Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. These 13 appeals are taken up together as a common issue is involved in all these appeals. Shri K.S. Venkatagiri, learned counsel appearing for the appellants states as under:- ‘The issue herein pertains to classification of data projectors whether under Tariff Item 8528 61 00 or under 8528 69 00 and the availability of the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus. dated 01.03.2005. 2. The contending entries read as follows: Tariff Item Description of goods 8528 Monitors and projectors, not incorporating television reception apparatus; reception apparatus for television, whether or not incorporating radiobroadcast receivers or sound or video recording or reproducing apparatus - Projectors 8528 61 00 -- Of a kind solely or principally used in an automatic data processing system of heading 8471 8528 69 00 -- Other 3. Notification No. 24/2005-Cus. dated 01.03.2005 grants exemption from basic customs duty to various good...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The Doctor who suffered an adverse order, as opposite party in O.P.28/2001 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tiruvallur, is the appellant. The facts leading to the complaint: 2. The complainant/respondent herein approached the appellant/opposite party on 16.12.2000, for medical check up and for confirmation of pregnancy, which was confirmed. Thereafter, for general check up, the complainant went to the hospital on 26.12.2000 to the opposite party and she was advised to be in the hospital for observation, to conduct test, for which, medicines also given. On the advice given by the opposite party, scan was taken and the complainant was informed that she is suffering incomplete abortion, thereby, evacuation was done under sedation on 26.12.2000 itself. On the same day, the complainant was also discharged as per the advise given by the opposite party. 3. After two days i.e. on 28.12.2000, the complainant had severe abdominal ...
Tag this Judgment!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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
The issue involved in the present appeal is whether CENVAT credit can be utilized for discharging service tax due on GTA service. 2. On hearing both sides, I note that this issue stands settled in favour of the assessees by series of decisions of the Tribunal including that in the case of India Cements Ltd. Vs CCE Salem [2008 (223) ELT 78] which has been followed in Pallipalayam Spinners Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Salem [2008 (9) STR 544]. Following the ratio of the above decisions, I set aside the impugned order upholding the demand of service tax and education cess together with interest and imposing penalties, and allow the appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per: P.K. Das, Common issue is involved in these appeals and therefore all are taken up together for disposal. 2. The appellants imported a second hand main frame assemblies with few PCBs of photocopiers. The adjudicating authority enhanced the declared value under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules. He also confiscated the goods under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962 for violation of Exim Policy and imposed redemption fine and penalty under Section 112 (a) of the Act for contravention of Customs Act/Exim Policy. 3. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the main contention of the Ld. Advocate is that the imported old and used main frame assemblies of photocopiers, which are not a restricted item and confiscation, imposition of fine and penalty are not sustainable. It is also contended that the Chartered Engineer s Certificate produced by the appellant cannot be brushed aside without proper reason. He fairly submits that the Tribunal in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
The Revenue challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has remitted the case for fresh decision to the adjudicating authority, on the ground that after amendment of Section 35A (3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, by the Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 11.5.2001, the Commissioner (Appeals) no longer has power of remand. 2. I have heard both sides and find that the issue stands settled against the Revenue by the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad Vs Medico Labs [2004 (173) ELT 117 (Guj.)] holding that Commissioner (Appeals) continues to have power of remand even after the amendment to the above mentioned provision in the statute. Following the decision cited supra of the Hon’ble High Court, I uphold the impugned order of remand, and reject the appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
None appears for the appellants. As the issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellants by earlier decisions Tribunal, I take up the appeal for disposal. 2. The issue involved in the present appeal is whether CENVAT credit can be utilized for discharging service tax due on GTA service. 3. On hearing ld. SDR, I note that this issue stands settled in favour of the assessees by series of decisions of the Tribunal including that in the case of India Cements Ltd. Vs CCE Salem [2008 (223) ELT 78] which has been followed in Pallipalayam Spinners Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Salem [2008 (9) STR 544]. Following the ratio of the above decisions, I set aside the impugned order upholding the demand of service tax and education cess together with interest and imposing penalty, and allow the appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy The respondents are not present despite notice. Heard the learned DR. This is a Revenue appeal which involves only a petty amount. As such the appeal is dismissed without going into merits of the case....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both learned DR. No one is present on behalf of the appellants. There is neither any report of compliance nor any adjournment request. As such the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of the Stay Order No. 646/2009 dated 21.7.2009 under Section 129E of the Customs Act....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. The learned counsel Sh. K. Balasubramaniam appearing for the respondents states that the respondent-textile mills are all public sector undertakings. He further states that the Department has not obtained necessary clearance from the Committee on Disputes to pursue these appeals before the Tribunal. This fact has been confirmed by the learned SDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue as there is no COD clearance on his files. 2. Accordingly, all the five appeals are dismissed as not maintainable for want of COD clearance with liberty to the Department to apply for restoration in the event of obtaining COD clearance later on. All the five cross-objections also stand disposed of....
Tag this Judgment!