty. Since the burden cast upon the appellants in such cases has not been di...