Chennai Court October 2009 Judgments

G.B.Engineering Enterprises Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central E ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram Vide the impugned order, the lower appellate authority has held that towers for windmills manufactured by the appellants herein fall for classification under CET Sub Heading 7308.20, rejecting the claim of the assessees for classification under CET Sub Heading 8412.00, and denied the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No.205/88 dt. 25.5.88, for the reason that during the period in dispute viz. Sept.-94 to Jan 95, parts of windmills were not covered under the notification and they can enjoy the benefit of exemption only w.e.f. 16.3.95. 2. We have heard both sides. CET Sub Heading 73.08 covers Structures and parts of structures (for example, bridges towers ) of iron and steel. Towers and Lattice Masts are specifically covered under CET Sub Heading 7308.20 attracting duty @ 15%. Rival entry Chapter Heading 84.12 covers Other engines and motors and this heading carried a rate of 10% adv. during the relevant time. Chapter Heading 73.08 is specific for Tower...

Cheran Spinners Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Trichy

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram The appellants herein who are manufacturers of Flax Fibre are aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the enhancement of value of their goods to US$ 1.06 per kg. and rejecting the declared value of US$ 0.90. 2. We have heard both sides. The main grievance of the importers is that enhancement was ordered on the basis of contemporaneous imports from the same supplier without disclosing such contemporary evidence to them. There is nothing on record to show that material relied upon by the authorities below for the purpose of loading of value was furnished to the assessees. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remit the case to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision in accordance with law after supply of copies of the Bills of Entry relied upon in the impugned order to the importers and after extending reasonable opportunity of hearing. 3. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand....

M/S. Srilankan Airlines Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram Vs. K. Kanakaraju and ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The 1st opposite party, who suffered an adverse order in OP.No.373/2003, on the file of District Forum, Coimbatore, is the appellant. 2. The respondents 1 and 2 herein, as complainant, approached the District Forum, claiming compensation of Rs.25000/- to each person, from 1st opposite party, another compensation of Rs.10000/- to each from the 2nd opposite party and for the cost of Rs.2500/-, on the ground, that they have purchased air tickets from the 2nd opposite party on 7.8.2003, for the travel on 15.8.2003 at 8.00 a.m to Srilanka, that when they reached the airport and approached the counter for the issue of boarding pass, they were informed that no seats are available for the complainants, since there was over booking, that after much difficulty, by foregoing one day, they reached Colombo, where they felt difficulties also in securing accommodation, that having issued OK ticket, the refusal to issue boarding pass on the date of journey, as indica...

The Senior Post Master Head Post Office Thanjavur and Others Vs. R. Na ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

HONBLE M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT. 1. The opposite parties before the lower forum in OP.No.89/2002, are the appellants. 2. The complainants/ respondents, opened an Public Provident Fund Account, in the head Post office at Thanjavur on 31.3.1998, jointly. In all, the complainants have deposited with the 1st respondent a sum of Rs.46,500/-, which earned interest also, totaling a sum of Rs.53,730/- as on 16.5.2002. On 12.6.2002, the 1st opposite party directed the complainants to close their PPF account, and to get back the deposited amount only, without interest. Under the law, the complainants are entitled to get back, not only the deposited amount, but also the interest. All of a sudden, the 1st opposite party sent a sum of Rs.46,500/- alone, through cheque dt29.10.2002, which wad received by the complainants, under protest. The non-payment of interest amounts to deficiency in service, which caused mental agony also to the parties, for which the respondents are entitled to pay a s...

K.V. Karneeswaran Vs. M/S. Lakshmi Builders (P) Ltd., Rep. by Its Md M ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The unsuccessful complainant in OP.No.369/2000, on the file of the District Forum, Chennai (South), is the appellant. 2. The complainant/appellant, is the original owner of the land, comprised in Survey No.50/A TS No.4/14, Block No.9, Velachery Village, measuring an extent of 3450 Sq.ft. The complainant, sold the said property to the 1st opposite party, retaining 750/9000 undivided share. 3. The opposite parties, promised to develop the land, for which a Development Agreement, was entered into on 25.8.1995, under which, the opposite parties agreed and promised to complete the construction of the building apartments, within 12 months, from the date of handing over the vacant possession of the property, by the complainant, which was handed over accordingly on 19.11.1995. It is for the opposite parties to employ its own technical experts and other persons to carryout the applications, including the constructions, under the agreement. The opposite partie...

