Chennai Court October 2009 Judgments

N.M. Subramanian Vs. Superintending Engineer Tneb Mettur Dam Salem Dis ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The unsuccessful complainant in OP.No.11/2005 on the file of District Forum, Namakkal, is the complainant. 2. The complainant/appellant approached the opposite parties on 30.7.2003, for service connection, to his newly constructed shops, for which he had paid Rs.100/- towards application fees. The opposite parties 3 and 4, inspected the building and informed that the connection will be given from the main distribution, and the complainant has to arrange for two posts in his agricultural land, and he has to remove the coconut trees also. The complainant considering the long distance, as well as availability of shortest distribution from Kaliappanur SS-II, requested the opposite parties to give connection from there, which was not accepted, instead they have advised the complainant to come back with Rs.7000/-, for giving connection from Kaliappanur SS-II, for which the complainant is not willing. 3. The complainant again applied for a new connection on...

State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary to Government Co-operation, ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ1313

M. Jaichandren, J.1. The respondent in the writ petition, in W.P. No. 19712 of 2006, are the appellants in the present writ appeal.2. This writ appeal has been filed against the order, dated 24.4.2008, made in W.P. No. 19712 of 2006. The learned single Judge, by his order, dated 24.4.2008, had allowed the writ petition, with certain observations. While allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein, the learned single Judge had noted that the point in issue was whether the charge memo issued against the respondent, after his retirement from service, is maintainable, in view of the fact that surcharge proceedings had already been initiated against him, under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), based on the same allegations relating to the same incident.3. The learned Judge had held that the respondents in the writ petition and the appellants herein were not justified in continuing with the disciplinary proceed...

M/S.Kannappa Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Penalties imposed by the Order-in-Revision under the provisions of Section 76, 77 and 78 of Chapter V to the Finance Act, 1994 are challenged in the present appeal. The appellant is an individual (proprietor of a proprietary concern) who undertakes loading and unloading of cargo for others; the service tax demand has been honoured. 2. I have heard both sides and find merit in the submission of the appellant based upon the Tribunal’s decision in 2008-TIOL- 282-CESTAT DEL, holding that if someone hires labour/labourer for loading or unloading of goods in their individual capacity, he will not be liable to service tax as Cargo Handling Agent. The above decision is based upon the CBEC Circular F.No.11/1/2002-TRU dated 01.08.2002. 3. When the activity of the appellant itself does not attract service tax, the question of imposition of penalty certainly does not arise, even though the service tax demand has not been challenged by the assessee. I, therefore, set aside the penalties and a...

M/S.Travel Aid and Others Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Demands of service tax under the heading Tour Operator Service and imposition of penalties on these assessees have been challenged in the present batch of appeals which are, therefore, heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. Service Tax levy was introduced on Tour Operator Service on 01.09.1997. The levy was challenged by Chennai Tourist Taxi Owners Association before the Hon’ble Madras High Court (of which the appellants herein are members), by filing Writ Petition No.18673/1997 and stay was granted by the High Court in WMP No.29429 dated 16.12.1997. On 16.07.1998, Notification No.58/98-ST was issued granting exemption from payment of service tax on Tour Operator Service which exemption was withdrawn on 01.04.2000. Thereafter service tax became leviable once again with effect from 01.04.2000. On 30.04.2001, the Madras High Court dismissed Writ Petition No.18673/1997 and others, challenging the constitutional validity of the levy by upholding the validity. From Ma...

Kiran Styles Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Based on specific intelligence received by the DRI that the appellants herein, a 100% EOU, proprietary concern of Shri Sanjay Nopany, were declaring description, quantity and value of export consignments viz. silk quilts and wadding bound for Dubai in the shipping bills filed on 22.12.04 at Chennai, four export consignments bound for Dubai under Shipping Bill Nos.1967450, 1967451, 1967452 and 1967453 were intercepted at Chennai CFS on 27.12.04. In respect of shipping bill No.1967452, quilts were found to have stuffed with PU Foam and gauge cloth (Gada) sandwiched by silk on one side and polyester cloth on the other side. The actual gross weight of the quilts was found to be much lesser than the weight declared in the shipping bill and in the other three shipping bills, silk wadding was found to be wadding made of noils/fibre waste, which were dyed with black dye. All the four consignments were seized. Representative samples of the seized goods were drawn and sent for testing to Central...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore Vs. M/S.Vijayalakshmi Texti ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

