Chennai Court November 2009 Judgments

Ayyavoo Vs. the Managing Director Tractors Farm Equipments (P) Ltd., C ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

M. THANIKACHALAM J. 1. The unsuccessful complainant before the District Forum, Perambalur, in OP.24/2004, is the appellant. 2. The complainant/ appellant purchased a tractor from 2nd opposite party, which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party on 11.03.2002. The said tractor, met with an accident, and therefore the same was entrusted with 2nd opposite party, for repair at Perambalur. At the time of entrusting the tractor, for purchasing spare parts Rs.6000/- was paid, but as promised, within two days, the vehicle was not returned, after completing the repairs. On enquiry, the complainant was informed by the 2nd opposite party, that the spare parts for the tractor, was not available, and also not received from the 1st respondent. The tractor was given to the complainant, after a long delay, only on 14.5.2003, thereby causing deficiency in their service, which in turn caused huge monetary loss and untold mental agony to the appellant, which is quantified at Rs.60000/-. In view of th...

Jayaram Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2010)229CTR(Mad)57

ORDERV. Ramasubramanian, J.1. The petitioner has come up with this writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961 and an order overruling the objections filed by the petitioner to the said notice.2.I have heard Mr. S. Sridhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Subramaniam, learned standing counsel for the Department.3. The petitioner is a company, whose main objects, as per the articles and memorandum of association, include the manufacturing and marketing of paper and the business of financing. The company was incorporated in 1974. For the asst. yr. 2004-05 relating to the previous year ending 31st March, 2004, the petitioner filed a return of income on 1st Nov., 2004 disclosing a total income of Rs. 3,02,626. This income was arrived at by the petitioner by showing an income of Rs. 12,80,258 as interest earned in the activity of money-lending, under the head 'Business' and after claiming admissible expenses and set off as against brought fo...

M/S. Target Marketing Vs. Cce, Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per: Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. Shri Gurumurthy, Ld. Advocate, appearing for the appellants states that in this case, the lower appellate authority had passed an order requiring the appellants to predeposit the entire amount in dispute and since the appellants could not deposit the said amount, he rejected their appeals. Subsequently, the appellants filed the present appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal had directed the appellants to deposit an amount of Rs. Ten lakhs, against which the appellants approached the Hon’ble High Court of Madras. He states that subsequently, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras by its order dated 23.07.09 has waived the requirement of predeposit and has remanded the matter to the Tribunal. 2. Heard the Ld. DR. 3. We find that in this case, the lower appellate authority has not decided the matter on merits. Hence, with the consent of both sides, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the lower appellate aut...

M/S. Vamsee Overseas Marine Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Che ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. Shri S. Murugappan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants states that a tug and barges were imported from Mongolia for use in the proposed Sethusamudram Project which later on did not take up. A manifest was filed when initially the tug and barges came to the Chennai Port. The appellants filed a Bill of Entry for the stores on board and paid the duty on the same. Subsequently when the project was shelved, the barges were sold initially and the duty on the same was paid by filing Bill of Entry. The tug was retained by the appellants according to the learned counsel for possible revival of the project and use therein. Later on, for repairs the tug was removed from Chennai to Vizag after obtaining permission for coastal run. The Department required the appellants to pay duty on the tug which had been paid subsequently after filing Bill of Entry. Only later on, a show-cause notice had been issued to the appellants and they have been p...

M/S. Devraj Computers (P) Ltd. and Another Cce, Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per: P.K. Das, A.No. E/588 - 589/2001 None appears on behalf of the appellants. It is seen from the records that the Ld. Counsel on behalf of the appellants requested for adjournment on the ground that he is suffering from fever and not in a position to argue the appeals. We find that in earlier occasion on 10.09.09, the Ld. Counsel requested for adjournment on the same ground. It is noted that there is no medical certificate is enclosed with the adjournment application. In any event, it is seen that the matters are adjourned on various occasions on different grounds. It seems that the appellant is not interested to proceed with the matter. In view of that, both the appeals are dismissed for non-prosecution. A.No. E/116/2002 Heard the Ld. JCDR on behalf of the Revenue. None appears on behalf of the respondents. On perusal of the records, we find that the respondents had not controverted the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue. The respondents are also not appeared during hearing. In...

M/S.Paxal Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner of Customs has ordered confiscation of goods valued at approximately Rs.60 lakhs on the ground of misdeclaration as prime Stainless Coils of 304 Grade, as the goods were found on test to be secondary Stainless Coils of 304 Grade, with an option for redemption of a fine of Rs.9 lakhs and as also a penalty of Rs.3 lakhs. 2. I have heard both sides. The goods, on visual examination and chemical analysis, were found to be secondary and defective Stainless Steel Coils of 304 Grade. The test report stands unchallenged. Therefore, the finding of misdeclaration is sustained. Having regard to the value of the goods and the totality of facts and circumstances of the case namely, that the importer does not appear to have strong motive for misdeclaration as prime quality attracted higher value of USD 3500 PMT, the fine in lieu of confiscation is reduced to Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) and the penalty to Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousa...

M/S. Tneb, Tirunelveli Vs. Cce, Madurai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per: P.K. Das, The Ld. SDR, appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that the appellant is a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) under the Government of Tamil Nadu. He submits that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ONGC Ltd. Vs. City and Industries Development Corporation, Maharashtra reported in 2009 (233)ELT 30 (S.C.), the appellant is required to obtain the clearance from the Committee on Disputes. On perusal of the records, we find that the appellant had not obtained clearance from the Committee on Disputes. In view of that, the appeal is dismissed for want of clearance from COD. However, the appellant is at liberty to apply for restoration as and when COD is available....

Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Sl Lumax Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per: Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. Shri C. Saravanan, Ld. Advocate, appearing for the respondents states that the lower appellate authority had decided the case on merits in favour of the respondents and therefore had no occasion to go into the ground of limitation though the same was raised before him by the respondents. Subsequently, the Tribunal on an appeal from the department had decided the issue on merits against the respondents without going into the question of limitation. He also states that as per the order dated 28.04.09, passed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court, the issue of limitation has to be gone into now. 2. Heard the Ld. JCDR. 3. Both sides agree that since the issue of limitation has not been considered earlier by the lower appellate authority, the matter should be remanded specifically for considering the issue of limitation. As such, we remand the matter to the lower appellate authority to specifically decide on the question of limitation, after al...

Cce, Coimbatore Vs. M/S. Textool Co. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per: Chittaranjan Satapathy The respondents are not present despite notice. Heard the Ld. SDR. This appeal has been filed against an order of the lower appellate authority who has set aside the penalty imposed on the respondents while upholding the demand of duty and recording payment of the same. We find that the lower appellate authority has given a factual finding that there is no suppression of facts to evade payment of duty. As such, the impugned order requires no interference. The departmental appeal is rejected....

P. Sumangala and ors. Vs. the Director, Teacher Education Research and ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ471

ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard both sides.2. The facts projected in the writ petition herein depict the modus operandi of the Heroes of the films Vasool Raja MBBS (Tamil) and Munna Bhai MBBS (Hindi). One begins to wonder whether our youth gets ideas from the movies or the movies are portraying the real life situations. While such debates may continue, the degeneration to which the petitioners have descended to, will shock one and all. From gun wielding or knife holding examinees in some northern States, the present high-tech shift of their techniques may reduce tension to the hall Supervisors. But nevertheless it is a new scourge afflicted in our educational campus. Such people are going to be the teachers of tomorrow really chills our spines.3. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:The 22 petitioners herein were students of third respondent Madha Teacher Training Institute at Vedaranyam and were undergoing course in Diploma in Teacher Education. They were se...