Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Jyoti Balasundaram The issue for determination in this appeal namely as to whether ice creams cleared by the respondents herein during the period 1.7.99 to 31.12.99 on payment of duty in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act is liable to be assessed to higher duty in terms of Section 4A of the Act, is no longer res integral as it stands settled in favor of the assessees by Tribunals Final Order No. 844/08 dated. 6.8.08 and Final Order No. 1307/08 dated. 18.11.08 for two different periods, one prior to the period in dispute in the present appeal and the other subsequent thereto. Following the ratio of the Tribunals orders cited (supra), we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal. The cross objection is disposed of in the above terms....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Jyoti Balasundaram We have heard both sides on the application for waiver of predeposit of duty of Rs.5,56,155/- confirmed against M/s.Sri Vivekananda Industries on the ground that the clearances of Sri Venkateswara Industries, Sri Vinayaka Industries and Sri Manipandian Industries were required to be clubbed with those of Sri Vivekananda Industries and they were liable to pay duty to the above extent. The period of dispute is 1980-84 and 1987-88 up to 9.9.1987. The adjudicating authority has considered the evidence before him including the material to bring out financial flow back and mutuality of interest among the four units as well as admission of R.D.Pandian, partner of Sri Vivekananda Industries and his wife P.Saradhamani. Although the ld. counsel for the applicants relies upon Order-in-Appeal No. 107-110/05 dated. 8.7.05 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on remand by the Tribunal involving the same units wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has dropped the proceedings for clubb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Jyoti Balasundaram The common issue in all the three appeals covering different periods is the eligibility of the assessees to the benefit of SSI exemption in terms of Notification No. 1/93-CE dated. 28.2.93 and Notification No. 8/98-CE dated. 2.6.98. The goods in question are fire works; the period of dispute in Appeal No. E/468/01 is 1.4.98 to 8.9.98 and the duty demand raised in the notice and confirmed by the adjudicating authority is Rs.9,35,938/- and penalty imposed is Rs.10,000/-; the period in dispute in Appeal No. E/274/02 is 1.4.99 to 31.8.99, duty demand is Rs.6,78,100/- and penalty is Rs.7000/-. Period in dispute in the third Appeal E/275/02 is 1.10.99 to 20.10.99, the duty demand is Rs.6,71,799/- and penalty is Rs.7000/-. 2). The notices issued to the respondents proposed denial of the benefit on the ground that the brand name Spear with symbol and numeral 27 and Torch belonged to Sundaravel Fire Works Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as SFPL) and therefore, the responde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2009]96SCL321(Mad)
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. Heard Mr. B. Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners and respondents in the appeals and Mr. K. Ramasamy, learned Special Counsel for the respondents in the writ petitions and appellants in the appeals.2. W.P. No. 23744 of 2001 has been filed by A. Michael, the Respondent in CMA. No, 205 of 2002 praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus to direct the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, Chennai, the 3rd Respondent to return and refund all the seized Foreign Currencies, Travellers Cheques and the penalty amounts to him forthwith as ordered in the order of adjudication dated 7-1-2000 in reference No. DD/MAS/I/2000 (S.S.) of the 3rd Respondent and the order dated 18-7-2001 in Appeal Nos. 263 and 574 of 2000 of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange along with the interest at 18 per cent per annum from the date of the seizure to the date of payment to the Petitioner and also to pay the value of the Foreign Currencies which have become inv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2009(165)LC169(Madras); 2009(240)ELT166(Mad)
T.S. Sivagnanam, J.1. Heard Mr. S. Udayakumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Customs and Mr. B. Sathish Sundar, learned Counsel for the second respondent.2. The above appeal has been filed against the order passed by the CESSTAT in final order No. 107/03 dated 16.12.2003. At the time of admitting this appeal, the following questions of law were framed for consideration:1. Whether in the circumstances of the case, the violation of conditions of the Advance Licence r/w customs Notification No. 48/99 is not an offence committed under Section 11(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 and whether goods are not liable for confiscation.2. Whether the second respondent is not lilable to pay penalty and under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.3. The relevant facts of the case is as hereunder:The second respondent had imported four consignment of Copper Scrap totally weighing 86.963 Mt.Tonns in four containers and filed four Bill of Entries on 20.11.2001. They availed the benefit of the Not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)5MLJ1315
P. Jyothimani, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.12.2007 passed in W.P.No.28758 of 2007, dismissing the same.2. The license to run a petroleum outlet at Alangudi Road, Pudukkottai was granted to one Mrs.Sumathi for a period of one year from 2002-2003 and it was subsequently renewed. It appears that she was not able to continue to run the outlet and therefore, she proposed to sell the land, which was purchased by the appellants, who are mother and son respectively.3. It is the case of the appellants that, after the purchase, they have applied to the second respondent/Corporation and based on an interview, a contract was entered into between the Corporation and the appellants, originally, for one year 2004-2005, which was renewed for the years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 and was subsequently renewed for a period of six months, valid up to 30.9.2007. During the subsistence of the contract, the second respondent has issued a notice on 11.7...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)6MLJ238
ORDERN. Kirubakaran, J.1. The petitioners challenge the order of the third respondent dated 15.7.2008 rejecting the application for compassionate appointment.2. The facts of the case are that the first petitioner's husband Mr. Kasi, who was working as Bailiff (Ameen) in the Subordinate Court, Tirupattur, died in harness on 12.9.1986. It seems that no petition for appointment was made to the authorities and only on 6.7.2006, the first petitioner filed an application seeking for compassionate appointment for her son, the second petitioner herein. The third respondent returned the application, dated 6.7.2006 for due compliance of furnishing Legal Heirship Certificate, Death Certificate, Community Certificate and No Objection Certificate from the other legal heirs. Subsequently, it was duly complied with and the second petitioner re-submitted the application form on 23.4.2007 to the third respondent, who, through the second respondent, returned the same.3. The first petitioner again submit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)6MLJ975
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. The petitioner has challenged two proceedings dated 24.09.2004 passed by the second and third respondents and the proceedings dated 03.01.2005 passed by the second respondent. In the first proceedings, resolution of the panchayat has been passed, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner's contract period has not been renewed. In the second proceedings, based on the resolution, the Executive Officer has passed an order that as per the Engineering Manual of Urban Local Bodies in Tamil Nadu, the renewal of registration has to be done within three months time otherwise their names from the registration will be removed. Also, the order includes a decision that out of 15 members of the panchayat, 14 members have taken a decision not to renew his contract. Both the above decisions are under challenge and the petitioner is seeking to quash the same.2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a contractor in Coimbatore District, doing various contract works and there is n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)5MLJ733
T.S. Sivagnanam, J.1. Heard Mr. S. Arun Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. N. Damodharan, learned Counsel for the claimants (respondents 1 to 5) and Mr. R. Shivakumar, learned Counsel for the 6th respondent.2. The above appeal has been directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore in M.C.O.P. No. 15 of 2004, granting an award of Rs. 14,30,000/- together with interest at 9% p.a. The claimants before the Tribunal were the wife and four children of one P. Marthandan.3. On 24.8.2003, at about 11.30 a.m., the deceased was standing at the extreme eastern side of the Cuddalore to Chidambaram Main Road at Cuddalore old Town and the vehicle owned by the 6th respondent namely a Tata Sumo Car proceeding from North to South direction driven in a rash and negligent manner hit against the deceased and caused the accident. Due to the accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died after two days. In the Claim Petition, it was stated that the de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2009CriLJ3715
ORDERR. Regupathi, J.1. The above Criminal Original Petitions have been preferred by the petitioner /proposed accused to quash the proceedings in M. P. Nos. 7463 & 7462 of 2007 respectively on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore.2. The complaints have been preferred by the respondents before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore invoking Section 340 of Cr.P.C., for an offence punishable under Sections 191, 192, 193 & 199, IPC. The learned Principal Sessions Judge issued notices dated 18-9-2009 for appearance of the petitioner on 28-9-2007 in person or through an advocate and to file objections. The petitioner questioning the legality of the notices issued by the learned Principal Sessions Judge preferred the present petitions to quash the proceedings.3. The petitioner is an accused for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Pending the proceedings, the petitioner preferred transfer applications and while so made certain misrepre...
Tag this Judgment!