Garware-wall Ropes Limited Geosynthetic Division Vs. Marg Limited (For ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ1585

M. Chockalingam, J.1. This appeal has arisen from the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court allowing an application in O.A. No. 1202 of 2008 filed by the first respondent/plaintiff seeking for interim injunction restraining the appellant/first defendant from claiming or demanding any amount under the letter of credit No. MDSC/INLC/ML/I/08-09 dated 14.7.2008 or under its amended one dated 4.8.2008 issued by the second respondent without delivery of materials at the site and consequently restraining the second respondent from effecting any payment to the appellant under the letter of credit.2. The above application has been filed by the first respondent/plaintiff with the following averments:(a) The first respondent, a construction company, called offers from several contractors for various works at the proposed Port including construction of a reinforced wall around the Port. The appellant submitted its offer on 16.6.2008 for supply of Soil reinforcement consisting of Tensar G...

ishwar Industries Ltd. Rep. by Its Director in Charge Mr. Bharath Bhas ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ851

ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. The prayer in this company petition is to wind up the respondent Company under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956.2. The petitioner Company is incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and its registered office is located at 10th Mile Stone, Mine Madhura Road, P.O.Ishwar Nagar, New Delhi-110065. The authorised share capital of the petitioner company is Rs. 20 Crores divided into 1,00,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each, and 1,00,00,000 Cumulative Shares at 12% of Rs. 10/- each. The paid-up share capital of the petitioner Company is Rs. 17,20,39,000/-. The main object of the petitioner Company is to do business of manufacturers and dealers in machinery of all kinds, particularly textile machinery and all or any of the business of mechanical, electrical, railway, marine, aeronautical, agricultural, sanitary, civil and construction Engineers.3. One Textool Company Limited (Default Company) is indebted to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 36,19,239.38,...

Suchitra Sebastian and Thomas Victor Vs. Michael Arul

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ946

ORDERS. Palanivelu, J.1. The petitioners are tenants under the respondent. The respondent filed RCOP No. 2175 of 2007 on the file of the X Asst. Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai for eviction on the ground of wilful default. The Rent Controller after enquiry allowed the application filed by the landlord under Section 11(4) of the Act for eviction of these respondents. The learned Rent Controller heard both sides and allowed M.P. No. 188 of 2008 on 10.06.2009 directing these petitioners to pay rental arrears of Rs. 10,50,000/- being the arrears of rent from November 1990 to May 2009 to the petitioners on or before 10.07.2009 failing which all further proceedings in the main RCOP will be stopped and eviction be ordered. 2. Aggrieved against the said order, the tenant has preferred appeal in RCA No. 236 of 2009 against the said order and the appellate authority after hearing both sides on 11.09.2009 disposed of the said appeal directing the learned rent controller to dispose of M.P. No. ...

Shri Rajendra Sabanayagam and Another Vs. Cc, Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Heard both sides at length on 30.09.09 and again on 12.10.09. Shri M.V. Raman, Ld. Advocate, appearing for the appellants states that the impugned goods have not been allowed to be exported holding the same to be non-alloy steel on the basis of certificate given by the National Metallurgical Laboratories (NML). The Ld. Advocate states that the appellants had themselves got the goods tested by M/s. KIDAO Laboratories, an authorized testing and certification agency as per which the impugned goods contain more than minimum required percentage of Boron exceeding 0.0008%. He also states that during cross-examination, the scientist from NML mentioned about uncertainty in the Boron analysis and mentioned that it may vary upto 0.0011% and that the uncertainty is 0.0005% in NML. The Ld. Advocate states that the certification done by NML cannot be relied upon. 2. Heard Shri T.H. Rao, Ld. SDR, appearing for the department. He states that NML is the recognized Gove...

M/S. Hari Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Heard both sides. In respect of the appeal No. E/411/2003, Shri K. Balasubramanian, Ld. Adv., appearing for the appellants states that the required notice regarding closure and restarting of the factory was submitted to the jurisdictional Asst. Commissioner except in respect of S.No. xvi and xvii (vide para-7 of the order in original). He states that the appellants have made substantial compliance with the rules and hence they should be allowed the benefit of abatement. In this regard, he cites the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sharomani Alloys and Steel Castings (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur 2002 (144) ELT 134 (Tri.-Del.) 2. We have heard the Ld. SDR, Shri T.H. Rao, who supports the impugned order stating that the appellants have not complied with the dual requirement of the rules, which requires notice to be given to both the Asst. Commissioner and the Range Superintendent. 3. After considering the submissions from both sides, we find that the ci...