Chennai Court June 2009 Judgments

Lotus Chocolate Company Ltd. and Annathar Vs. Commissioner of Customs ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Jyoti Balasundaram In this case, the impugned order dt. 30.10.06 was sent by registered post to the Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad address of the company and it was also sent by registered post to the above mentioned address for service upon Shri R.Bhadrinarayanan, Managing Director. Since the order could not be served upon the appellants at the above address, it was displayed on the notice board of Custom House in the year 2007. The appeals have been filed before the Tribunal on 15.4.2009. 2. The ld.counsel for the appellants submits that appellant-company was registered at Ameerpet Hyderabad in the year 1994-95; shifted to Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda address in the year 1997; subsequently shifted to Diamond House Panjagutta in 2002 and thereafter the company was shifted to Srinagar colony, Hyderabad. He submits that Srinagar colony address of the company was very much available with the department as seen from the departments letter dt. 8.8.05 addressed to the company by the ...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai Vs. Chidambaram Litho Press Lt ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Jyoti Balasundaram Vide the above appeals, the Revenue challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has accepted the contention of the assessee that printed labels and printed wrappers manufactured by them fall for classification under CET Subheading 4821.00 which inter alia covers labels of all kinds, rejecting the Revenues appeals against the orders of the Assistant Commissioner who had so held. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that in the case of the same assessee involving identical issue, the Tribunal has already accepted the contention of the assessee and dismissed the Revenues appeal vide Final Order No.460/09 dt. 13.4.09 in Appeal No.E/215/02. Following the ratio of the above order, we uphold the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and reject these appeals. ...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Abt Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Jyoti Balasundaram The assessees herein are engaged in the manufacture of fruit pulp based beverages under the brand name Frooti, Pingo etc. in tetrapacks. The same falls for classification under CET Subheading 2202.90 chargeable to duty until they were exempted from payment of duty vide Notification No.87/91 dt. 1.9.91. It was noticed that the assessees were manufacturing sugar syrup at the intermediate stage and were consuming the same captively without payment of duty in the manufacture of exempted final product. Therefore, show-cause notice dt. 28.4.97 was issued to them demanding duty of Rs.19,62,273/- for the period Dec94 to 22.7.96. The notice was adjudicated by the Addl. Commissioner; Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessees for non-compliance with the direction to predeposit duty; vide order dt. 27.7.99, the Tribunal remanded the case to Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the case on merits and he, in turn, remitted the case to the lower authority namely Addl...

S. Muthuram Vs. the Chief Executive Officer, Tamil Nadu Khadi and Vill ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)5MLJ1287

ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. Challenging the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka. No. 21315/E3(1)/2002 dated 11.08.2003 and the consequential Board's Order in (Ms) No. 9, dated 08.03.2004 and for a direction to the 1st respondent to reinstate him with all service and monetary benefits, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.2. The petitioner would state that he was initially appointed as Grade - III Khadi Assistant on 07.12.1984 and posted at Khadi & Village Industries, Karaikudi; subsequently, he was promoted as Grade-II, Khadi Assistant and then as Grade - I Khadi Assistant. According to the petitioner, he was working with utmost satisfaction of the superiors, rendering sincere service for nearly 20 years.2a. He would further state that while he was working as Grade-I Khadi Assistant at Khadi Shop, Ramanathapuram, charges were framed against him on 04.03.1999 under Rule 34(b) of the Board's Service Regulation on 3 counts for the alleged irregularity committed by him while san...

Parvathi Cashew Industries Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Dep ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)26VST296(Mad)

ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. This tax case revision has been preferred by the assessee, which pertains to the assessment year 1990-91 under the TNGST Act. The assessee is stated to have purchased cashew nuts from one M/s. Century Cashew Products. The Assessing Authority held that the said purchase made by the petitioner was imported nuts from foreign countries by the seller viz., M/s. Century Cashew Products, which attracted levy of tax at the rate of 5% single point. The total purchase value of Rs. 11,67,290/- was therefore assessed to tax in a sum of Rs. 90,206/-. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner however held that the purchase of cashew nuts by the petitioner was not imported one by the seller viz., M/s. Century Cashew Products, but the same were procured by it from the local party. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner therefore set aside the order of the assessment. The Tribunal in the order impugned in this revision, by relying upon the reply made by the petitioner to the ...