The issue as to whether depreciation in respect of capital goods for unavailed credit under Income Tax Act, 1996 can be claimed in the year of receipt of goods, stands settled in favour of the assessee herein by the Tribunal s decision in Suprajit Engineering Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore [2007 (212) E.L.T.394 (Tri.-Bang.)] and Roots Cast Private Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore [2007 (216) E.L.T. 448 (Tri.-Chennai)]. It is on the basis of these decisions that the Commissioner (Appeals) has granted relief to the assessees. The only ground in the Revenue s appeal is that the department has not accepted the decision of the Tribunal in Roots Cast cited supra. However, this is no ground for the Revenue, not to follow the earlier decision in the absence of any order granting stay of operation of the earlier order. Therefore, following the ratio of the decisions cited supra, I uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal....

M/S.Lakshmi Electrical Control Systems Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Centra ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

The issue in dispute in the present appeal namely as to whether interest is payable when duty is paid subsequently on the raising of supplementary invoices, stands settled against the assessees by the decision of the apex Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune Vs SKF India Ltd. [2009 (239) E.L.T.385 (S.C.)]. Following the ratio of the above order, I uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal....

M/S.Anand Agencies Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (Service Tax), C ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

In this case, the adjudicating authority imposed a penalty under the provisions of Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 upon the assessees, and dropped proceedings for imposition of penalty under Section 76. In revision, the Commissioner has imposed a penalty under Section 76 which is the subject matter of challenge in the present bill. 2. I heard both sides. It has been held in a series of decisions such as Opus Media and Entertainment Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur [2007 (8) S.T.R.368 (Tri.-Del.)], Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad Vs Shield Security Force [2008 (9) S.T.R.215 (Tri.-Mumbai)], Remac Marketing (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Kolkata [2009 (13) S.T.R.658 (Tri.-Kolkata)] that Sections 76 and 78 are mutually exclusive. The penalty under Section 78 stands and has not been set aside. In the light of the above decisions, I set aside the penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 and allow the appeal....

M/S.Premier Polyweaves Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, C ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

The issue in dispute in the present appeal is the admissibility of CENVAT credit of service tax paid by the assessees herein who are manufacturers of grey fabrics and made-ups on services received by them under the category of Transport of Goods by Road (GTA). Credit has been denied on the ground that the Goods Transport Agency’s service received by them was not an output service as per Explanation to Rule 2 (p) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and that as per Rule 3 (4) of the Rules, assessee may utilise CENVAT credit for payment of service tax only on an output service. 2. I have heard both sides and find that the issue stands settled by a series of decisions of the Tribunal such as Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh Vs Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. [2007 (7) S.T.R.26 (Tri.-Del.)], India Cements Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem [2007 (7) S.T.R. 569 (Tri.-Chennai)] and R.R.D. Tex Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem [2007 (8) S.T.R. 186 (Tr...

The Proprietor Abbott Health Care Private Ltd., Mumbai and Others Vs. ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

HONBLE M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT. 1. The opposite parties 2 to 4 in OP.No.105/2004 on the file of the District Forum, Chennai (South) are the appellants. 2. The parties are referred in this judgment, as ranked before the District Forum. 3. The complainant on 20.5.2003, purchased a baby food called Pediasure, from the 1st opposite party, which was manufactured by the opposite parties 2 to 4, by paying a sum of Rs.249/-. The complainant gave one dose of pediasure to her child, Master Aryan, aged about 3 years, on 20.5.2003 mid-night. Later, when the second dose was fed on 21.5.2003 the child refused completely and felt uneasy and nausea and started developing diarrhea and vomiting. When the baby food was tested, it emanated bad smell and suspected to be insect infected, though the expiry date is mentioned as 20.8.2005. The baby was immediately rushed to Deepa Healthcare Centre and treated immediately, worse was prevented. 4. The complainants father, on 22.5.2003, approached the 1...