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.
Monotone Stereo Systems Vs. Commissioner of Customs(Sea-imports), Chen ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram This appeal has been coming up for hearing from time to time and there has been no representation on behalf of the appellants either on earlier occasions or today, in spite of notice. Therefore, it appears that appellants are not interested in pursuing this appeal which is accordingly dismissed for non-prosecution....
Aquasub Engineering Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2010
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. Appellants are using sheets for manufacturing electrical stampings in the course of which scrap is generated. The scrap is further used for making castings, some of which are cleared on payment of duty and the rest are used for manufacture of submersible pumps. The appellants have been denied exemption in respect of such scrap leading to Appeal No.E/293/03. They have also been denied consequential refund leading to Appeal No.E/446/09. 2. After hearing both sides, we find that goods, falling under Chapter 72 among others, which are used in the manufacture of submersible pumps are exempt under Notification No.8/96, 4/97 and 5/98 during successive periods. Hence, that portion of scrap which has gone into the manufacture of submersible pumps is eligible for exemption under these notifications during the relevant period. The other portion of the scrap which is used for making castings, which have been sold outside on payment of duty, is also ...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry Vs. Puissance De Dpk
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The Revenue challenges the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) on the ground that, with the amendment to Section 35A(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 w.e.f. 11.5.2001, the Commissioner (Appeals) had no power of remand. 2. We have heard both sides and perused the records none appears for the respondents in spite of notice. 3. We find that the issue stands settled against the Revenue by the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad Vs Medico Labs. [2004 (173) ELT 117 (Guj.)] holding that Commissioner (Appeals) continues to have power of remand even after the amendment of Section 35A(3) ibid. Following the ratio of the above decision, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal....
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Alco Flex
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The issue in dispute in the present appeal namely as to whether the process of drawing of wires from wire rods for use in transformers amounts to manufacture stands settled against the Revenue by the apex courts decision in CCE Vs Technoweld Industries [2003 (155) ELT 209 (SC)]. We also note that assessee has succeeded in its appeal against the same impugned order by which demand was confirmed but redemption fine set aside and penalty reduced (in the present appeal Revenue challenges setting aside of fine and reduction of penalty), as seen from Final Order No.715/03 dt. 9.9.03. Following the ratio of the apex courts decision cited supra, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal. The cross-objection is only in the nature of comments upon/reply to the Revenues appeal and hence is dismissed....
Naik P.Baskaran Versus Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of Defenc ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2010
ACA Adityan The applicant in this application, has filed W.P.No.18531 of 2004 before the Honourable High Court, Madras, which has subsequently been transferred to this Tribunal, after the formation of Armed Forces Tribunal, and renumbered as T.A.No.13 of 2009. 2. The affidavit to the application filed by the applicant runs as follows:- The applicant was appointed as Soldier (GD) in the Intelligence Corps on 22.05.1987 and is being governed by the Army Act and Army Rules. After completing his SSLC Examination, he joined Indian Army as Sepoy Class IV and he was periodically promoted by giving remarks of Naik and Havildar. Unfortunately, the applicant had been entangled by a number of family problems while serving with Officer Commanding 4 Det Central Command Liaison Unit (OC 4 Det CCLU). As the head of the family, the applicant lookedafter his entire family as well as the family of father-in-law. At this juncture, his sanctioned leave was cancelled and his wife also came to Jhansi withou...
Karthik E. Hariharan Rep. by Power of Attorney Agent, Vilivakkam, Chen ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2010
M. Thanikachalam J, President. 1. The unsuccessful complainant, in OP.No.213/2005, on the file of District Forum, Chennai (South), is the appellant. 2. The complainant had purchased two cartons of bottles soft drinks of Mountain Dew, Slice 200 ml. on 28.6.2003, from M/s.Supraba Super Market, Villivakkam, to provide to his guests and relatives. When the party was on, the complainant took a bottle of Mountain Dew, and found some insects inside the sealed bottle. Similarly, he had also noticed small insect inside the soft drink, slice bottle also, thereby causing disturbance and embarrassment in the presence of his guests. 3. The complainant caused notice dt.29.6.2003, for which there was no proper response, conceding the compensation. Hence this petition is filed for the compensation of Rs.2 lakhs. 4. The opposite parties totally denying the allegations in the complaint, as well as the alleged damage, have stated that the prayer in the complaint is not in accordance with Sec.14 of th...
