Chennai Court November 2009 Judgments

M/S. Knitech Industries, Rep. by Its Proprietor, D. Karthikeyan Vs. M/ ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

HONBLE M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore in C.O.P.225/2003, dated 07.04.2005. 2. The complainant/respondent who is the manufacturer of pressure die castings, had purchased two number of imported monoblock burners from the opposite party, in order to melt the aluminium to make die castings, by paing a sum of Rs.2,68,190/- on two dates, namely, 05.07.2002 and 05.10.2002, being the cost of the machineries, with one year warranty, with an assurance to refund the cost of the machineries if they become defective. 3. The two machineries were not functioning properly from the day one of the inception, because of its manufacturing defect, which was reported to the opposite party, who were unable to correct the repairs, since the same is manufacturing defect. By the supply of defective machineries by the opposite parties, the complainant had incurred huge loss in production, and even sufferin...

KA. Manshoor Vs. Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, Governme ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2010]97SCL167(Mad)

ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard Mr. B. Kumar, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr. S. Ramachandran for the petitioner and Mr. M. Dhandapani, learned special counsel appearing for the Enforcement Directorate.2. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the summons issued by the respondent under Section 37 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (for short 'FEMA') should be interdicted by this Court on the ground that there was no application of mind and the documents sought for would amount to a roving enquiry by the Directorate.3. The petitioner has come forward to challenge the summons issued by the respondent, dated 29.12.2008 issued under Section 37 of the FEMA read with Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The summon issued reads as follows:WHEREAS your attendance is required in connection with the proceedings under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, in your case, you are hereby required to personally attend before me at the above address, on the 23rd d...

Lakshmi Bleachers and Another Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Salem and Ano ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram The assessees herein undertook the process of dyeing of polycot sarees with the aid of power. It has been held that the process of dyeing undertaken by them amounts to manufacture and a demand of duty of Rs.2,77,662/- (BED Rs.1,38,831 + AED Rs.1,38,831/-) has been confirmed on the above basis. The Commissioner (Appeals) whose order is under challenge has reduced the penalty to Rs.60,000/-. The appeal of the assessees is on the ground that the demand of duty is barred by limitation while the Revenue is in appeal against the reduction as it is of the view that once the duty is confirmed, penalty should be equal to the duty. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that the assessees had raised the ground that they had no intention to clear the goods without payment of duty. The period in dispute is March to July 1999, while the show-cause notice is dated 25.2.2000. There is no finding in the impugned order on the submission of the assessees regarding limitation. We, th...

Royal Enfield (Unit of M/S.Eicher Ltd.) Vs. Commissioner of Central Ex ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram Whether cost of packing of motor cycles sold through depots in unpacked condition is includible in the assessable value, is the issue which arises for determination in the present appeal according to the assessees, such cost is required to be excluded from the assessable value. 2. We have heard both sides and find that the issue stands settled against the assessees by Tribunal s decision in their own case reported in 2001 (136) ELT 1029 [Commissioner of C.Ex., Jaipur Vs Eicher Ltd.]. [The present assessee-company was earlier known as Eicher Ltd.]. Although ld. counsel for the appellants valiantly attempts to persuade the Bench to depart from the view already taken, we find that the attempt is not successful for the reason that the facts of the earlier case are in no way different from the present one. Ld. counsel contends that the decision of the apex court in MRF Ltd. 1995 (77) ELT 433 (SC) has not been correctly interpreted. However, we find that all the issues...

Shinhan Plasto India Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Commissioner of Central ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram M/s. Shinhan Plasto India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as SPIPL) are manufacturers of motor vehicle parts and avail CENVAT credit of raw materials and capital goods used in the manufacture of the final products. M/s. Hyundai Motor India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as HMIL), who are manufacturers of passenger cars, get sub-assemblies and parts from various ancillary units situated in and around their manufacturing premises, including from SPIPL. During the period January to May 2003, HMIL transferred injection moulding machines with structural accessories (capital goods) to SPIPL without payment of duty under the provisions of Rule 4(5) (a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules under job work challans, the same were installed in the factory of SPIPL. During September 2003, HMIL raised invoices for the capital goods on payment of duty of Rs.2,66,26,153/- and SPIPL availed 50% credit amounting to Rs.1,33,13,075/- in their CENVAT credit account. Since the capital goods ...

M/S. Sri Ganesh Industries and Another Vs. Commissioner of Central Exc ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram In this case the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise has confirmed a demand of Rs.5,61,862/- under Rule 196 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on a quantity of 3075 MTs of molasses received free of duty under Chapter X Procedure and cleared without using the same in the manufacture of cattle feed as per the assessee’s declaration and inter alia imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000/- on Sri Ganesh Industries and a penalty of Rs.10,000/- on its proprietor. He also confiscated certain goods. The duty demand was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) who however reduced the penalty on Sri Ganesh Industries to Rs.25,000/-. Hence these appeals. 2. The case of the Department in brief is that the assessee procured molasses under Chapter X for the manufacture of cattle feed. Evidence revealed that the molasses was diverted as such and never consumed for the manufacture of cattle feed. It was also found that rice bran which was also an ingredient required for the manufactu...

Data Tech Systems Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram The authorities below have denied the benefit of small scale exemption to the assessees herein during the period 1996-97 upto 1999-2000 on online UPS and invertors manufactured by them on the ground that the goods bore the brand name CANSOFT which belonged to M/s.Cansoft Systems Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as CSP). The duty demand of Rs.6,31,212/- has been confirmed as a result of such denial and a penalty of equal amount has been imposed. 2. We have heard both sides. The submission of the assessees is that the name CANSOFT belongs to one R.Anantha Krishnan, who is not only the proprietor of the appellants herein but also a Director in CSP and therefore the assessees did not clear goods bearing somebody elses brand name but used their own brand name on the goods. However, we find that there is a clear admission by Shri Anantha Krishnan that the brand name CANSOFT is not owned by him This is to be found in his statement. Further, Shri Mohandass Kamath, ano...

Commissioner of Central Excise Tiruchirapalli Vs. Henkel Spic India Lt ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. The respondents are marketing soap cakes individually priced at Rs.4.50 three of which are wrapped together in one pack with MRP of Rs.12/-. The lower appellate authority has given a finding that the price of individual pieces inside the package is not visible and hence has approved the assessment of the packed soaps as multiple-piece package on the basis of MRP of Rs.12/- indicated on the said pack under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Apart from the fact that the finding regarding non- visibility of the price on individual packs has not been challenged by the department, there is also no evidence produced before us to indicate that the three soap cakes contained in a pack can be sold separately. As such, we find no substance in the department s appeal wanting to assess the soap cakes on the basis of price for individual soap cakes. Hence the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected....

Mrs. Ragini Premnath Vs. Dr. Prema Shankar, M.D., D.C.H., Paediatricia ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

HONBLE M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT. 1. This complaint is filed against the opposite parties 1 to 5, claiming a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- to be paid jointly and severally by the opposite parties, on the ground of medical inefficiency or medical negligence. 2. The brief facts leading to the case, as follows: The complainants daughter P.Shamita, was under the exclusive medical care of the 1st opposite party. During the year 1999, the complainants child was declared hale and healthy after a detailed check-up by Dr.Bhaskar Raju. 3. On 4.10.2001, the complainants daughter was taken to the 1st opposite party, for the complaint of stomach pain, high fever, etc. The 1st opposite party suspected appendicitis, advised the complainant to take an abdominal scan and to approach Dr.N. Prasad, a Paediatric Surgeon/ 2nd opposite party on the very same day. The complainants daughter, at the time of approaching the 2nd opposite party, was having high fever, and that the 2nd opposite party diagn...

The Assistant Electricity Engineer (South), Tamil Nadu Electricity Boa ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

HONBLE M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite party before the lower forum is the appellant. 2. The complainant/respondent who is owing a building in S.F.No.527/4, Podanur-Chettipalayam Road, Sri Ram Nagar, had submitted an application on 06.05.1999, to the opposite party, for the shifting of three electric posts, which stood adjacent to his building. Pursuant to the same, an estimate was prepared and the said amount of Rs.63,545/- was deposited by the complainant on 03.06.2000. The opposite party having received the amount, failed for the past 2 years without any valid reason, to shift the posts, which should be construed as deficiency in service. Therefore, a complaint came to be filed before the District Forum, for the return of the above said amount of Rs.63,545/- as well for a sum of Rs.1 lakh by way of compensation. 3. The opposite party/appellant opposed the complaint on the grounds with among other grounds, denying the averments against them, specifically, that as agre...