Chennai Court May 2009 Judgments

Royal Stitches (P) Ltd., Sai Business Point, Rep. by Its Director, Sri ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)226CTR(Mad)274; [2009]184TAXMAN27(Mad)

ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. Since the issues involved in all the four writ petitions are identical, these writ petitions are decided by this common order. 2. The petitioner, an income tax assessee on the file of the Assessing Officer in PAN No. AAACR1709A, is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act and is engaged in the business of manufacture and export of garments. It is the case of the petitioner that they filed returns of income voluntarily for the relevant Assessment years, 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 on the respective due dates. The details of returns of income as stated by the petitioner in the affidavit would run thus:(a) For the assessment year 1993-94, nil return was filed on 13.10.1993. The gross total income was at Rs. 1,35,88,649/- and deduction under Section 80HHC and 80IA for Rs. 1,30,96,450/- and Rs. 79,29,191/-, respectively was claimed and interest receipt of Rs. 7,82,506/- on deposit with bank was included under Head business. The return was accepted an...

India Cements Limited rep. by Its General Manager Vs. the Regional Pro ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ1536

ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. Challenging the order of the 1st respondent dated 01.12.2004, levying damages and interest, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.2. The petitioner, India Cements Limited, a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 is one of the leading manufacturers of cement in the country for several decades and is inter alia engaged in the manufacture and sale of cement. It has got various factories in the state of Tamil Nadu as well as in the state of Andhra Pradesh. One of its factories is located in Sankari West, Salem District. The petitioner has several employees on its role and also engage contract workers, who are permitted for incidental jobs of temporary nature and strictly enforce compliance of all the statutory requirements under various legislations.2a. The petitioner industry has been allotted a Permanent Code Number and it contributes a huge amount of money by way of Employees Provident Fund and is prompt in payment of its contribut...

Ttk Healthcare Ltd. and Another Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Airport) ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Jyoti Balasundaram Vide the impugned order, Polypropylene mesh imported by M/s. TTK Healthcare Ltd. in running length (roll form) has been classified under CTH 58039090 which covers Gauze other than narrow fabrics of heading 58.06 as the goods are akin to gauze, and held to attract merit rate of duty of 20% + 16% advalorem, rejecting the claim of the importers for classification under CTH 90219090 (CTH 9021 covers orthopedic appliances hearing aids and other appliances which are worn or carried, or implanted in the body to compensate for a defect or disability) but extending the benefit of confessional rate of duty under item No. 119 vide list 8 (Sl.No. 94C) of the Table annexed to the Notification No. 21/02-Cus. dated.1.3.02 as amended. The importer is in appeal against the classification of the goods, while the Revenue has filed an appeal against extension of benefit of the notification. 2. We have heard both sides. The goods are in running length and after import, the following pro...

Sri Raghavendra Traders Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Jyoti Balasundaram For reasons recorded below, we waived predeposit of the penalty of Rs.3 lakhs imposed upon the appellants herein and proceeded to hear and decide the appeal itself at this stage as the plea of the appellants is only for reduction in the quantum of fine in lieu of confiscation and reduction in the quantum of penalty. 2. In this case, aluminium scrap was found concealed behind the bags of rice bran imported under Bill of Entry dated. 29.8.08. The goods were confiscated under the provisions of Section 111 (l) and (i) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the adjudicating authority levied a fine of Rs.4 lakhs in lieu of confiscation and penalty of equal amount. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the fine and penalty to Rs.3 lakhs each. 3. The prayer of the ld. counsel for the appellants for further reduction in the quantum of both fine and penalty is based on the earlier order of the Tribunal. He cites the decision in the case of Kamalesh Jain Vs CC Chennai vide Final Order No....

Space Makers Roofing System (i) Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Commissioner ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Jyoti Balasundaram After hearing both sides for some time on the applications for waiver of predeposit of Rs.28,48,071/- and penalty of equal amount, and penalty of Rs.1 lakh on the Director of M/s.Govindaraja Mudaliar Sons (P) Ltd., we found it possible to decide the appeals themselves at this stage as the prayer of the appellants is for remand for the reason that the authorities below have not considered all the submissions made by them, and hence proceed to decide the appeals after waiving the predeposit. 2. The appellants herein are manufacturers of articles of polyurethane foam and profiled sheets of various materials. They had claimed classification of polyurethane foam products under Chapter 94.06 or CET subheading 7308.90, while the authorities below held that such products fell for classification under Chapter Heading 39.21 and a demand of Rs.3,10,373/- was confirmed on clearances of these products during the years 2002-03 and 2003-04 under the proviso to Section 11A of the Ce...

