Chennai Court September 2009 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
L. Babu S/O.K.N.Lakshmanan and Another Vs. Cox and Kings (India) Ltd., ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-2009
M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The complainants before the lower forum sought certain reliefs against the opposite parties/ respondents as if they have committed deficiency in service and in this view they should be directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,25,780/- in addition to compensation of Rs.25000/-, which was opposed by the opposite party successfully. 2. The complainants alongwith others went to European Splendour Tour, from 15.5.2000 to 05.06.2000, which was organized by the respondent/ opposite party, for that they have paid a sum of Rs.1,13,333/-. When they were in Switzerland, due to severe stomach ache, unable to continue the tour, returned to Chennai. Thereafter, when they have approached for the return of the amount unspent in the tour, the opposite party has not returned the unspent amount as claimed, but returned only Rs.33,132/-, which was not to the satisfaction of the complainants, resulting a claim petition before the lower forum. 3. The opposite party/ respondent oppos...
Tmt. M. Jayanthi Meenal Vs. the Branch Manager Karur Vaisya Bank Karai ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-2009
M. THANIKACHALAM J. 1. The complainant though obtained an order partially in his favour, not satisfied, has come to this commission seeking further redressal. 2. The complainant is a customer in the respondent bank, having account operated the same, admittedly. One Unjappan of Amaravathy Pudhur had drawn three cheques in his favour totaling a sum of Rs.3 lakhs, one cheque on 30.11.2003 and another two cheques on 30.5.2004 respectively, which were tendered for collection in the respondents bank on 28.1.2005. The respondent bank forwarded the cheques for collection to ICICI Bank, Amaravathy Pudhur, which were returned with an endorsement out of date. Therefore, the complainant accusing, as if, because of the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent bank, has approached the bank for return of amount which failed to yield any result outside the Forum, resulting a complaint as stated above. 3. The respondent/ opposite party opposed the above application, as if the cheques were...
A.R.S.Metals Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-2009
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The appellants herein who are manufacturers of MS ingots and operating under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and covered by the Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 had opted to pay duty monthly under the provisions of Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules. The total capacity of their furnace was determined as 6 MTs and annual capacity of production as 19,200 MTs. During the period April to December-98, the appellants claimed abatement for the period during which furnaces were shutdown for production ; show-cause notices dt. 29.10.98 and 24.3.99 proposing to disallow abatements and demanding duty of Rs.22,68,752/- for the period April to December-98 and Rs.44,39,784/- for the period Oct-98 to Feb 99 issued were adjudicated by the Commissioner of Central Excise vide order dt. 28.2.2001 wherein abatement for 9 days was disallowed and a total duty demand of Rs.3,59,076/- was confirmed. However, the issue of liability to interest ...
Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-2009
Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Heard both sides. We find that the lower appellate authority has allowed modvat credit on capital goods in respect of computers. The department is in appeal against the impugned order. Shri R. Raghavan, Ld. Advocate appearing for the respondents states that the impugned computer system is installed in the manufacturing premises of the respondents and used for various production related activities such as inventory control, material planning, stores, purchases etc. He supports the impugned order. 2. Shri V.V. Hariharan, Ld. JCDR, appearing for the department states that though the impugned computer system is installed in the factory, the respondents are also using the same for office purpose and hence, modvat credit of duty on the same cannot be allowed. He also states that the requirement under the rules is that the capital goods must be used for producing goods for getting modvat credit. On the other hand, the Ld. Advocate for the respondents points o...
M/S.Hinduja Foundries Ltds. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (imports), Che ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-2009
For reasons recorded below, we waived pre-deposit of duty confirmed on used rails imported by the appellants at the rate applicable to goods falling under CTH 7302 01 90, denying the benefit of S.No.200 of the Table to Notification No.21/2002-Cus. dated 01.03.2002 on the ground that the goods were not melting scrap of iron and steel covered under the above Sl.No., and penalty of Rs.3 lakhs imposed upon the appellants and proceed to decide the appeal itself finally at this stage with the consent of both sides as the main grievance of the importers is that of contravention of the principles of natural justice, and after granting the prayer for early hearing of the appeal. 2. The importers filed a bill of entry dated 31.03.2009 through their CHA for clearance of goods declared as foundry grade heavy melting scrap and claimed the benefit of Notification No.21/2002-Cus. Vide letter dated 25.06.2009, the importers were informed by Assistant Commissioner that on examination, the cargo was fou...
