Chennai Court October 2009 Judgments

Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. M/S.Micro Labs Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

The respondents herein presented a bill of entry dated 12.01.2005 for assessment and clearance of measuring tapes along with other goods like stethoscope holder and testing pin etc. For the import of measuring tapes, registration with the Department of Weights and Measures in accordance with the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as SWM Act) was required. Since the importer was not so registered, the measuring tapes were held to be liable for confiscation. Show-cause notice was waived and personal hearing was granted to the importers by the Additional Commissioner of Customs who held that the registration was mandatory for export or import of any weight or measure under Section 47 of the SWM Act. He, therefore, ordered confiscation under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 47 of the SWM Act, 1976 with an option to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs.80,000/- along with applicable duty, and also imposed a penalty of Rs.20,...

M/S. A. Habeebur Rahman Sons Vs. Cce, Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

In this case, CENVAT credit of Rs.1,65,089/- has been disallowed to the assessees, who are manufacturers of handmade branded biris, on the ground that credit was taken on invoices which did not contain details of payment of duty and that the credit in respect of inputs was not taken immediately on receipt of inputs in their factory and penalty of Rs.10,000/- was also imposed by the adjudicating authority (Assistant Commissioner). The above order was appealed against before the Commissioner (Appeals) who disallowed the credit only on the ground of delay in taking credit, and no finding was recorded on the second ground for denial namely that the documents on which credit was taken did not contain the details of payment of duty. Hence this appeal. 2. I have heard both sides. The goods received on 6.6.2005 were accounted in RG 23A Part I register of the appellants on 29.6.2005; goods received on 29.6.2005 were accounted on 2.7.2005 and goods received on 22.7.2005 and 23.7.2005 were accoun...

M/S. L.G. Balakrishnan and Brothers Ltd. Vs. Cce (St), Coimbatore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein had entered into an agreement with M/s. B.E. Gelb Consultancy Services, USA to provide technical know-how, complete product design and engineering specifications of various types, other relevant advices including designs and details for manufacturing tools, machines, quality control machines for manufacture of automotive silent chains. The said activities were alleged to fall within the scope of consulting engineer service. Demand of service tax was therefore confirmed against the present appellants by the adjudicating authority. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the finding that the services rendered by the appellants was consulting engineer service leviable to service tax, following the earlier Order-in-Appeal No. 94/2005-ST dated 21.11.2005 in which demand of service tax on the ground that the service provider M/s. B.E. Gelb Consultancy Services were providing consultancy engineer service was upheld. Hence this ap...

M/S. Best Cast It Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

The issue in this appeal namely as to whether interest is payable when differential duty is paid on supplementary invoice raised due to the price revision, stands settled against the assessees by the recent apex Court’s decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune Vs. SKF India Ltd. - 2009 (239) ELT 385 (SC). Following the ratio of the above decision, I uphold the liability of the assessees to pay interest on the delayed duty payment. 2. The appeal is dismissed....

The Executive Officer, Sri Soundereswarar Devasthanam Vs. G. Kuppuswam ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ790

V. Selvaraj, J.1. This first appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 21 August 1987 in O.S. No. 1973/1986 on the file of the learned XV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.2. The fourth defendant is the appellant.3. Parties to this appeal are referred to as plaintiff and Defendants.Background facts:4. The suit in O.S. No. 1973/1986 was preferred by the plaintiffs against the defendants praying for a money Decree for a sum of Rs. 41,401/- by way of refund of the advance consideration paid by him for the purpose of purchasing the property of the temple by name 'Sundareshwarar Temple', Madras.5. In the plaint in O.S. No. 1973/1986, plaintiff inter-alia contended thus:(a) Defendants 1 to 3 are the trustees of the temple by name 'Sundareshwarar Temple'. They have entered into an Agreement with the plaintiff on 12.02.1983 agreeing to sell the property of the temple bearing D. No. 20, Masudhi Street, Saidapet. As per the Agreement, the property was agreed to be sold for a tot...

