Chennai Court May 2009 Judgments

Madurai Coats Private Limited Coats India, Rep. by Its General Manager ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)5MLJ449

ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 29.8.2007 of the first respondent/Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner in Appeal No. 55 of 2005 and confirming the order of the second respondent dated 28.6.2005. 2. Under the order of the second respondent dated 28.6.2005, the second respondent, who has earlier given consent order to the petitioner/Unit under Section 26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (for brevity, 'the Act'), having found, on inspection of the unit of the petitioner on 31.3.2005, that the unit has not taken action for segregation of high Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) dyebath effluent, has directed the unit to segregate the high TDS effluent and to provide Mechanical Evaporator within six months, stating that the consent is valid for the period ending 31.12.2005.3. It was against the said order, the petitioner/Unit has filed an appeal bef...

Dr. Bharath N., Vs. the Secretary, Selection Committee,

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2009Mad189

P. Jyothimani, J.1. The writ appeals are directed against the common order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. Nos. 12762 of 2007 and 13336 of 2007 etc., dated 02.05.2007. Under the said order the learned Judge, while dismissing the writ petitions has held that there is no unreasonableness in the roster system sought to be introduced by the impugned Government Order.2. W.P. No. 7067 of 2009 has been filed for declaration that Clause 54(b) and Annexure II relating to Super specialty Five Year course in M.Ch.(Neuro Surgery) under the prospectus for admission to Post Graduate degree for the academic year 2009-2010 is invalid in so far as it provides reservation in the category of Super specialty Post Graduate Medical course and reservation by roster is contrary to Article 15 and against the judgment of the Supreme Court and the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 45 of 1994 relating to reservation in admission and also for direction against the respondents to fill up M.Ch.(Neuro Surge...

Sri Sivakami Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Jyoti Balasundaram The above appeals have been listed for regular hearing right from November 2008 and have been adjourned from time to time at the request of the appellants counsel. We find no reason to keep the appeals pending any further. We, therefore, reject the request for adjournment of to days hearing. We dismiss the appeals for non-prosecution as it appears from the fact that the case has been adjourned several times that the appellants are not interested in pursuing the appeals....

Golden Sun Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs and C. Ex. Coimbator ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Jyoti Balasundaram The appellants seek leave to withdraw the above appeal and stay application. Leave granted appeal is dismissed as withdrawn, along with the stay application....

Areva T and D Lightning Arresters Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known as Alstom ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)5MLJ622

ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. Petitioner company seeks writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the Proceedings of the Respondent in No. 9652/Rev-C3/2003 dated 04.12.2006 and direct the Respondent to refund the stamp duty of Rs. 44,80,000/- as per clause [ii] of the Central Government notification No. 12 dated 25th December 1937. 2. Brief facts which led to the filing of Writ Petition are as follows:(i) Petitioner is a limited company and its factory at RS-8/2, Sedarapet Main Road, Sedarapet Village, Pondicherry 605111 engaged in the business of designing, developing, manufacturing, buying and selling of lightning arresters, zinc oxide varistors and components thereof. (ii) S & S Hitech Security Systems Limited was a subsidiary company of SSB Industries Limited which was the Holding or Parent Company. The said SSB Industries Limited, Parent Company transferred all its assets namely land, building and machineries to and in favour of its wholly owned subsidiary company S & S Hitech Security Sy...

Shri B. Thulasi Raman Vs. Cc, Trichy

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Jyoti Balasundaram, Vide the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the absolute confiscation of 30.175 Kgs. Of silver seized from the appellant herein while ordering release of 20 Kgs. of silver also so seized and upheld penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed upon him by the adjudicating authority. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that the Ld. Counsel for the appellant is correct in his submission that since the confiscated silver was less than 100 Kgs. and was in the form of bars not weighing more than 30 Kgs. each, the seizure itself should not have taken place, in the light of CBEC Circular F. No. 394/233/88-CUS (AS) dated 11.06.1990 which reads as under: Silver Bullion (excluding silver coins, jewellery and utensils) have since been notified under section 123 of the Customs Act 1962 vide Notification No. 28 (Customs) dated 8.6.90, thereby shifting the burden of proving whether the seized silver is smuggled or not on the persons from who silver bullion is seized. In orde...

Cce, Coimbatore Vs. M/S. Orient Abrasives, Salem

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Jyoti Balasundaram, The issue in dispute in the present appeal namely whether in cases where a manufacturer includes equalized price in the price of the goods and sells the goods all over the country at a uniform price, the revenue is entitled to compute value by including the cost of transportation from the factory to the depot stands settled against the revenue by the Apex court decision in the case of VIP Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Aurangabad [2003 (155) ELT 8 (S.C.)] holding as under: - "6. We have heard the parties at length. In our? view, Section 4 has to be read as a whole. Under Section 4(1)(a), the normal price is the price at which goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee to a buyer in course of wholesale trade for delivery at the time and place of removal, where the buyer is not a related person and price is the sole consideration for sale. Therefore, the normal price is the price at the time of delivery and at the place of removal. Before the amendment, the place of removal ...

M/S. Global Impex International Vs. Cc, Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

In this case 2728 pieces Art silk saris have been confiscated for not corresponding to the declared description and the value, under the provisions of Section 113 (ii) of the Customs price, declared value of the export goods cannot be rejected in terms of Section 114, requires to be accepted in the light of the ratio of the Tribunals decision in Advance Exports Vs. CC, Kandla 2007 (218) ELT 39 (Tri.-Ahmd.). The further plea that sale proceeds of goods exported under two Shipping Bills have been realized and therefore the amount remitted has to be accepted as the price of the goods is also a contention which merits acceptance. Although there is no proof of realization of sale proceeds of goods covered by the 3rd Shipping Bill, the first plea, i.e. absence of evidence of contemporize export of identical goods at lower price will cover the goods exported under the 3rd Shipping Bill also. In the light of the above, charge of over invoicing of art silk saris is set aside as not sustainable....

M/S. Dpb Antibiotics Vs. Cc, Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

P. Karthikeyan This is an application filed by M/s. DPB Antibiotics (DPB) for waiver of redeposit and stay of recovery of penalty of Rs.10,000/- imposed on them under Section 112 of the Customs Act (the Act). After hearing both sides on the stay application, we find that the appeal proper can be disposed without a further hearing. Therefore, we take up the appeal. The facts of the case are that DPB filed a Bill of Entry on 19.04.08 for clearance of 3000 Kgs. of Bronopol BP classifying them under CSH 29420090. After process of law, the original authority revised the classification to CSH 2905.59. As per the Exim Policy, import of goods falling under CSH 2905.59 are restricted and a specific license is required for their import. Moreover, the lower authorities found that the goods under import are an insecticide which is popularly used as a preservative in consumer goods like shampoo and cosmetics. Import of insecticides is allowed provided the importer registers the import with the Cen...

M/S. National Aviation Co. of India Ltd. Vs. Cst, Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Jyoti Balasundaram The appeal is dismissed for want of COD clearance with liberty to apply for restoration as and when clearance is granted. The stay application disposed of accordingly....