Chennai Court January 2010 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.
J Anthusamy Versus the Senior Record Officer for Officer in Charge Rec ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-2010
ACA Adityan The learned Counsel for the applicant Mr.S.A.Sarangabani files Vakalatnama. The petitioner has moved the Honourable High Court of Madras for redressal of his grievance by filing WP No.12846 of 2007, which has subsequently been transferred to this Tribunal, after the constitution of the Tribunal under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 and the same has been renumbered as T.A.24/2009. 2. The affidavit to the petition filed by the petitioner reads as follows:- The petitioner was recruited in the Army with Sr.No.15300549Y on 30.09.1985 and underwent training in Bangalore. Training included handling of small arms and driving of heavy vehicles. The requisite training was complete in the trade Operator of Earth Movers. The petitioner has continued in service for more than one year. As per the employment rules in civil services in Centre and State, the employee is made permanent after six months. But in the next year of service, on 06.12.1986, the petitioner was unfortunately medi...
M/S. Urbane Industries and Another Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram Vide the impugned order the Commissioner of Central Excise has confirmed duty demand of Rs.51,29,017/- against M/s. Urbane Industries as a result of clubbing the value of the clearances of two dummy units viz. M/s. Core Tech Glass Composites Pvt. Ltd. [hereinafter referred to as CTGC] and M/s. Glass Composites Company [hereinafter referred to GCC] with those of M/s. Urbane Industries, imposed penalty equal to duty, confirmed a demand of Rs.1,54,296/- on capital goods removed from their factory and imposed penalty of equal amount, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on Shri R. Krishna Mohan, Managing Partner of M/s. Urbane Industries. 2. We have heard both sides. The appellants do not dispute the demand of Rs.1,54,396/- - we accordingly uphold the same along with the penalty of equal amount. As regards the main demand, we see merit in the contention of the appellants that principles of natural justice have been contravened by non-issue of show-cause notice to C...
Cce, Madurai Vs. M/S. Sri Kumar Textiles
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The Revenue is in appeal against setting aside of the demand for interest and the imposition of penalty against the respondents herein who are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods by doing reeling/conversion of cotton multiple folded yarn on cops/cones into hand form on job work basis exclusively for M/s. Madura Coats Ltd., Madurai. 2. We have heard the learned SDR and perused the records - none appears for the respondents in spite of service of notice through Commissionerate. The Commissioner (Appeals) has noted that the duty by inclusion of the value of the packing material supplied free of cost in the assessable value of the processed yarn was paid 11 months prior to the demand and has clearly noted that the extended period was not invoked in the show-cause notice and therefore set aside the demand for interest and the penalty. In the appeal before the Tribunal, the Department has not urged that the extended period was invoked in the notice - the ent...
M/S. Tsr and Co. Home Needs Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2010
Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Heard both sides. We find that the lower appellate authority has relied on the test report given by the Chemical Examiner for deciding the classification issue. However, the appellants had requested for retesting of the sample and the same was allowed by the department and the sample has been sent to the Chief Chemist at Delhi. From the orders passed by the authorities below, it is clear that the report from the Chief Chemist was awaited when these orders have been passed. A specific plea was also raised in this regard by the appellants before the lower appellate authority but, he has proceeded to decide the case without dealing with this plea by the appellants. As such, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh decision by the lower appellate authority. The appellants shall be given an adequate opportunity of hearing before passing fresh orders. (Operative part of the Order pronounced in the open Court on 06.01.2010)...
Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Shree Ganesh Steel Rolling Mills Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2010
Heard both sides. The respondents have received ingots and taken credit of duty paid thereon. The said ingots were meant for use in the manufacture of CTD bars and rounds. The respondents had credit of Rs.1,67,218/- as on 31.7.1997 which lapsed after the MODVAT Rules were amended on introduction of the compounded levy scheme. The scheme, however, was postponed and came into effect from 1.9.1997. The respondents have cleared the inputs namely steel ingots lying in stock mostly during August 1997 and partly during December 1997. The Department seeks to demand duty on the said ingots on the ground that the credit of duty paid on the ingots as inputs has been taken. It is the case of the respondents that since the credit lying unutilized has lapsed on 1.8.1997, there is no requirement for paying further duty in respect of inputs lying in stock on that date which have been subsequently cleared. 2. After hearing both sides, we find that the case of the respondent is squarely covered by the T...
