Chennai Court November 2009 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore Vs. Mettur Spinning Mills L ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Dr.Chittaranjan Satapathy No one is present on behalf of the respondents despite notice and despite adjournment granted earlier. Heard Shri C.Rangaraju, ld. SDR on behalf of the applicant-Commissioner. He reiterates the grounds of appeal taken by the department against the impugned order passed by the lower appellate authority . These grounds of appeal remain uncontroverted by the respondents. We are of the view that the same are required to be considered by the lower appellate authority. As such, the impugned order is set aside and the department’s appeal is allowed by way of remand with the direction that the lower appellate authority shall take into account the grounds taken by the department and shall also allow a reasonable opportunity of hearing to both sides before passing the fresh order. 2. The appeal is allowed by way of remand....

Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. Angioneed and Another

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Dr.Chittaranjan Satapathy The respondents are not represented. Heard ld. DR Ms.Indira Sisupal. 2. We find that the issue involved in this case is grant of exemption to ‘Cardiac Stents’ imported by the respondents as accessories of ‘Cardiac Catheters’. We also find that the very same issue has been decided by Tribunal’s earlier order No.1008, 1009/09 dt. 18.8.09 in the case of CC Chennai Vs Indian Surgicals and Others in Appeal Nos.C/322, 326/2003. Hence following the aforecited order, we hold that ‘Cardiac Stents’ are eligible for exemption as accessories and reject the department’s appeals....

inys Medical Research Society Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Dr.Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. Shri R.Raghavan, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants states that three equipments were imported through Bangalore Customs and one through Chennai Customs, all of which were covered under the same certificate issued by DGHS. Subsequently, the DGHS certificate was cancelled unilaterally without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellants and hence it was taken up by the appellants before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and vide its order dt. 23.9.2005, the said Hon’ble High Court has set aside the order of cancellation and has allowed the DGHS authorities to pass fresh order after issuing appropriate show-cause notice. In view of the above position, ld. Advocate states that the matter requires to be remanded back to the authorities below as has been done in respect of the cases relating to Bangalore Customs. 2. Ld. SDR, Shri Dhanasekaran appearing for the department has no objection to such a remand in view of t...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry Vs. Varun Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per P.K.Das Revenue filed this appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) wherein the adjudication order was set aside. 2. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Shampoo, Herbal shampoo etc. classified under Chapter 33 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They availed the benefit of Exemption Notification No.140/83-CE dt. 5.5.83 as amended and Notification No.10/99-CE dt. 28.2.99 on the branded goods for the period 30.6.98 to 31.3.2000. They cleared the final products which bear the symbol and name of the hotels as per the order and it is manufactured for the Hotel Industry. Original authority confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Model Soap Co. Vs CCE 1998 (98) ELT 622 (T). He has also followed Board’s Circular No.71/71/94-CE dt. 27.10.94 [1994 (74) ELT ...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai Vs. Majestic Poly Laminators P ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Dr.Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. It is the submission of the department that the respondents have not manufactured cartons but only Polycoated paper board on job work basis as they have been doing for their own self and hence, the order of the lower appellate authority to hold that the respondents are manufacturing exempted cartons on the basis of an affidavit filed by the supplier is not correct. Moreover, Shri Dhanasekaran, ld. SDR argues that the department was not heard in respect of the affidavit which was produced before the Commissioner (Appeals) and hence there has been denial of a reasonable opportunity to the department. 2. Mrs.Nisha Bineesh, ld. Advocate appearing for the respondents states that the respondents are manufacturing poly-coated material which is used for packing match boxes. In any case, the respondents have taken up the issue of limitation before the lower appellate authority who has not passed any order in that regard. She further states that th...

Syed Pyarijan and Another Vs. State Bank of India Rep. by Its Manager, ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

HONBLE M. THANIKACHALAM J. 1. The complainants in OP.No.324/2002 on the file of the District Forum Chennai (North) are the appellants. 2. The appellants, as complainants have approached the District Forum, for certain reliefs, as catalogued under paragraph 49 of the petition, alleging interalia, that non-refund of the Fixed Deposit amounts on maturity, deposited by their predecessors in interest, with the 1st opposite party bank, would amounts to deficiency in service, that the amount refunded/ returned, after negotiated settlement under the Lok Adalat, falls short in agreed interest, since they are bound to pay interest as agreed originally, and therefore suitable directions should be issued, for the payment of interest, as originally agreed, in addition to compensation, etc. 3. The opposite parties, opposed the claim, interalia on the ground, that the Forum, where the complainant has filed the case, has no jurisdiction, since the 1st opposite party, against whom the relief is soug...

V. Jayapalan Vs. P. Natarajan

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

HONBLE M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The Respondent/ opposite party in CMP.No.38/2008 in C.C.No.14/2004, on the file of the District Forum, Thiruvallur, is the Revision Petitioner. 2. The petitioner in CMP.38/2008, as complainant, has filed a case before the District Forum, originally for the following relief Honble Forum may be pleased to pass an award for the damages as mentioned supra to the tune of Rs.7,14,000/- against the opposite party to this complainant alongwith the interest at 12% p.a., and also for the future rental loss at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month and along with the cots of this complaint and pass such other relief as this Honble Forum may deem fit to pass in the circumstances of the case 3. Thereafter he has filed another application for amending the complaint, seeking additional relief in CMP.No.20/2005, and it appears the same was allowed, despite the objection by the opposite parties. As per the first amended complaint, the relief sought for reads as follo...

Empee Distilleries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2010]187TAXMAN188(Mad)

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. These appeals are filed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, dated 29-9-2008 in ITA Nos. 627, 628, 629 and 630/Mds/2007 respectively relating to the assessment years 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2001-02 and 2002-03 respectively.2. Learned Counsel Mr. Balachandran appearing for the appellant submits that the following questions of law would arise out of the common order and has advanced his argument with reference to the questions of law, which are extracted below, though several other questions of law have been formulated in the memorandum of grounds of appeals:1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in concluding that the partial sustenance of the disallowance of the claim of the purchase of old bottles used in the business of the appellant even though there were no materials available on record to fortify the said partial disallowance?2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in sustaining the action of the r...

The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Annamalai Finance Ltd.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2009]319ITR196(Mad); [2010]186TAXMAN296(Mad)

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The Revenue has come forward with this tax case appeal against the order dated 25.4.2008 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Chennai in ITA No. 102/Mds/2002 relating to the assessment year 1997-98, by formulating the following questions of law:(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that overdue charges on accrual basis not accounted the books of account is not to be brought to tax?(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the additional financial charges (overdue charges) are not to be added as income of the assessee?2. The facts, as culled out from the memorandum of grounds, are as follows: During the previous year ended on 31.3.1997, the assessee Company had admitted overdue financial charges on hire purchase and lease transactions on cash basis i.e. on receipt basis and not on accrual basis. In the course of the assessme...

R.R. Nadham Represented by Power of Attorney N. Chiranjeevi Vs. State ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ1335

ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. What is sought for in this Writ Petition by the petitioner is a Declaration, declaring that the entire proceedings, initiated by the respondents under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, finding that the petitioner's land in Survey No. 461/2A of Thirumullaivoyal Village, Poonamallee Sub-division of Chengalpet District under Patta No. 227 to an extent of 1633 sq.metres in excess of the ceiling, have abated.2. The facts are as follows:2.1. The petitioner owns lands in Survey No. 461/2, 461/3 and 461/4 of Thirumullaivoyal Village, Poonamallee Sub-division of Chengalpet District under Patta No. 227 to an extent of 4654.5 square metres and the said lands were originally cultivable lands. Due to urbanisation, the said lands were wrongly treated within the urban agglomeration as defined under Section 2(n) of the erstwhile Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (in short, 'the Act').2.2. The petitioner submitted a statement o...