Chennai Court September 2009 Judgments

K. Chandrahasan Vs. Director of Medical Education and Dean, Government ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ574

ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard both sides.2. This writ petition arose out of O.A. No. 3344 of 1998 filed by the petitioner before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, it was transferred to this Court and was renumbered as W.P. No. 32717 of 2006.3. The petitioner sought for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records connected with proceedings Na.Ka. No. 11552/96/Ni.Vu.6 dated 26.3.98 of the Dean, Government Raja Mirasdar Hospital, Thanjavur and to set aside the same and to direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant into service, treating the period he is out of employment as duty for all purposes.4. The petitioner challenges the order of the second respondent, dated 26.3.1998, wherein by which he was compulsory retired from service by way of penalty. The petitioner did not file any statutory appeal, but moved the Tribunal with OA No. 3344 of 1998. The petitioner was issued with a charge memo under Rule 17(b)...

P. Velumani Vs. K.A. Noorjahan Son of M.M. Ahmed HussaIn and

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ161

M. Venugopal, J.1. The appellant/defendant has preferred this appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 25.09.2000 in O.S. No. 980 of 1995 on the file of Learned IV Additional Sub-Court, Coimbatore.2. The necessary germane facts of the respondents/plaintiff's case are as follows:The plaint schedule properties absolutely belongs to the appellant/defendant by virtue of registered settlement deed dated 04.02.1959 bearing document No. 165 of 1959. The 5 acres and 39 cents, being the extent of properties is situated in Kuniamuthur village, Coimbatore South Taluk in Coimbatore District which runs as follows:1. S.F. No. 212/2 : Dry AC 1.012. S.F. No. 212/1 : Dry AC 0.503. S.F. No. 213/1 : Dry AC 0.304. S.F. No. 213/3 : Dry AC 1.345. S.F. No. 215/3 : Dry AC 0.456. S.F. No. 693/2 : Dry AC 1.797. S.F. No. 214 : 0.90 in this Southern halfAC 0.45-----------Total AC 5.39-----------3. As the agricultural operations of the defendant was not successful he was proposing to sell the properties whi...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry Vs. Amaravathy Chemicals L ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram In this appeal, the Revenue questions the power of the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand a case after the amendment of Section 35A (3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Since none appears for the respondents, we heard ld. DR and perused the records. 3. We find that it has been held by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad- I Vs Medico Labs [2004 (173) ELT 117 (Guj.)] that even after the amendment to the statutory provision noted above, the Commissioner (Appeals) continues to have the power to remand the case. Gujarat High Court’s decision relies upon the apex court’s decision in Union of India Vs Umesh Dhaimode [1998 (98) ELT 584 (SC)]. Following the ratio of the above decisions, we see no merit in the Revenue’s appeal which is accordingly dismissed after upholding the impugned order....

M/S. Kothari Sugaras and Chemicals Ltd., Vs. Cce, Trichy

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Heard both sides. The appellants are manufacturers of sugar who obtain molasses as a by product which in turn are used to produce Ethyl Alcohol, part of which is denatured and cleared on payment of appropriate excise duty. The department has raised a demand at the rate of Rs. 500/- per MT in respect of molasses which is used in the production of undenatured ethyl alcohol. 2. The appellants have paid 8% of the value of clearance of such undenatured ethyl alcohol (rectified spirit) under the impression that such payment is required under Rule 57CC since input duty credit has been taken and the appellants are manufacturing both dutiable finished goods and rectified spirit on which no duty is paid. 3. The appellants have claimed exemption on molasses under Notification No. 67/95-CE dated 16.03.95, which exempts inputs used in or in relation to manufacture of final products. The exemption is subject to the proviso that it will not apply if the final products...

Sree Srinivasa Spinners Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram The only plea of the appellants before the Tribunal is that the assessable value of the goods to be treated as cum duty price and that penalty also should be reworked after extending the benefit of cum duty price. 2. We have heard both sides and accept that the assessees are entitled to have the value treated as cum duty price in the light of the apex court s decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi Vs Maruti Udyog Ltd. [2002 (141) ELT 3 (SC)]. 3. In the light of the apex court s judgment cited supra, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the adjudicating authority for re-determination of duty in the light of the above, and for re-determination of penalty. He shall pass fresh orders after extending reasonable opportunity to the assessees of being heard in their defence. 4. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand....