Ashraf Puliyulla Parambil and Another Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Air ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Jyoti Balasundaram For reasons recorded below, we waived predeposit of penalties imposed on the appellants herein by the Commissioner in the impugned orders and proceeded to take up the appeals themselves for final hearing at this stage as the prayer of the appellants is only for reduction in the quantum of fine and penalty to the extent as levied and imposed in earlier orders of the Tribunal. 2) On hearing both sides and noting the precedent decision as in the case of Krishna Kumari Vs CC Chennai vide Final Order No.303/08 dt. 1.4.08 since reported as 2008 (229) ELT 222 (Tri.-Chennai), wherein the quantum of fine and penalty was reduced in the case of confiscation of concealed gold, and having regard to the value of the gold namely Rs.13,84,818/- seized from Ashraf Puliyulla Parambil, Rs.18,01,789/- value of gold seized from Alipalakkal and Rs.19,71,305/- being the value of the gold seized from Mohamad Kambi Velimmal, we reduce the fine and penalties as under :- 1. S.No. Appellantine ...

Radiant Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Jyoti Balasundaram The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein are manufacturers of Bright Steel Bars of Alloy and Non-alloy steel. A show-cause notice dated. 5.7.99 was issued to them proposing recovery of duty on shortage of 5776 kgs. and 10,384 kgs. of finished products, noticed during stock verification and also proposing imposition of penalty for non-maintenance of statutory records. The notice was adjudicated by the Deputy Commissioner holding that the charge of shortage had been made out, and confirming a demand of Rs.88,296/- and imposing penalty of Rs.20,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The lower appellate authority upheld the demand and penalty; hence this appeal. 2. The appellants have now filed their application for raising an additional ground that in the year 2004-05, Note 10 was inserted in Section XV of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 to the effect that in relation to the products of this section, the process of drawing or red...

Thameema Trading Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Jyoti Balasundaram The delay of 601 days in filing the above appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which was received by the appellants on 20.5.07, is sought to be explained as due to shift of office from Leith Castle South Street, Santhome, Chennai to Second Line Beach, Chennai. 2. It is admitted by the applicants that the impugned order was received in their old office at Leith Castle South Street. Their explanation that the order was misplaced in some other file which was consigned to the records room and they came to know that they have not filed any appeal only when they received a communication from the Customs authorities for encashment of bank guarantee furnished, is not sufficient to condone the inordinate delay in this case. We, therefore, decline to condone the delay. The COD application is, therefore, dismissed. The stay application is dismissed. As a consequence, appeal is also dismissed as barred by limitation....

Tvs Motor Company Limited Vs. Bajaj Auto Limited

Court: Chennai

Reported in: LC2009(2)139; 2009(40)PTC689(Mad)

F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. O.S.A. No. 91 of 2008 has been filed by the Appellant as against the fair and decreetal order dated 16.02.2008, passed in O.A. No. 1272 of 2007 in C.S. No. 979 of 2007, in and by which, the Appellant's application for an order of interim injunction restraining the Respondent herein from in any way interfering with the manufacturing and marketing of the Appellant's products using Internal Combustion (IC) engine with 3 valves and 2 spark plugs pending the disposal of C.S. No. 979 of 2007 was rejected.2. O.S.A. No. 92 of 2008 has also been filed by the same Appellant challenging the order dated 16.02.2008, passed in O.A. No. 1357 of 2007, in C.S. No. 1111 of 2007, wherein, the Respondent's prayer for an ad-interim injunction restraining the Appellant herein from in any manner infringing the Respondent's Patent No. 195904 and/or from using the technology/invention described in the said Patent No. 195904 and/or from manufacturing, marketing etc., for sale or exp...

New Galaxy Netcom Represented by Its Proprietor Mr. A.N. Sathyanarayan ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2009Mad183

ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. Respondent is the plaintiff, who filed the suit for a permanent injunction against the appellant/defendant restraining him from in any way acting in violation of the Franchisee Agreement dated 14.04.2003 and refraining from disconnecting the link or discontinuing the transmission or signals or from in any way taking signals or links from third parties to carry on any competing business directly or indirectly either by themselves or in association with any other persons or through their subsidiary affiliates or by joint venture for the purpose of broadcast or distribution or transmission of any satellite television channels through Community Antenna Television System other than that of the respondent and for costs.2. Respondent is a Multi System Operator, distributing satellite television channels in Tamil Nadu through Cable Operators by supplying signals to them through the cables installed by him, for which purpose he entered into a Franchisee Agreement with t...