Chennai Court October 2009 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai and Another Vs. M/S. Borg Warn ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

These two appeals have been filed by the Department and appellant assessee against the same impugned order. The appellant assessee has sought adjournment. However, ld. JCDR states that the issues involved in both the appeals have been decided against the department vide following two decisions of the Larger Bench:- i) ABB Ltd Vs. CCE, Bangalore-2009 (15) STR 23 (Tri.LB) ii) CCE, Mumbai Vs. GTC Industries Ltd-2008 (12) 468 (Tri.LB) 2. In view of the submissions made by the ld. JCDR, the appeal filed by the department is dismissed and the appeal filed by the appellant assessee is allowed after declining the request for adjournment....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli Vs. M/S. Karpagambal Mills ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

We have heard both sides. 2. Both sides agree that the issue involved relates to grant of export rebate. Hence these two appeals are not maintainable as the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear these appeals. Hence both appeals filed by the department are dismissed....

M/S. Hcl Info Systems Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondich ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

We have heard both sides. 2. Shri V. Panchanathan, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants states as follows:- “A.1.The appellants received purchase order from WBSEB, Kolkotta for supply of 35 numbers of Servers bearing material code No.A1J02700 and 501 numbers of clients bearing material code No.A1J2698. A.2. The servers and clients were supplied as per the configuration along with peripherals like key board, mouse and monitor. While raising the stock transfer invoice description of the configuration of each item has been mentioned in the invoice to ensure supply as per configuration. The contract value being for the supply of Server and client the total amount was mentioned in the invoice. However, inadvertently, the amount for each of the item (viz.) Mouse, Monitor, Key board etc. was also mentioned and duty paid on the total value. This has resulted in excess payment of duty. The Commissioner (A) has failed to appreciate the above fact. The Commissioner (A) has assumed that ...

M/S.Supertech Battery Components Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Vide letter dated 15.09.2009, the appellants seek permission to withdraw the above appeal. Leave granted the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. M/S. Viki Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Heard both sides. 2. The issue involved in both these appeal is squarely covered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s recent decision in CCE Vs. Gujarat Narmada Fertilizers Co. Ltd [2009 (240) ELT 661 (SC)] under which it has been held that credit is not admissible in respect of goods as fuel for producing steam and electricity, which in turn used in or in relation to manufacture of final exempted goods. While deciding the issue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has however waived the penalty. Following the ratio of the aforecited decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the impugned orders are set aside and the duty demands are upheld and the penalties imposed by the original authority are set aside. The department appeals are allowed in the above terms....

M/S.Faiveley Transport India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise ( ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

In this case, the person providing services to the assessees herein is situated outside India and has no office in India. The period of demand of tax is 2003-04. Therefore, the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in Indian National Ship Owners Association Vs Union of India [2009 (13) S.T.R.235 (Bom.)] holding that recipient in India is liable to service tax for services from abroad only with effect from 18.04.2006 when Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 was enacted, is squarely attracted to the facts of the present case and following the ratio thereof, I set aside the impugned order of demand of tax together with interest and penalty and allow the appeal....

K. Mani, Forest Ranger, Karaikudi Vs. the Branch Manager, Sundaram Hom ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

HONBLE M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The unsuccessful complainant in C.O.P.16/2003 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sivaganga, is the appellant. 2. The complainants wife by name Tmt.Jothiprema obtained house building loan from the opposite parties 1 to 4 by submitting an application, agreeing to pay EMI at Rs.4,529/-. At the time of borrowing the loan from the first opposite partys office, they have collected Rs.1,572/- towards property insurance as well as for personal accident claim. The complainants wife Jothiprema unexpectedly met with a fire accident and died on 05.08.2002. On her death, a claim was lodged claiming property insurance amount, as well as personal accident claim and the same was repudiated illegally. Thereafter issuing notice also claim was made, for which, there was no effective response, thereby, the complainant constrained to move the Forum for the reliefs as claimed in the complaint. 3. The first opposite party in its Written Versi...

Neeraj Kumar Mal Vs. Sudha K. Punjhabi Sole Proprietrix, Chennai

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The unsuccessful complainant in OP.No.63/1998, on the file of the District Forum, Chennai (South), is the appellant. 2. It is the case of the complainant that, as per the construction agreement dt.5.9.93, the opposite party agreed to complete the construction work, and deliver the flat within 10 months from the date of the agreement. The complainant made all the payments to the opposite party, under the hope the opposite party will provide all the facilities assured. During the construction, the complainant noticed some deviation, and issued a notice requesting the opposite party, to give the breakup total built up area of his flat, for which the opposite party assured that details would be furnished at the time of handing over of the possession. Later, the complainant came to know that the opposite party had obtained the signature of the complainant in a letter, captioned as Possession Letter on 26.9.95, as if the handed over the key of the said flat,...

The Manager, Bank of India, Coimbatore Vs. C.T. Mary

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

HONBLE M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite party in C.O.P.271/2003 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore, is the appellant. 2. The Respondent herein as complainant, approached the lower Forum seeking directions to return all the documents deposited with them as collateral security at the time of borrowing loan as well, claiming a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation alleging, that despite the fact she cleared and discharged not only the loan borrowed by her, but also discharged the loan, for which, she stood surety and despite the fact, in spite of repeated demands, Bank failed to return the documents, which amounts to deficiency in service, for which, a direction and compensation should be given as claimed, with among other grounds. 3. The opposite party admitting the discharge of house loan, as well as the loan, for which she stood as surety, as well, the deposit of title deed, have stated that they are unable to return the documents, since t...

Mani Muthusamy Vs. Personal Assistant to the Collector

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2010]186TAXMAN339(Mad)

T.S. Sivagnanam, J.1. By consent, all the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. Since the prayers sought for in all the writ petitions are identical, the writ petitions are disposed of by a common order.2. The question which has been raised for consideration in the above writ petitions is as to whether the contract in question is a contract of sale or a contract of work and labour.3. Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, learned Counsel for the petitioners requested that the facts in W.P.(MD) No. 2571 of 2009 may be taken up for the disposal of all the writ petitions. Accordingly, the facts in the said case are taken up.4. All the petitioners are suppliers of eggs. The Government of Tamil Nadu in order to ensure that the school children are provided adequate nutrition, brought out a scheme for supply of eggs in the noon meal centres. The present issue is one such a contract between the petitioner and the State Government represented by the first respondent. The reason for approaching this Co...