M/S. Sivakasi Electro Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Cce, Madurai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Heard both sides. These two appeals involve the same issue and hence both the appeals are taken up for hearing and disposal together. Appeal No. E/914/2003 In this case, the appellants manufactured Potassium Chlorate which was specified in the small scale exemption Notification No. 1/93-CE with effect from 23.07.96. The appellants paid tariff rate of duty from 01.04.96 to 14.10.96 and availed of the small scale exemption with effect from 15.10.96. The original authority dropped the demand raised against the appellants holding that the value of clearances made by the appellants prior to 15.10.96 need not be included for the purpose of computing the value of clearances upto Rs. 30 lakhs. On department’s appeal against the said order, the lower appellate authority has held that the duty liability should be recomputed on and from 23.07.96 without giving set off to excise duty wherever paid. Hence, this appeal by the appellants. It is their contention ...

Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. M/S. Hi-tech Machinery

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram M/s. Hi-Tech Machinery System, Chennai hereinafter called the importers filed a Bill of Entry on 27.3.2002 for sewing machines claiming the benefit of concessional rate of basic customs duty (5%) under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. and nil CVD under Notification No. 6/2002-CE as applicable to sewing machines other than those with in-built motor with SAD 4% and cess at 0.125%. The goods were examined and the sewing machines were found without in-built motor. The benefit was denied by the adjudicating authority on the ground that sewing machines normally work with in-built motor and they still retail their identity/character of a sewing machine with provision for in-built motor and that the absence of a motor would not make any material difference. The Commissioner (Appeals) extended the benefit of the notification; hence this appeal by the Revenue. 2. We have heard the learned SDR and perused the records none appears for the respondent inspite of notice. There is...

Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. M/S. Orbit International

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram The issue for determination in this appeal is whether the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. at Sl. No. 367(A) Serial No. 12 is available to cartridges imported along with intraocular lenses the adjudicating authority rejected the claim for duty exemption while the Commissioner (Appeals) extended the benefit; hence this appeal by the Revenue. 2. Intraocular lens together with cartridge form a set. The cartridge is used for injection of the lens into the eye. They are accessories which are compulsorily supplied along with lens and no separate charge is made for such supply as the price is included in the price of the article. As per the Accessories (Condition) Rules, 1963, the cartridge will also be eligible for duty-free assessment as available for the intraocular lens. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly extended the benefit of the notification to the imported goods namely intraocular set. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and reject...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai Vs. Efgy Rubbers and Another

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Per Jyoti Balasundaram Both the appeals involve the common issue of excisability of friction cloth i.e. rubberized cotton fabric produced by the assessees herein and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. The Asst. Commissioner confirmed demands raised on the goods in question, holding that friction cloth was marketable and excisable in the light of the apex court’s decision in Union of India Vs Punjab Rubber and Allied Industries [1999 (105) ELT 3 (SC)]; the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the product was not marketable and hence not excisable and set aside the demands ; hence these appeals by the Revenue. 3. We have heard both sides. We find that in the Supreme Court’s decision cited supra, the court held that Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court overlooked the fact that it was the department’s contention that the intermediary product was a marketable commodity meaning thereby that it was sold in the market or was having a ...

Tanya Tours Travels Rep. by G.Stephen, Chennai Vs. R. Venkata Krishnan ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The 2nd opposite party before the District Forum is the appellant herein. 2. The 1st respondent as complainant, approached the lower forum for the recovery of several amounts, on various heads, alleging that the appellant as well as the 1st opposite party committed deficiency in service. 3. The complainant wished to migrate to Australia, for which on seeing the advertisement, he approached the opposite parties, paid amounts also on various dates. Under the agreement, they have also assured visa, failing which to return the amount. Unfortunately, the 1st opposite party unable to secure job to the satisfaction of the complainant, resulting refusal of visa also, for which in the complaint, the 1st respondent herein accuses the opposite parties, as if they have committed deficiency in service and because of their conduct, he had lost the opportunity of employment, which gave cause of action for claiming compensation also, as if he had lost the alternativ...