Sri Ragavendra Advertising and G. Seetharaman, Sole Proprietor, Sri Ra ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ1602

M. Chockalingam, J.1. Appeal No. 319 of 2006 was filed by the defendant challenging the order of dismissal passed in Application No. 2355 of 2005 seeking to set aside the exparte order passed in C.S.245 of 2005, while appeal No. 378 of 2006 was filed by the defendant challenging the order of dismissal passed in application No. 628 of 2005 seeking rejection of the plaint in C.S. No. 245 of 20012. The case of the appellant before the learned single Judge is as follows:The respondent/plaintiff Corporation is conducting a Broadcasting service and the plaintiff Corporation is also having another ancillary wing for broadcasting on commercial basis. The plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement on 26.6.1990 which was given effect from 1.7.1990. Under the terms of agreement, the defendant agreed to pay necessary charges as stipulated therein but there was default in payments. The plaintiff is entitled to get Rs. 22,58,670/- from the defendant. Despite service of notice, there was n...

M/S. Krishna Mobikes Vs. Cce (St), Trichy

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

In this case, the assessees have obtained a certificate for full and final settlement of tax arrears under Section 96 (2) of the Finance Act, 2008 in respect of Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2008. The certificate is dated 31.10.2008 and grants also immunity from institution of any proceedings for imposition of penalty under the Finance Act, 1994, in respect of matters covered in the aforesaid declaration made by the assessees. In view of the above settlement, the penalty imposed on the appellants is set aside and the appeal is allowed....

Sethu Samudhra Shipping Services and Others Vs. Commissioner of Custom ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

The appellants herein, who are Custom House Agents, are aggrieved by the imposition of penalties of Rs.1 lakh each under the provisions of Section 114 (i) of the Customs Act for their involvement in the act of attempt to smuggle red sanders in the guise of rice, by D.Padmanabhan / for aiding smuggling activities. Red sanders were found loaded enroute in the container stuffed with rice for export at ICD Irugur by tampering with the rivet of the keel, in Tuticorin Port in the name of M/s.Good Mark Enterprises who have been held not to be exporters of the rice as their IE code was misused by Shri D.Padmanabhan, Inspector of Madurai Central Excise Commissionerate. The finding of the Commissioner against M/s. Sethu Samudhra Shipping Services is that they arranged and sent the container to Irugur, ICD, moved the container laden into port area and acted as per instructions of D.Padmanabhan. The other two appellants provided logistics support and filed export documents supplied by Padmanabhan ...

Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd., Bhavani Vs. P. Thangadhurai

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

HONBLE M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT. 1. The opposite party on the file of the District Forum, Erode, is the appellant herein. 2. The respondent as complainant, approached the District Forum, Erode, claiming a sum of Rs.30,524/- with interest thereon, as if the opposite party/ appellant not only committed deficiency in service, but also neglected to pay the same, pursuant to the insurance policy No.650503/31/03/610571, contending that his vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN-36-E-5949, was insured with the opposite party for the period from 13.12.2003 and 12.12.2004, that the vehicle met with an accident, causing damage to the vehicle, which was repaired by spending a sum of Rs.30,524/-, that when the said amount was claimed under the policy, the same was repudiated, as if on the date of accident, the driver was not having valid license and in this view, the insurance company is not liable to pay the amount and the repudiation as well as non-payment of the amount, amounts to deficiency in servi...

M.K. Hariprasad Sole Proprietor Yehem Agency and Vs. Uma Keshav

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ1027(NULL)

M. Chockalingam, J.1. These two intra-court appeals challenge a common order of the learned Single Judge of this Court made in two applications in Application Nos. 5061 and 5657 of 2008 whereby the appellants herein asked for a direction to the respondents therein to furnish security for the suit claim and in default attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code.2. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the appellants.3. No case is made out, in the considered opinion of the Court, for granting the relief, and the order by the learned Single Judge does not require disturbance in the hands of this Court. This Court is of the considered view that it is not a fit case where the appeals could be admitted for the following reasons.4. The case of the appellants is as follows:The suits were filed seeking recovery of money against the partnership firm and also the partners namely the defendants 2 to 4. Even as per the averments, the transaction commenced in the year ...