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Rep. by Its Chief Engineer Vs. Noida Chem ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)5MLJ838

M. Venugopal, J.1. The appellant/plaintiff has preferred this appeal before this Court as against the Judgment and decree dated 16.4.2001 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Mettur in O.S. No. 271 of 1999.2. The short summation of facts of the case are as follows:The appellant/plaintiff had placed purchase order dated 29.1.1992 for supply of Hydrate 80% (2000 Kgs) at Rs. 107 per Kg amounting to Rs. 2,14,000/- with the respondent/defendant. The respondent/defendant sent sample along with test certificate on 12.2.1992. As the sample was as per the specification, the appellant/plaintiff sent approval for bulk supply through phonogram dated 20.2.1992. The respondent/defendant supplied 2,000 kgs of Hydrazine Hydrate on 27.6.1992 through A.R.C.Transport. The appellant/plaintiff made payment through Bank for a sum of Rs. 2,03,300/- on 15.6.1992 towards 95% value of the order and the balance 5% amount was to be paid within thirty days, if the goods were in condition. The appellant/plainti...

V.A. Chidambara Gounder and V.A. Palanivelu Vs. Commissioner, Hindu Re ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)5MLJ925

M. Venugopal, J.1. The appellants/plaintiffs have filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 04.08.1999 made in O.S. No. 218 of 1994 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet in dismissing the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs praying for the relief of declaration that they are holding office as hereditary trustees in Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani temple situated at Vedachandur Village, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District within the meaning of Section 6(11) and Section 63(b) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 and for setting aside the order of the Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. Department, Madras passed in A.P. No. 62 of 1990 dated 09.12.1993 and the order of the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. Department, Coimbatore in O.A. No. 92 of 1987 dated 07.02.1990.2. The short facts of the case are as follows:(i) The temple popularly known as Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani is situate in an extent of 35 cents in Village Natham, Vedachandur Village, Po...

N. Sridhar Vs. Maruthi Jayaraman and M.R.F. Ltd. Rep. by Its Secretary

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2009]152CompCas100(Mad); (2009)6MLJ35

M. Venugopal, J.1. The appellant/plaintiff has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20.10.2000 made in O.S. No. 9100 of 1995 by the learned II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, in dismissing the suit claim of Rs. 6,06,265/- along with interest at 18% per annum from the date of plaint till date of realisation etc. against the second respondent/second defendant company liability to pay the suit amount.2. The essential facts of the case are set out below:(i) The first respondent/first defendant was employed in the secretarial Department of the second respondent/second defendant who had access to the share certificates lodged for transfer. The first respondent/first defendant in the course of his employment stole 350 shares lodged for transfer which came to his Department with the help and connivence of other employees of second respondent/ second defendant and prepared a forged transfer deed attested by a Notary Public Thiru. K. Chandran, a lawyer from Madr...

Alaghu Pharmacy (B) Rep. by Its Proprietrix J. Selvarani Vs. Regional ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2010)ILLJ487Mad; (2009)5MLJ741

Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner held that the three units, viz., Alagu Pharmacy 'B' at Krishna Towers in Nanjappa Road, the appellant herein, Alagu Pharmacy at Mettupalayam Road and Alagu Pharmacy - C at R.S. Puram are one unit and there is functional integrality and therefore, the employees of the respective units should be treated as employees of one unit and so calculated, the number of persons working in all the three units are 20. The appellant is, therefore, aggrieved.2. The appellant established the proprietary concern pharmacy in 14.4.1991. There are two other concerns and it is seen that the husband of the appellant A.L. Jayabalan is connected with the other two concerns, in the sense that Alagu Pharmacy is a proprietary concern where the proprietor is A.L. Jayabalan himself and Alagu Pharmacy - C is a partnership firm where the minor son of the appellant is a partner, who is represented by the father A.L. Jayabalan. However, it was contended by ...

The Superintending Engineer, Vs. Vadivelu and Bavayee

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)5MLJ1005

M. Duraiswamy, J.1. The above Second Appeal arises against the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 33 of 1996 on the file of Subordinate Court, Sankagiri confirming the Judgment and Decree in O.S. No. 237 of 1993 on the file of District Munsif Court, Sankagiri.2. The defendants in the suit are the appellants in the above second appeal. The respondents are the plaintiffs in the suit. The plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 237 of 1993 against the defendants for the following reliefs:(a) Pass a Decree for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants;(b) restraining the defendants and their subordinates from in any way erecting or putting any new Electricity poles and laying new wires and giving any new connections in the existing pole in suit properties or in the alternative;(C) directing the defendants to put new poles in front of the S. No. 62/1, 68/1 and 68/2 and connecting some other poles out of suit properties. Through the courses shown as AOBCF and GHIJ in the plai...