M/S. India Japan Lighting Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-2009
Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Both sides are in appeal against the same impugned order. Shri K.S. Venkatagiri, Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant assessee, states that he is not pressing the appeal against the demand of duty and further states that the demanded amount has already been paid. He however, pleads that the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed by the lower appellate authority should be set aside as the appellants did not know at the time of removal of the goods that they would be receiving additional amounts. 2. The department is in appeal against the impugned order as the lower appellate authority has demanded the interest and penalty under Section 11AB and 11AC. After hearing the matter for some time, we find that the issue involved in this case is akin to the issue decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Pune Vs. SKF India Ltd. - 2009 (239) ELT 385 (S.C). The appellant assessee did not know at the time of clearance of the impugned goods that the...
M/S. Tsr and Co. Vs. Cce, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-2009
Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Heard both sides. We note that while dealing with the stay application, the following order was recorded:- “There is a demand of duty of Rs. 35,443/- on the appellants and also a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on them. The demand is for the period April to October 2000. It appears from the records and the submissions of the two sides that, for an earlier part of the period of dispute, the assessee had paid duty on their product (bath oil) without choosing to avail SSI exemption. In May, 2000, they filed declaration under Rule 173C stating that they would be availing SSI exemption in respect of the said product. This declaration has not been accepted by the lower authorities as an exercise of option by the assessee. Accordingly, the demand of duty for the above period has been confirmed. The learned Counsel has claimed that the assessee has a strong prima facie case on the strength of the Tribunal s decision in Gamma Rays Transmission Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumba...
Cc, TuticorIn Vs. M/S. Vishal CotspIn Lin
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-2009
Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Heard both sides. We find that the original authority as noted in his letter dated 07.01.2000 has examined the ratio of the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Madras in Amar Ferro Metals (P) Ltd. Vs. Madras Port Trust 1999 (114) ELT 8 (Mad.) and has communicated to the respondents that it is not a suitable case of issue of detention certificate. He has also indicated that the respondents sought time to produce the necessary bank guarantee for 24 months, requested clearance of one container each from both the consignments and retention of the balance cargo till the bank guarantee was extended. The original authority has very clearly brought out the actual position that the detention was not at the instance of customs or for examination by customs authorities. The impugned goods remained in the custody of the port trust as desired by the respondents. Hence, it is clear that no detention certificate is required to be issued for waiver of demurrage and ...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai Vs. Somasundaram Chemicals Com ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-2009
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The assessee herein had manufactured and cleared Potassium Chlorate, which was specified as a commodity eligible to exemption based on value of clearance under Notification No.1/93-CE dt. 28.2.93 w.e.f. 23.7.96, during the financial year 1.4.96 to 31.3.97. Two show-cause notices were issued proposing demands on the ground that the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of SSI Notification No.1/93 as computation of the value of clearances was not done in chronological order from 1.4.96, as per the requirement of the notification. The proceedings were dropped by the Asst. Commissioner whose order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) ; hence this appeal by the Revenue. 2. We have heard both sides. The question for determination in the present case, namely, the method of computation of value of clearances in respect of a commodity which becomes specified under the SSI notification, not at the commencement of the financial year but only later, stands decided in ...
K. Rahuman Sait Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-2009
Per Jyoti Balasundaram Vide the impugned order, a penalty of Rs.25 lakhs has been imposed on the appellant herein who has been held to have played substantial part in the attempt of illicit export of smuggled sandalwood concealed under Mangalore Roofing Tiles. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that on the date of visit of officers to the godown at Tuticorin, the appellant was present and cartons lying in the premises were opened and found to contain sandalwood as well as Mangalore Roofing Tiles. The appellant has implicated himself in his statement dt. 11.3.98. The retraction of his statement is belated and has, therefore, been rejected by the adjudicating authority. The role of the appellant is clearly brought out by the fact that he was present in the godown at Tuticorin when officers detected concealment of sandalwood along with Mangalore Roofing Tiles and his own statement. He is liable to penalty and the argument that there is no other evidence except his own statement which is...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »