Chennai Court November 2009 Judgments

Vice President the Country Club, Chennai Vs. N. Paarthipan

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT (Open court) 1. By consent of both parties, the appeal itself was taken for enquiry and disposed finally. 2. The respondent in this appeal, as complainant, filed a case in C.C.No.388/2008, on the file of District Forum, Chennai (South), for the following reliefs: 1. To pay Rs.1,32,000/- with interest @24% from 06.05.2007, till payment; 2. To pay Rs.10000/- for the deficiency in service in having utterly failed to refund the money collected for membership and making unjust demands for further charges towards registration of free land; 3. To pay Rs.10000/- for the unfair trade practice in giving lucid offers which is not provided or exist, indulging through grossly misleading offers 4. To pay Rs.20000/- for the resultant mental agony and pain caused by such deficiency of service 5. To pay Rs.10000/- as cost, on the ground that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service, since they have failed to refund the money collected etc., which was not opp...

M/S. Nandhini Electronics and T.V Servicing Pvt.Ltd., Chennai Vs. S. K ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

M. THANIKACHALAM J. 1. The opposite party, in OP.No.132/2003 on the file of the District Forum, Chennai (South), aggrieved by the order of the District Forum dt.9.1.2006, impugned the same before us in this appeal. 2. The complainant/ Respondent in the appeal, having paid a sum of Rs.600/- as service charge or repair charge, requested the opposite party to rectify the mistake or the defect occurred in his solidaire TV on 9.4.2002. There was no immediate response , resulting number of letters by the complainant, the opposite party failed to execute the service work, as agreed, allowing the television to remain still in faulty condition, and un useful. Because of the deficiency committed, the opposite party should be directed to refund a sum of Rs.600/- with interest thereon, and in addition they should be directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation, as well cost of Rs.2000/-. 3. The opposite party in its elaborate written version, denying the averments in the complaint, would ...

Berger Paints India Ltd., Rep. by Divisional Sales Manager (Retail), C ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

HONBLE M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite party in COP.635/2001 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South), is the appellant. 2. The respondent herein as complainant, has filed a case before the District Forum, Chennai (South) for the recovery a sum of Rs.70,000/-, being the cost of the paint and labour incurred by the complainant, and for a further sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony, on the grounds that he had purchased the paints, manufactured by the opposite party, on the basis of the quality assurance given by them in the advertisement as well on the basis of the warranty for a period of 5 years, by paying a sum of Rs.14,176.32 under various Invoices, that spending a sum of Rs.56,000/- towards the labour charges, he painted the new house, having qualified painter, following the instructions given by the opposite party, that the emulsion paints on the wall have started to peel off, not only on the inner walls, but also...

Express Newspapers Limited Rep. by Its Chairperson Mrs. Saroj Goenka V ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2010)228CTR(Mad)405; [2010]321ITR12(Mad); [2010]186TAXMAN111(Mad)

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The Writ Petition is filed seeking for the relief of issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records in M.P. No. 35/Mds/2000 in I.T.A. No. 1199 of 1989 dated 30.11.2000 of the second respondent and quash the same.2. The facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner/assessee is a Company registered under the Companies Act and derives income from various sources. In respect of the assessment year 1985-86 relevant to the previous year ended 31st March, 1985, the petitioner filed a return of income on 22.7.1985 declaring a net loss of Rs. 32,99,289/-, which was revised by filing a revised return on 26.2.1988 declaring a loss of Rs. 32,80,700/- subject to the adjustment of the loss brought forward from the earlier years. The first respondent 'Assessing Officer completed the assessment on 30.3.1988 and determined the total income at Rs. 1,27,95,570/- by making various additions and disallowing various claims made by the petitioner.3. The petitioner filed an...

Perambalur Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Dr.Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. During the period in dispute, the appellant-sugar mill was directed by the Director (Sugar Control), Ministry of Food and Consumer Affairs to divert impugned quantity of sugar from free sale quota and sell the same as levy sugar purely on loan basis. Subsequently, the appellants were compensated by diversion of equal quantity from the levy sugar quota to free sale sugar quota. It is the case of the appellants that they have paid the appropriate duty as applicable to levy sugar and free sale sugar in respect of the diverted quantities. 2. Ld. consultant Shri Masillamoney appearing for the appellants also states that they have not received any compensation by way of differential duty from the Govt. of India in respect of the free sale sugar diverted to levy sugar quota. 3. We find that the original authority after going through the case records has dropped the duty demand in view of adjustment of impugned quantity of sugar transferred from ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Pondicherry Vs. Neycer (i) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram In both these appeals, Revenue challenges the direction given by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned orders for remand of the matter to the lower authority on the ground, that with the amendment to the statutory provision, Commissioner (Appeals) no longer has the power of remand. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that this issue of power of Commissioner (Appeals) to remand even after amendment to Section 35A (3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 has been decided by the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of 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 ratio of the above judgment, we uphold the impugned orders of remand and dismiss the appeals....

M/S. Adwaith Steels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbator ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Heard both sides. 2. The appellants have been denied MODVAT credit in respect of inputs used in processing of the impugned goods on job work basis and cleared without payment of duty to the main manufacturer who has in turn cleared the finished goods on payment of duty. We find that this issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Raigad Vs. M/s. Mahalaxmi Seamless Ltd. - 2009-TIOL-1033-CESTAT-MUM. It has been recorded therein that the larger Bench decision on the issue in the case of Sterlite Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2005 (183) ELT 353 (Tri. - LB) was challenged by the Department in the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay and the said High Court in its order dated 13.8.2008 has rejected the Department s appeal. In view of the foregoing, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential benefit if any to the appellants....

Thirumalai Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram Credit of Rs.11,25,980/- has been denied to the appellants herein on Benzene and Orthoxylene on the ground that total quantity of inputs were not received in the assessee s factory of production of final product. 2. We have heard both sides on the appeal against such denial. The items in question are organic chemicals. In a recent decision in the case of CCE Chennai Vs Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd. - MISC Order No.591/09 dt. 12.11.09, the Larger Bench has held that decision to allow or not to allow credit in a particular case will depend on various factors such as the following :- (i) Whether the inputs/capital goods have been diverted enroute or the entire quantity with the packing intact has been received and put to the intended use at the recipient factory. (ii) Whether the impugned goods are hygroscopic in nature or are amenable to transit loss by way of evaporation etc. (iii) Whether the impugned goods comprise countable number of pieces or packages and whe...

A.V.M.Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram Consumer goods such as Baby kit set, iron box, hand mixer, cosmetics etc. have been confiscated under the provisions of Section 111 (d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, the value thereof has been enhanced, redemption fine of Rs.1,50,000/- has been levied in lieu of confiscation and fine of Rs.2,000/- has been levied in lieu of confiscation of goods valued at Rs.43,000/- approx. A penalty of Rs.5,000/- has been imposed on the proprietor of importer. 2. We have heard both sides. The enhancement of value is sustainable as the loading of the value has been done on the basis of contemporaneous imports. There is no doubt that the provisions of Section 111 (d) and (m) are attracted against the importers. Therefore, confiscation is warranted. The fine and penalty amounts are also very reasonable having regard to the value of goods and we therefore see no reason to interfere with the same. 3. In the result, the appeal is dismissed....

Babcock Borsig Power Systems and Another Vs. Commissioner of Central E ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram On hearing both sides, we note that the issue in dispute in the assessees appeal namely as to whether cost of drawings supplied free of charge by customers is includible in the assessable value of goods manufactured by the assessees herein stands settled against them by the decision of the Tribunal in Swil Ltd. Vs CCE Calcutta [2001 (128) ELT 510]. We, therefore, uphold the duty demand as a result of such inclusion. However, the same decision sets aside the penalty imposed on the assessees and following the ratio thereof, we set aside the penalty imposed upon the assessees herein. The Revenue’s appeal against the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) against imposition of combined penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 is dismissed in view of our finding that the assessees are not liable to any penalty. In the result, the appeal of the assessees is partly allowed while the appeal of the Revenue...