Cce, Trichy Vs. M/S. AswIn Textiles Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram In this case MODVAT credit of Rs.1,34,6012/- taken on capital goods was sought to be denied on the ground that the assessee claimed depreciation in terms of the provision of Income Tax Act, 1961 for the same goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) has noted that the claim for depreciation was subsequently withdrawn by the assessees. He has also seen the certificate of the Chartered Accountant to the effect that depreciation was not claimed under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act for the relevant year. The Department however viewed that even this correction by the appellant would warrant imposition of penalty. We see no merit in the claim of the Revenue as it is not the case were both the benefits were claimed and availed but a case were both the benefits were initially claimed but the claim for depreciation under the Income Tax Act was not availed in addition to the credit. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal....
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. M/S. T and Company
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram In this case the Commissioner (Appeals) has assessed the value of used cylinder blocks imported by the respondents herein at USD 9185 (Rs.4,41,340/-) and rejected the value of Rs.9,19,341/- assessed by the adjudicating authority, reduced the quantum of fine from Rs. 12 lakhs to Rs.1.50 lakhs and reduced penalty from Rs.6 lakhs to Rs.75,000/-. The Revenue is in appeal against such determination of value and reduction of fine and penalty. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that the Department had first chosen a Chartered Engineer to examine and value the goods by M/s. Superintendence Company India P. Ltd. who appraised the value of goods as USD 7798/-. M/s. SGS India Ltd. had re-examined the goods at the request of the Department and certified that the used cylinder blocks were to be assessed at USD 9185. The adjudicating authority had adopted the depreciation method which has been rightly set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that depreciation m...
M/S. the India Cements Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The issue in dispute in the present appeal namely as to whether credit is admissible on HSD oil used as fuel for generation of electricity during the period from 1.3.1997 to 2.3.1998 stands settled against the assessee by the decision of the apex Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad Vs. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. 2005 (180) ELT 3 (SC) and following the same we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal....
M/S. Trust Worth Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The challenge in this appeal against the order of Commissioner of Customs enhancing the value of stainless steel utensils sought to be exported by the appellants herein at Rs.19,82,300/- and ordering confiscation of the same with option of redemption on payment of a fine of Rs.2.50 lakhs and imposition of a penalty of Rs.1 lakh, is only to the quantum of fine and penalty. 2. We have heard both sides. The goods have been confiscated for the reason that the goods actually weighed 19,823 Kgs. as against the declared weight of 32,650 Kgs. and the value ascertained after examination was Rs. 201.25 per kg. while the declared value on the Shipping Bill is Rs.122.19 per kg. Having regard to the value of the goods and the differential DEPB credit sought to be obtained by the appellants is Rs.3,81,367/-. We, therefore, see no ground to interfere with the quantum of fine and penalty and accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeal....
The Chief Commissioner of Central Excise and the Additional Commission ... Overruled
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2010
1. These writ petitions challenge a common order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, made in O.A.Nos.304 and 305 of 2008 whereby a direction was given to the respondents namely the petitioners herein, to consider the case of the applicants namely the respondents herein, for appointment as Sepoys by relaxing the age limit prescribed if necessary in view of the long service rendered by them.2.The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and also for the respondents/caveators.3.It is not in controversy that the respondents were engaged as casual labourers/contingent staff in the Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise-II. They approached the Tribunal in O.A.No.764 of 2005 seeking regularisation of their services. The Tribunal dismissed the O.A. Thereafter, the respondents preferred a writ petition against the O.A. While disposing of the writ petition, this Court issued a direction to the petitioners herein to consider the matter afresh in the light of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »