Chennai Court October 2009 Judgments

Umesh Pencil Processors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per P.K.Das The issue involved in these appeals is in a narrow compass and, therefore, all the appeals are taken up for hearing after granting stay. 2. The issue involved in these appeals is as to whether mixture of graphite and clay used captively in the manufacture of pencil lead would amount to manufacture. Original authority classified mixture of graphite and clay under Chapter Heading No.68151020 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and confirmed demand of duty along with interest and also imposed penalty. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order. 3. The learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that mixture of graphite and clay is used captively in the manufacture of pencil lead and further used in the manufacture of pencils. He submits that pencil lead and pencils classifiable under Chapter 96 of the Tariff Schedule attract Nil rate of duty. He submits that mixture of graphite and clay has a short life and cannot be marketed and, t...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. M/S.Vijaya Chemicals and T ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per P.K. Das Heard both sides and perused the records. 2. Revenue filed this appeal against the order of Commissioner insofar as cum-duty benefit has been extended to the respondent following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Maruti Udyog Ltd. and Ors. 2002 (49) R.L.T.1. The learned DR on behalf of the Revenue submits that the department filed review petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the said decision. Learned advocate on behalf of the respondent submits that the Hon ble Supreme Court dismissed the review petition filed by the Revenue as reported in 2005 (179) E.L.T.A.102 (S.C.). 3. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Cross objection is disposed of....

State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited Represent ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ1327

R. Banumathi, J.1. This Writ Appeal arises out of the order in W.P. No. 26075/2007 dated 01.9.2008 quashing the cancellation of allotment to 1st Respondent.2. First Respondent is a company registered under the Companies Act dealing in all Electronics, Communications, Wireless communications, Electrical, Information Technology, Cable communications etc. On the request made by the 1st Respondent, State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited [SIPCOT] allotted a Plot bearing No. 2/D2 in the Information Technology Park at Siruseri. Pursuant to the allotment order issued by the SIPCOT, 1st Respondent executed a lease deed on 24.1.2002. The lease period is 99 years. In consideration of the said allotment, 1st Respondent was required to pay a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- being 100% of the Plot deposit and Rs. 19,00,000/- towards development charges and 1st Respondent paid the same.3. On 18.5.2006 at 4.00 P.M., possession of the Plot was handed over to the 1st Respondent. Stating that ...

Sabari Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram The application for restoration of the appeal which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide Final Order No.874/09 dt. 10.7.09 is allowed as we are satisfied with the reason given for non-appearance on the date fixed for hearing. The appeal is restored to its original number. 2. Now, we take up the appeal itself for disposal on merits. The impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) rejects the appeal of the assessee on the ground that it was filed 132 days after the prescribed period and the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone delay beyond a period of 30 days after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation of 60 days. The view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) is in accordance with settled legal position. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order dismissing the appeal as time-barred, and reject this appeal....

The Managing Director Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage B ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The unsuccessful opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The respondents/ complainants, residents of 24th Cross Street and 29th Cross Street, Thiruvanmiyur, Thiruvalluvar Nagar, have filed the complaint, before the District Forum, Chennai (South), seeking several prayers, as enumerated under paragraph 21 of the complaint, alleging that the present water supplies, through tanker lorry are not sufficient, that though water pipe connections were given through pipes, water is not supplied having collected fee, that the repeated requisition in person and through letters, failed to redress the grievance, and the complainants being the consumers, are entitled to seek relief, and in this view, as said above, the petition came to be filed. 3. The opposite parties, in their written version have stated that to cater the need of the residents of the 24th street, daily water supply is maintained through tanker lorry, since they have informed inadequate supply thr...

Tmt. Anushammal and V. Narasimhan Rep. by S. Vasudevan Vs. the Tamil N ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ1615

ORDERT.S. Sivagnanam, J.1. The above Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by The Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal dated 20.07.1998 in D. No. 401 of 1995.2. The facts of the case are as follows:(i) One S. Vasudevan, S/o Srinivasa Iyer of Manarkudi held an extent of 55.03 ordinary acres equivalent to 32.80 standard acres as on the crucial date 15.02.1970. Since the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on land) Act 58 of 1961 as amended by Act 17 of 1970, hereinafter referred to as the Act, was attracted, proceedings were initiated under the Act. The holding of the land owner included the minor son's property to an extent of 18.33 ordinary acres equivalent to 14.11 standard acres. While calculating the holding of the land owner, the Authorized Officer excluded an extent of 18.33 ordinary acres, equivalent to 14.11 standard acres belonging to the minor son Narasimhan, who derived the property pursuant to a Deed of Partition, ...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. S.P.Engineers and Others

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram The brief facts of the case are that M/s.S.P.Engineers (hereinafter referred to as SPE) is a proprietary concern of Shri M.Satish Kumar who does not own any factory. He also does not have any office of his own except for a small place where he sits to transact business. He was entrusted with job work of manufacture of trolleys and storage racks etc. by M/s.Lumax Samlip Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as LSI) and PHC Manufacturing Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as PHC). Raw materials and components required for job work, land, building, plant and machinery, electricity etc. were supplied by LSI and PHC who also provided design and drawings for manufacture of the finished products. Since SPE was carrying on manufacture in the factory premises of LSI and PHC, SPE came within the ambit of Notification No.8/99-CE dt. 28.2.99 and 8/2000 dt. 28.2.2000 which envisages that the aggregate value of clearances of excisable goods from a factory by one or more manufact...

M/S.Ponni Sugars (Erode) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Sale ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Heard both sides. In this case, steel plates and steel angles have been used for manufacture of storage tanks, which is used in the premises of the appellant s factory for storage of molasses. Shri M.N. Bharathi, learned advocate appearing for the appellants states that molasses are intermediate goods, which are further used within the factory for manufacture of sugar. He further states that storage tanks are capital goods, which is very much essential for storing intermediate goods and hence is integral to the manufacturing process. He also cites the decisions of the Tribunal in the cases of Lloyds Metals and Engineers Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur [2002 (15) E.L.T.638 (Tri.-Mumbai)] and Himadri Chemicals and Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-IV [2007 (219) E.L.T.568 (Tri.-Kolkata)] and states that in both these cases credit of duty paid on steel materials used in the manufacture of storage tanks have been allowed. 2. Heard the learned DR Ms. ...

M/S.Hivelm Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Heard both sides. The appellants have come in appeal against the communication sent by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Chennai conveying the decision of the Commissioner of Customs rejecting the request of the exporter-appellants for conversion of the free shipping bills to drawback shipping bills. It is admitted by both sides that the concerned Commissioner has not heard the appellants nor has passed a speaking order. Under the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the concerned Commissioner of Customs with a direction that he should give adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellants and pass a fresh speaking order. The appeal is allowed by way of remand....

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., City Branch Iii, Madurai Vs. M/S. Gol ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite party/ insurance company, having suffered an adverse order in hands of the District Forum, Madurai, in OP.No.116/2003, has come to this Commission for redressal. 2. The respondent/ complainant approached the District Forum for the recovery of a sum of Rs.18,83,338/-, in addition to other claims, on the grounds with among other grounds, that the consignment consist of 30 bales of cotton linen fabrics, were dispatched to the consignee M/s.Uma Maheswari Fabrics, through their own truck TAZ-114, under invoice No.204 d.30.7.99, valued at Rs.18,83,338/-, that the truck was covered by tarpaulin and when the vehicle was proceeding from Sivagangai to Erode, at about 1.00 a.m on 31.7.99, had met with an accident due to the burst of tire on the right side, resulting capsizing the vehicle, in which the entire bales of fabrics were completely damaged, for which upon complaint, a criminal case also has been registered, that immediately the accident was...