Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, 1. Revenue is aggrieved by the reduction in penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority of Rs. 10,000/- by the Commissioner (Appeals) to Rs. 5000/-. 2. Notice issued to the respondents has been returned undelivered; however, as the issue in dispute stands settled by a Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal, we do not see any reason to keep the appeal pending. Heard the Ld. SDR and perused the records. 3. We find that in the case of CCE, Bhopal Vs. Rama Wood Craft Pvt. Ltd. - 2008 (225) ELT 348 (Tri.-LB), the Larger Bench of the Tribunal has held that even where a minimum penalty is prescribed (minimum penalty under Rule 25 (1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002), the authority has discretion to impose a lesser penalty depending on facts and circumstances of the case. It is not the case of the revenue that the facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant any reduction but only that and once minimum penalty has been prescribed under the rule, it cannot be r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy 1. Heard both sides. 2. The appellants re-imported the impugned goods which were earlier exported for participation in an international exhibition held at Milan, Italy from 3rd October, 2002 to 8th October, 2002. The goods were exported without payment of duty under bond. At the time of re-importation the appellants have paid Customs duty equal to the Central Excise duty leviable on the impugned goods. In addition, the have also paid the Special Additional Duty (SAD) of Customs under protest, since the Department insisted on such payment. The appellants claimed a refund of the SAD which according to them was not payable in view of Notification No. 94/96-Cus. dated 16.12.1996. Refund claim of the appellants had been rejected by both the authorities below denying them the claimed exemption leading to this appeal. 3. Shri A.R. Srinivasan, Deputy General Manager, appearing for the appellants states that the appellants have sold the impugned goods subsequent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, 1. The issue in dispute in this appeal is the eligibility of the “Fully Automatic Labelling Machine” imported by the appellants herein to the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No.125/86 dated 17.02.86. 2. We have heard both sides. At the time of import of the machine the appellants were in the business of manufacture of beer and Indian made foreign liquor. They had imported the machinery for their proposed industry for processing fruit syrups, juices, jams and pickles. However, at the time of import of the articles in question, the appellants had not commenced any manufacture of food articles and the machine imported was to be used for affixing labels on beer bottles. Since the benefit of Notification is available to the machinery used in the food processing industry, and since beer is not an article of food, as held by the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Kalyani Breweries Ltd. Vs. CC, Calcutta - 2001 (134) ELT 12 (S.C), the authorities b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, 1. The issue in the present appeal of the Revenue is as to whether “Compounded Asafoetida” is an excisable commodity, liable to excise duty. 2. On hearing both sides, we find that this issue stands settled against the Revenue by the Apex Court decision in CCE, Mumbai Vs. Laljee Godhoo and Co. - 2007 (216) ELT 514 (S.C.), upholding the Tribunal’s order relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals). Following the ratio of the Apex Court decision cited supra, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal filed by the Revenue....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. The petitioner has filed the above petition for a direction to the learned IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, to keep the final hearing of Crl.A.No.60 of 2009 in abeyance on the basis of the Memo filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, till the Supreme Court takes the Special Leaves Petition filed by the petitioner "for admission".2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner's father earlier filed a private complaint against the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the said private complaint was taken on file in C.C.No.9968 of 2005 and by judgment dated 23.3.2009, the respondent-accused was found guilty and convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and the respondent-accused was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.12 lakhs under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. to the father of the petitioner. As against the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. The petitioner seeks for the issuance of a Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 9th respondent in O.A.No.245 of 2010 dated 8.3.2010 as well as the order of the 2nd respondent relating to Police Note No.SC/3/2010 dated 8.1.2010, to quash the same and direct the first respondent to follow the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prakash Singh vs. Union of India reported in (2006) 8 SCC 1 and Note 2 of G.O.Ms.No.1403 dated 16.10.2008 and G.O. (D) No.99 dated 30.1.2009 and select the Director General of Police of the State, Head of the Police Force, from amongst the panel of three senior most Director Generals of Police eligible as on 8.1.2010 and consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the said post.2. When the Writ Petition was moved on 7.4.2010, the writ petitioner prayed for an interim order in M.P.No.2 of 2010 to stay the order passed by the 9th respondent dated 8.3.2010 in O.A.No.245 of 2010 and the order of the 2nd respondent in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. The Appellant / Defendant has projected this Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 20.04.2000 in O.S.No.4773 of 1996 passed by the Learned V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.2. On an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial Court viz., the Learned V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, while passing the Judgment in O.S.No.4773 of 1996 on 20.04.2000, has among other things observed that 'the Respondent / Plaintiff is entitled to claim the suit amount with interest and accordingly, decreed the suit as prayed for with costs and further has granted future interest at the rate of 6% per annum.' 3. Before the trial Court, 1 to 5 issues have been framed for adjudication in the main case. On the side of Respondent / Plaintiff, witness P.W.1 has been examined and Exs.A1 to A71 have been marked. On the side of the Appellant / Defendant, witness D.W.1 has been examined and Exs.B1 to B14 have been marked. 4. Being dissatisfied wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. As the question that arises for consideration in both the Criminal Original Petitions is one and the same and the parties are also same, both the above Criminal Original Petitions are being disposed of by this common order.2. A complaint has been filed by the first respondent / complainant against the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 in Crl.O.P.No.433 of 2005 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, and the the same has been taken on file as C.C.No.6360 of 1997. The said complaint has been filed in respect of the dishonour of the following cheques, after satisfying the statutory requirements:- Cheque Nos. Dated Amount200390 04.03.1997 Rs.1,59,296/-200391 04.04.1997 Rs.1,59,296/-200392 04.05.1997 Rs.1,59,296/-3. A complaint has been filed by the first respondent / complainant against the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 in Crl.O.P.no.434 of 2005 under Section 138 of the Act before ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. The petitioner has approached this court seeking mandamus directing the respondents to grant permission to her son Mr.Alain Anandane to visit Pondicherry and Chennai for a few days.2. This Court considering the age of the petitioner who is in the evening of her life, suggested the respondents' counsel to find out whether there was any possibility of allowing the petitioner's son to land in Chennai and to allow the petitioner to meet her son in the Airport itself for a few hours so that the mother who gave birth the son could have the satisfaction of meeting her son. Counsel for respondents 1 and 2, submitted that Home Ministry is the competent authority to take a deccision in this regard. Hence this court suomotu impleaded the Secretary, Home Affairs, Union of India as third respondent to the writ petition by order dated 2.8.2010. Para 3 of the order of this Court is extracted as follows: "3. Mr.Srinivasan for Mr.T.P.R.Prabhu, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 on ins...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. The writ petition is directed against the order passed by the first respondent in G.O.(2D)No.36, dated 22.12.2006, ordering recovery of an amount of Rs.100/- to be cut from the pension and a sum of Rs.3,13,940/- out of which Rs.2,39,069/- to be recovered from the DCRG and balance amount of Rs.74,871/- from pension at the rate of Rs.921/- as first instalment and Rs.1,450/- for 51 months and also forbearing the respondents from making the recovery. 2. Pending writ petition, this Court has passed an order of interim stay on 05.08.2008 which was subsequently made absolute by an order dated 13.07.2009. The petitioner, who has retired as Special Officer of the Directorate of Backward Classes and Minority Welfare Office, Chepauk, Chennai, was originally appointed as Typist through TNPSC joined duty on 24.11.1966 and after several promotions, he was promoted as the District Backward Classes and Minority Welfare Officer and posted at Madurai. It was in 2001, he was promoted as Special Office...
Tag this Judgment!