N. Ayyappan Vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Rep. by Its Asst. General Manage ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2010
M. Thanikachalam J, President 1. The unsuccessful complainant in O.P.185/2001 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South), is the appellant. 2. The complainant who was the Visa Card Holder of the opposite parties bearing No.4543633050015407, which had a valid period of two years from April 1997, was using the same, for the purchases made by him. The complainant paid the amount due to the credit card, periodically from the Savings Bank Account, held by him in the opposite party banks branch. On the verge of expiry of the credit card, in April 1999, the complainant found various discrepancies in the statement of accounts, which was reported to the opposite parties. After much persuation, the first opposite party accepted that it had received excess of Rs.29,460/-. 3. After the delay of three months, they have informed the complainant that they have instructed the Canara Bank to credit Rs.29,460/-, along with interest, which was credited, but without i...
Stanes Motors (South India) Ltd., Coimbatore Vs. P.G. Sundararaj
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2010
M. Thanikachalam J, President 1. The opposite party who suffered an adverse order in O.P.49/2004 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Erode, is the appellant. 2. The respondent herein as complainant knocked the doors of the District Forum, seeking a direction against the opposite party, to deliver TVS Victor Motor Cycle as well for compensation, complaining deficiency on the following grounds. 3. The complainant had purchased a Tractor from the opposite party by paying a sum of Rs.3,53,501/- for which, there was an offer, free in nature, by the opposite party to give a TVS Victor Motor Cycle. Though the opposite party had collected the entire amount, has not delivered the TVS Victor Motor Cycle as promised, which amounts to, not only deficiency in service, but also unfair trade practice. Thus complaining, a case came to be filed as said above. 4. The appellant/opposite party in their Written Version would contend, that for the tractor purchased by the compla...
Dr. Kathirkamu Kalimuthu Hospital, Alli Nagaram, theni Vs. Selvam @ Se ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2010
M. Thanikachalam J, President. (Open court) 1. Heard. The 1st respondent, in this Revision Petition, as complainant, has filed a complaint before the District Forum, Theni, for the recovery of a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-, as compensation, for the wrongful medical advice and treatment said to have given by the opposite parties. As per the cause of action available in the last paragraph of the complaint, the cause of action had arisen on 30.10.2000 and generally that must be the actual date of cause of action, giving cause of action for the complainant, to proceed against the doctor, on the alleged medical negligence. But the complaint was filed only on 21.1.2008, that is more or less after the delay of seven years. 2. The opposite party before filing the written version, it seems, challenged the maintainability of the case, in which an order came to be passed, which was challenged before this Commission in R.P.No.58/2008, questioning the maintainability of the case. This commission, as per...
Dr. Kathirkamu Kalimuthu Hospital Alli Nagaram, theni Vs. Selvam @ Sel ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2010
M. Thanikachalam J, President. (Open court) 1. Heard. This petition aims to set aside the order passed by the District Forum in CMP.179/2008, which petition was filed to restore CMP.No.164/2008, which was filed questioning the maintainability of the main complaint, as directed by this Commission in RP.58/2008. 2. The District Forum, as seen from paragraph 9 of the order, has concluded, as if CMP.No.106/2008 was filed, to condone the delay in the main petition, and in this view, it had taken the decision, probably CMP.164/2008 may not be necessary. Today, we have passed an order in RP.No.74/2008, concluding that CMP.106/2008, was not filed under Sec.24A, though the District Forum has said so, and therefore the observation in para 9 of the order impugned in this Revision Petition, must be incorrect. 3. The revision petitioner, though filed a petition, as permitted by this Commission in RP.No.58/2008, failed to prosecute the same, diligently, resulting its dismissal. In view of the fac...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »